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.

 

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

page: 11
127
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Everyone from NASA is credible??
Tell that to the woman that drove across the country wearing depends....
In another thread, you and others would state "NASA lies about everything or covers everything up."

Any topic or subject can be unbalanced...all you have to do is add a semi credible source!

That source could be off their meds for all you know.



It's not just NASA, try reading the OP. I'll bold the part you missed.

"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. "




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Did you seriously just post, as any sort of proof, a word doc. from 911truthmovement???

I bet that doc. would be hard to edit... lemme get my 11 year old to have a go at it.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
If I had the time or simply gave a crap .. I could drum up graphs and charts to show you for what you are.. A person willing to believe anything done correctly with power point...



Feel free to show my graphs wrong.

Google V-G Diagram, L/D max chart, P-51 V-G, 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet.

Those are the graphs/speeds I used.

Knock yourself out.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
While I don't necessarily buy the official statement (and don't personally see how anyone actually could at this point), I do however doubt the logic in the page supplied by the OP.

While theoretically the page(s) read great, I just think that it's based more on assumption than on fact.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Failure analysis. Lets see the calcs. Thank you.


Posted for the 7th time.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Do you not know how to use an EAS calculator?

I believe there are directions on the site linked in the footnotes.

Good luck.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


In support for option #4, the aircraft never flew again after pulling that maneuver, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that it did in fact exceed its operating envelope, and probably suffered irreversible damage prior to impact. but it would be very hard to determine post hoc.

-rrr



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

Tiffany, If you are going to keep spanking these self-absorbed "debunkers" you are going to have to add a WHIP to your avatar.
BTW, thanks for the information, and keep up the GOOD fight. Life is too short to be on the cheap side of right and wrong.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
While I don't necessarily buy the official statement (and don't personally see how anyone actually could at this point), I do however doubt the logic in the page supplied by the OP.

While theoretically the page(s) read great, I just think that it's based more on assumption than on fact.



Speeds reported by the NTSB for the alleged UA175 is 510 knots - Fact

This speed is well above the Max operating limit of a 767-200 - Fact

This speed is well beyond the maneuvering speed above a 767-200 - Fact

This speed is well beyond the Limit Dive Speed of a 767-200 - Fact

None of the 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 have been positively identified by the FBI - Fact.

Appears to be all based on fact to me.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I would have to agree with you. It seems that some people want to poo poo others without anything more than there opinion. They don't add to the conversation, they just try to undermine discussion.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
There are to many things wrong for 9/11 to have been pulled off without military intervention. I believe it was all a big LETS START A WAR cover.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Faiol
 


There are a lot of people here that never add anything to the topics. They just try to claim everything is fake and your numbers are wrong and your facts are not good enough for them. They should find something to do instead of trying to start a fight. More and more I can see the trolls coming out trying to defile everything that is not from the government. Good sheeple will try to lead us to their master.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


TiffanyInLA, the main issue is that this study makes the assumption that the aircraft which struck the WTC were the same ones that took off from Boston and D.C.

Unless this assumption can be proven otherwise, I stand by my aforementioned post.

Cheers



Credit to Asktheanimals. After reading, I picked up on this also. Good work


[edit on 7/12/2010 by agent violet]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePatientMental
 



Yes, and Saddam Hussein has WMD!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


TiffanyInLA, the main issue is that this study ales the assumption that the aircraft which struck the WTC were the same ones that took off from Boston and D.C.

Unless this assumption can be proven otherwise, I stand by my aforementioned post.

Cheers


Agreed, the speeds are possible for an aircraft designed to do those speeds. The OP doesn't claim anything different.

But since the government claims a 767-200, N612UA, impacted the south tower exceeding such speed limitations by a WIDE margin, many experts are raising their red flag.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The list grows.

Combined with the fact none of the 4 aircraft were ever positively identified on 9/11, more and more experts want answers.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Do you know what happens when you maneuver an aircraft above it's maneuvering speed?


The rudder does not fall off. Most pilots I know have gone over the limits. I have doubled some limits.


Actually, the rudder fell off below Va on AA587.

Do you know the definition of Maneuvering speed and why one is established for an aircraft?

Making me look up the maneuvering speed definition is just mean. Why are pretty girls always so mean? The lugs were loose on that rudder so this has nothing to do with what we are discussing, or ranting about. I only have a few hours flying but I have seen many red lines passed. I want to be a truther, but so far no elephant has come in my room. Lots of crazy people work for NASA so their credentials do not sway my logic. The planes were being flown like they were being flown by someone who had only flown with a flight simulator before.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I am here for entertainment only.. and have zero plans of researching any of this.. I for one do not buy any of this 911 fantasy.

This post caught my attention only because I thought people like yourself were extinct.

I lost all respect for your group, when you came out and said the the Pentagon was hit by a Rocket.

I worked for a company called blackboard.com at 19th and L St NW DC on 9/11.

I was sitting in traffic on 95/395 North sitting in traffic about 2 miles from the 14th street bridge.

I saw your "rocket" They must have used a hologram.... It sure looked like a very very large jet.

Now.. I had been drinking the night before sooo...maybe I was seeing things??? Well good thing I had 2 other employees with me and both of them saw it before me...


Seems like a hole in the truthers story??

My Ex's mom worked at the dept. of agriculture.. She saw the plane also..

She was on the news talking about it....

I think everyone that thinks a rocket hit the pentagon is crazy.. I saw it first hand.. Now from our view we couldnt see the impact.. but the timing and the explosion matched what we saw.

So yes I think anyone that believes that a rocket hit the pentagon is dilusional... Makes me think that the rest of your logic is flawed also!

Not to mention the hundred or so people on the top floor of the crystal city building that watched it happen.. My buddy was the manager there and told me that 20 or so saw the actual plane.. The rest just saw the explosion.. Let me guess they/we were Govt. plants to confirm the story?
jeeeesh.... when is the truth....just that... the truth, and not some giant conspiracy?



[edit on 12-7-2010 by Mobius1974]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
There are lots of "events" associated with 911 that literally couldn’t have happened. The word for such things is "Miracles".

911 wasn't as OS says, it wasn't a man made conspiracy, it was an "Act of God" (UFO/ET/Alien).

That's the definition of "Miracle".

My expertise is UFO/ET/Alien – I’ve been working with ET Presence for 25 years on a daily basis.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


OP if I am ask regarding this information...

To what end?

If these experts are correct (though I would guess none of them have experience at the very edge of these aircrafts performance), what does it prove?

Radar is not accurate.

Personally I worked with a number of radar systems while in the Navy and many things can impact its performance (atmospheric conditions, aspect angle of the return, interference from other radio systems). While I guessed at a + or -10mph I've seen radars (especially long range air tracking radars) give some whacky data, especially if there is a large speed change or aspect angle change (combine both for real fun!) between sweeps. "Hello that Backfire looks like its stopped midair (plainly not possible)", two sweeps later its evident the plane has turned around.

Perhaps the implication this that "aha we caught them in a lie!", yet given the variables in this scenario is it ever possible to naildown the information to erase all doubt for everyone?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


So let me ask you something... and answer truthfully... did you with your own 2 eyes see a "passenger plane" crash into pentagon? As you mentioned in your post you saw a "Jet" fly by the bridge.....



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

I then took the above envelope and input the speeds with the same airspeed definitions for the 767-200, into it's respective speed zone. It was a rough sketch to give you an idea since it was clear you weren't able to comprehend the various airspeed definitions without me drawing a picture for you.



Could someone correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't you only be concerned about a "never exceed speed" limitation only if you wanted to get your soft, pink body and anyone else's soft, pink body who happened to be in the aircraft back on the ground in one piece?

I can see how it went now.....

Omari: "Faster, Brother Mohamed! Faster!"

Atta: "I can't, Brother Abdul!! I might exceed the "never exceed speed"!"

Omari: "WHAT???"

Atta: "We must adhere to the operating manual restrictions else we may damage the aircraft and injure the infidel passengers! Red-lines are red for a reason, my jihad-bound brother!"

Omari: "?????"

Atta: "And we must remember that there are load-factor limitations, as well, that if we exceed could cause the daughter of a goat flight attendants to spill the coffee they are serving!".

Omari: "???!!??"

Atta: "We might damage the aircraft! Don't you know that a P-51 limitation schematic shows it can be pulled apart by flight forces at only 505 knots? Even though this Boeing 767 was built with state of the art technology 45 years after the P-51 and is structurally designed and built with computers and materials not even known about in the mid-1940's and was engineered to exceed anything the P-51 could come close to and weighs about 340,000 lbs more than our infidel-built P-51 and had big, fat as a donkey Pratt and Whitney engines that pump out around 63,000 lbs of thrust compared to a P-51 Packard Merlin single-four bladed prop V-1650 engine which produces only between 1,490 and 2,220 horsepower and that the P-51 was designed as an inherently unstable single-seat fighter aircraft and optimized for distance so it could escort the goat-faced world-war-two-war of imperialistic aggression bombers vice the design of the capitalistic kaffir 767 built as a stable and ultra safe passenger airliner means we must be careful with our handling of this death machine, Brother Abdul!"

Uh huh.



[edit on 12-7-2010 by trebor451]



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join