Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

page: 1
127
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:


A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

Click here for full article.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
intersting info. thanks for your work bringing this post forward. I am amazed that the american people ( I am not in USA) have seemingly just bought 9/11 hook line and sinker. It is just seemingly so obvious that it was not just a lot of disgruntled terrorists..



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   
I am a truther myself and don't believe the OS.
However, this report has a fundamental flaw.
That flaw being that it is assumed by the writer
that these aircraft cannot exceed certain limitations
in design when in actuality all kinds of vehicles
including submarines have safe operating limits.
But when under stress can exceed those numbers.
And if they can exceed those numbers then for proper
testing would require a test flight to fly said model
as fast as it could go until it actually broke up and
splintered in mid-air. To my knowledge, these tests
have never been done. So to prove this report to
have merit he would have to prove at what speed
these models actually broke apart.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Are you saying that something about 9/11 doesn't add up and this is supported by Aeronautical Engineers and mathematics?

No!!

Surely not!!

Please forgive my sarcasm, I know several people who don't believe in the possibility of life on other planets but are convinced that somethin' aint right about 9/11. Blind Freddie can see the stink lines eminating from the official story.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 21st century man
intersting info. thanks for your work bringing this post forward. I am amazed that the american people ( I am not in USA) have seemingly just bought 9/11 hook line and sinker. It is just seemingly so obvious that it was not just a lot of disgruntled terrorists..



Who says the american people have bought into it? My opinion is they haven't, anyone can see the ridiculous amount of unanswered questions regarding this topic and how suspect the official line is but anyway the real problem is what can the average american do about it? Nothing, just take it as it is and post comments on websites like this.
I'm not in the USA either.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I am a truther myself and don't believe the OS.
However, this report has a fundamental flaw.
That flaw being that it is assumed by the writer
that these aircraft cannot exceed certain limitations
in design when in actuality all kinds of vehicles
including submarines have safe operating limits.


This is all covered in the awesome analysis done by Pilots For 9/11 Truth in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Click the link to the full article.

No one has claimed these aircraft cannot exceed their Max operating, but 150 knots over Max operating? This number is without a doubt, excessive. As Dwain Deets says iun the interview (linked on the full article above), "Anyone who claims such excessive speeds over max operating are plausible is in denial". (paraphrased).

I guess this is why so many 757/767 Captains and NASA Scientists are voicing their concerns. The speeds are absurd when you take a look at the evidence, data and know the fundamentals V-G diagram.

Check this out here.


Those who make excuse for the govt story love to claim, "The aircraft was only at this speed for a few seconds and then crashed. It can sustain this speed for a few seconds you idiot!"

Of course they offer zero proof for their claim. Not to mention the fact they are wrong.

I cut some scenes from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" due to the fact it was technical enough. I have calculated the speeds based on radar data for the last minute, a full 60 seconds.

The average speed over this straight line path is 501 knots. The average speed over the last 2 radar sweeps (24 seconds) is 509 knots. Remember, this is groundspeed. True airspeed will be a few knots higher due to a turn into a headwind. This is also straight line distance measurement over time. Actual speed will also be a few knots higher as the path is curved (the aircraft was changing direction), covering more distance (again, I don't want to get too technical when the simple measurements will serve its purpose. K.I.S.S.)

During this time, the aircraft is changing direction and pulling out of a dive, ie. Pulling G loads.

As pointed out in the presentation, please familiarize yourself with a Vg diagram.

Here is a basic Vg diagram.



Now, the above diagram is for a primary aircraft used to instruct student pilots. But it gives you a good idea of what to think about when an aircraft exceeds its design limits.

It is not so much "duration" as it is a hard limit of combined stress on the airframe, speed and maneuvering.

As stated many times, we have been pressuring Boeing to release Wind Tunnel data (which would include the above Vg diagram for a specific aircraft). We hit brick walls.

Now, I just noticed this diagram pop up on the web the other day when I did a search (it wasn't available when I made the film). It is a Vg diagram for the P-51 Mustang.



Notice the structural failure shaded area occurs in the P-51 at roughly 505 mph/438 knots.

Notice the "Limit Dive Speed" in the above diagram. The "Limit Dive Speed" (Vd) for the 767 is 420 knots. 425 KEAS is when Egypt Air 990 broke apart in flight.

The govt expects us to believe a 767 with its bulky airframe can pull G loads and maneuver to stike a target with a 25 foot margin for error each side of wing tip -- almost 80 knots faster than the structural failure limit of a slick P-51 airframe?

I dont think so.

That is why you see so many experts speaking out.

pilotsfgor911truth.org...

The list grows.


Source
pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 21st century man
intersting info. thanks for your work bringing this post forward. I am amazed that the american people ( I am not in USA) have seemingly just bought 9/11 hook line and sinker. It is just seemingly so obvious that it was not just a lot of disgruntled terrorists..


I took it hook, line and sinker and once you have made an opinion it's not easy to admit your wrong and to question you own logic.

logic and the offical 9/11 story does not sit well togeather and i have spent countless nights out having a beer with a seinor flght officer who worked for a household name and he didn't buy much of the offical story.

follow the money and we all know where it leads but take comfort that this dynisty is starting to become unstuck.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Thank you for showing us more people in high places who agree.

enjoy



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


hey im no expert but i beleive that the controls are mechanical over hydrolic and there is a computer to smooth out all movements so that very harsh changes indirection are not possable as roll rates and pitch rates have to be compatable with air fame stresses some of the manuvers were imposable to carry out without an over ride of this system



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


You make a very good point about excedding the limits but would they not need to override the saftey controls to exceed these limits and would a piolot that only had a few hours training realy know how to override these saftey systems.

The ground effect of a plane being forced down close to the ground at high speed would pull tarmac from a road and yet in front of the petagon we have a lawn you could play golf on.

You do a service to question whats been said so keep it up because we are all working in the dark on this one.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
This study ASSUMES that the aircraft which struck the WTC were the same ones that took off from Boston and D.C.
I have always considered it to be a strong possibility that once the flight data recorders were turned off other aircraft were substituted for the original flights.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



No one has claimed these aircraft cannot exceed their Max operating, but 150 knots over Max operating? This number is without a doubt, excessive.


Based on what? Oh, by the way - I don't care what Dwain "says", I care about what he can prove mathematically and scientifically. You know what opinions are like don't you?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Anything over a Max LIMIT set by the manufacturer is considered excessive. That is why they label it "Maximum".

Do you feel they label it "Maximum: because anything above such a limit is NOT excessive and considered safe?

Whether it be airspeed, tire speed, oil pressure, oil temp, any type of limit, if you "exceed" it's max limit, it is considered excessive.

Click the full article for the math.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   
It's interesting how pliable the speeds of these planes are. When Truthers need them not to have damaged the buildings unduly then they're floating in at 300mph. But somehow they can also move suspiciously fast as well.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Do you feel they label it "Maximum: because anything above such a limit is NOT excessive and considered safe?


I'm not sure they were that worried about safety, Rob. Sorry, Tiffany.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
The analysis is based on speeds reported and calculated by the NTSB. Please read the full article.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Do you feel they label it "Maximum: because anything above such a limit is NOT excessive and considered safe?


I'm not sure they were that worried about safety


So you agree they are excessive. Good for you. You have taken the first step out of denial.

And no, I am not Rob. I am Tiffany from LA.

Yes, we know, anyone who posts a link to Pilots For 9/11 Truth must be Rob Balsamo.

See all these people listed here?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

They are all Rob Balsamo too.

Click the full article and the interview link, you can listen to Rob Balsamo interview Rob Balsamo.

tee hee....

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Anything over a Max LIMIT set by the manufacturer is considered excessive. That is why they label it "Maximum".

Do you feel they label it "Maximum: because anything above such a limit is NOT excessive and considered safe?

Whether it be airspeed, tire speed, oil pressure, oil temp, any type of limit, if you "exceed" it's max limit, it is considered excessive.

Click the full article for the math.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


I did click on the article, there is nothing there but more "opinions". Sorry, this is empty. Your use of the word excessive means nothing to me or anyone else. Here - I am officially saying that it was not excessive. End of story.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

So you agree they are excessive. Good for you. You have taken the first step out of denial.


Yeah, I think they were excessive. Really unsafe. I can't understand why they would endanger themselves or the passengers in that way.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I did click on the article, there is nothing there but more "opinions". Sorry, this is empty. Your use of the word excessive means nothing to me or anyone else. Here - I am officially saying that it was not excessive. End of story.


When you click the link, you have to actually read it.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

You also need to learn the fundamentals of a V-G diagram and read the red shaded areas. See a few posts above.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]





new topics

top topics



 
127
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join