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: 13
127
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I would first like to disclose that I do not believe in the OS regarding 9/11 and therefore you could label me as a "truther". With that out of the way, do we have any data on the tailwinds at altitude? If you combine the possibility to exceed the maximum operating velocity with a high tailwind and the relatively short distance that the velocity was maintained, I don't see why the conditions could not be just right as to exceed the max operating velocity by 150 knots from point to target.

--airspoon

Edited to add: Large downtown skylines are notorious for extreme winds.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by airspoon]




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



Don't take my word for it! Heavens no! You could take take the pronouncements of United States District Court Judge Denny Chin, who's opinion I quoted.


Your word? What have you brought to the table to disprove the OP presentation?

What does United States District Court Judge Denny Chin, have to do with the OP topic?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You're claiming that structural failure definitely occurs at 426 knots? Where are you getting your data from?


im not an expert but a least one plane that hit the world trade buildings preformed a pull up out of a dive in a plane maxing out speed in a manner that shows that it was overiding the built in saftey hydrolic program that would have not allowed this done

you cant just jank at the controls and have them respond the plane has a built in program to smooth out the control input to the airodynamic output

ie impossable to control in the manner and speed the flight data and ground radar said was done

to overide this control smoothing system requires admittence into the avionics bay in the forward control section of the plane and its not something you just unplug

it requires manual bypass

another system of interest is the anti hyjack system that uses the transponder frequencey to gain remote control of the plane in case of hyjack

planes may have more than one transponder fequency and can switch between in REAR cases this system allows for overide of saftey limits on imput for controlls imagine a gps locator in the twin towers and the plane adjusting course to hit this locator it would make fine adjustments more and more the closer it got to the target

these adjustments at the speed claimed would require the airframe to work outside of saftey limits and control smoothing software because the plane would have to make continuos course corrections

1 how does a hyjacker bypass electronic saftey controll limits
2 how does a boeing jet respond to controlls like a strike fighter
3 how does a boeing jet pull up from a dive in a high g environment
4 why did the transponders show strange location and height recordings prior to hyjack

XPLdER



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


How sudden were the manuvers? Not very sudden. The 757 video shows a very rapid climb after a high speed pass without any problems. The Airbus showed no problems at its highspeed low flyby. The KC-135 didnt show any problems either.

The aircraft that hit the WTC werent doing Immelmanns, barrel rolls or inverted figure-8s. Nor where they doing snap flick rolls. All they did was a slow turn and dive. that was it. Just a nice long dive from a higher altitude to a lower altitude.

Impressme did you read about the 747 that went into a sudden high speed dive? It held up reaching the sound barrier and reaching 5Gs in the dive. Didnt fall apart. In fact there have been quite a few instances where an aircraft encountered high speed dives approaching or breaking the sound barrier and high G stresses. Airplanes are built a little more rugged than you'd think. I would look through the NTSB record and aircraft incident sites and look at how many time planes did have some serious stresses imposed on the aircraft in crazy near crashes or dive.

Also airliners "basic" cruise speeds are higher than what you put up. For the 767 for example:
Cruise speed Mach 0.80 (470 knots, 530 mph, 851 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)
Max. Cruise speed Mach 0.86 (493 knots, 568 mph, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)

Say, now thats a LOT higher than your guess of 320mph.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Again - more truth - and anyone outside the truth buries their head, or they are paid to make others bury their heads, or they very much like to get a rise out of those searching for truth. It only takes an average intellegence to watch the "Israeli Operatives" video to know it was an inside job and those with a "need to know" KNEW and were there to video record it and then you have the excited dancing Israeli's after the attack.

Israeli's admit knowing 9/11 would happen, and came to "FILM IT"

Dancing Israeli's

If you wanted to gain sympathy for a state robbing Middle East territory and who are attacked by those who also see this as the holy land - what would you do?

U.S.A. - always rushing in to support Israel - and their never ending land movement into Palestine - Wouldn't you want the U.S.A. to feel terrorism/ Wouldn't you want their permanent presence in the Middle East!?

Well, 9/11 achieved those goals for them!

[edit on 12-7-2010 by arizonascott]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat



As pointed out in the presentation, if you think the NTSB data is wrong, you should think twice about getting on an aircraft in the NY area or arriving to a terminal area, as all separation is done by speed and radar.
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I understand what they are saying but they are forgetting one important condition of the situation. The aircraft were not performing within normal parameters. Radar is rythmic in nature and a lot can happen between one sweep and the next. The systems used on 9/11 and today are not optomized for conditions experienced that day. So for your everyday flights around the world? sure the systems are fine but once you have lots of course/speed/apsect changes you are entering a scenario more akin to combat situations and again the everyday traffic control systems are not up to snuff for that.



Have you reviewed the NTSB radar data? The Lat/Long? The Mode C returns within 10 miles of 3 primary airports? And if so, what do you think is the margin of error associated with their analysis?

More than 100 knots in error?

Because that is what you need for a plausible speed.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


damnit, you beat me to the punch.

Yea the listed speeds are regulation speeds, anything over could result in aircraft damage or passenger injury...execpt some people when they take over planes just dont give a rat's a$$ about regulations or passenger safety, taking the speed above recomended levels.

Of course it doesnt matter how much proof or scienfic evidence you show 9/11 conpiracy theorists, they are inclinded to believe thier belife and nothing will ever change them.

Kinda like trying to convice a jew to joins the naizs. just doesn't work
Some people are just so hellbent on thinking the "goverment wants to kill us all" that they dont really see any point of logical agurment because no matter what they will believe a make-believe and fiction story, why? because life is boring spicing things up a bit makes sence for some people, so livign by those fansties can really distort your picture of reaility..assuming there is one to boot.

Yes they knew about it, no they didnt do anything and that is why the whole issue is sentive, because it really would seem like a conpiracy if they knew and did nothing, but only really, it was just a bad time to call a bluff lol



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Redline or no.
Did you know that there were 2 planes that flew into the towers?
1 plane on each tower.
There is videotape of it. There are also thousands of witnesses.
these 2 planes never broke up, well until they hit the buildings.
Is this what you are disputing?
Because I don't think the pentagon was hit by a plane, it was a missile.
However there is no video of that and apparently no witnesses.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by impressme
 


How sudden were the manuvers? Not very sudden. The 757 video shows a very rapid climb after a high speed pass without any problems. The Airbus showed no problems at its highspeed low flyby. The KC-135 didnt show any problems either.

The aircraft that hit the WTC werent doing Immelmanns, barrel rolls or inverted figure-8s. Nor where they doing snap flick rolls. All they did was a slow turn and dive. that was it. Just a nice long dive from a higher altitude to a lower altitude.

Impressme did you read about the 747 that went into a sudden high speed dive? It held up reaching the sound barrier and reaching 5Gs in the dive. Didnt fall apart. In fact there have been quite a few instances where an aircraft encountered high speed dives approaching or breaking the sound barrier and high G stresses. Airplanes are built a little more rugged than you'd think. I would look through the NTSB record and aircraft incident sites and look at how many time planes did have some serious stresses imposed on the aircraft in crazy near crashes or dive.

Also airliners "basic" cruise speeds are higher than what you put up. For the 767 for example:
Cruise speed Mach 0.80 (470 knots, 530 mph, 851 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)
Max. Cruise speed Mach 0.86 (493 knots, 568 mph, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)

Say, now thats a LOT higher than your guess of 320mph.


You may want to learn what low altitude and thick air do for airspeed limitations on an aircraft designed for supersonic flight.

lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk...

Then please post your source/altitude/Vmo speeds for the 747 accident you cite.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
"Too bad the truthers don't have a unified theory."

Just like debunkers have a unified theory because they are all reading from the same fairy tale script and are not permitted to think for themselves? People who think for themselves usually do not think alike. In contrast, robotic peons who are used to cover up other people's dirty work usually do think alike, unless they are not doing their "job".


"The MAIN thing to remember is, the terrorists DID NOT GIVE A RAT'S ASS what happens to the people or the plane in their maneuvers."

Are you talking about the fake terrorists who could not launch a paper airplane and were later found to be alive? The point is not about what these fake terrorists cared about. The point is a cave dweller who could not keep a Cessna plane in the air had a snowball's chance in hell of performing the stunts which the alleged aircraft performed on 9/11.

Since you are about the fifth or sixth debunker to mention this because you don't get it, this reinforces the above claim that debunkers cannot think for themselves.


"I just watch your three videos and I would like to know where you got the information that all of these planes are doing well over 300 knots??"

I'd like to know too. Ever see a race car zoom by at 200 MPH? It seems to be faster than what the video is showing.


"Women argue differently than men, even the lesbians."

There you go, the above statement pretty much settles this matter.


[edit on 12-7-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Well they sure dont look like they are traveling at 100mph do they? Or 200mph?

I do believe for the 757 the speed was 350 knots, so converting that to mph is about 403mph. Not too bad eh?

As for the altitude, well gee impressme, can you make an educated guess just by looking at the video? I mean I think a kindergardner would at least notice it aint flying at 1,000ft. The Airbus flyby looks about what, 10-15ft off the ground? The 757 at about 20ft? the KC-135? Well, a little tougher since we are watching it from ABOVE, but no higher than 50ft off the ground.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


There were plenty of witnesses to the Pentagon attack and in fact, they say that they witnessed a plane hitting the building. Look at this thread, authored by me and titled "Simple explanation for suppression of Pentagon impact footage" for rational explanation as to why footage was suppressed.

--airspoon

[edit on 12-7-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
"I do believe for the 757 the speed was 350 knots"

What do you have a radar detector in your brain? Those planes aren't going anywhere near those speeds. Keep throwing the manure against the wall though, I am sure something is bound to stick.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 





That's right Tricky. It says "Caution". This zone is above the Max operating of the aircraft This is your "buffer zone". It is telling you that if you don't slow down, you are going to break the aircraft. You may even break the aircraft if the air is not smooth. Hmmm.. think the air was silky smooth that day? If the smoke coming off the North tower is any indication, it looks rather turbulent that close to the ground. Makes sense given all the buildings churning up the air flowing in from the North.


So you are saying that once you exceed Vmax the airplane starts to break up ?

There are instances of airliners EXCEEDING MACH 1 in a dive and surviving ....

Exceeding V max doesn't result in instant destruction of the aircraft as you seem to be implying

Going past V max overstresses the airframe and at very high rates of speed and cause damage to the aircraft skin and breakage of parts

The image you posted is of AA 587 which crashed in Rockaway NY in
November 2001

en.wikipedia.org...

It was caught in the jet wash of another aircraft and the pilots over corrected the rudder causing tail to snap off - it was not exceeding
Maximum spped . It was pilot error overusing the rudder. By the way the tail is made of composite materials not aluminium like a Boeing




The A300-600, which took off minutes after a Japan Airlines Boeing 747 on the same runway, flew into the larger jet's wake, an area of turbulent air. The first officer attempted to keep the plane upright with aggressive rudder inputs. The strength of the air flowing against the moving rudder stressed the aircraft's vertical stabilizer and eventually snapped it off entirely, causing the aircraft to lose control and crash. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the enormous stress on the rudder was due to the first officer's "unnecessary and excessive" rudder inputs, and not the wake turbulence caused by the 747. The NTSB further stated "if the first officer had stopped making additional inputs, the aircraft would have stabilized". Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 sensitive rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Training Program.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Redline or no.
Did you know that there were 2 planes that flew into the towers?
1 plane on each tower.
There is videotape of it. There are also thousands of witnesses.
these 2 planes never broke up, well until they hit the buildings.
Is this what you are disputing?
Because I don't think the pentagon was hit by a plane, it was a missile.
However there is no video of that and apparently no witnesses.


The OP, nor do I, dispute aircraft hit the towers.

What is being disputed, is outlined in the OP. Please read it.

As pointed out in the presentation and numerous interviews linked, improbable airspeed does not support any theory, all it does is invalidate the government theory, that a standard 767-200, N612UA, can achieve such speed.

I'm sure you will find many here coming out of the wood-work who disagree. They feel speeds exceeding Va by more than 220 knots, Vmo by more than 150 knots, and Vd by more than 90 knots, are plausible for any aircraft. Because they blindly support anything the government tells them. Of course, they will never put their name on such claims, as Dwain Deets has done.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 



ahh as the screen name states is good ol' dave. Still a sucker born every minute who keeps on believing the official story.


Or a sucker created every second who believes the asinine one.

Either way you slice it, you're wrong, and have been proven so over and over again.

Sometimes, a whacked out militant muslim is just a whacked out militant muslim.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I have about 10000 hrs flying large jets in airline operations.
Can I prove it here?Probably not-I ask you to just trust me on that.

Now-beyond Mmo-max operating mach number and Vmo -max operating velocity-the aircraft acts funky to use the scientific term. Control reversal,flutter,wing bending,stall margins and buffet margins,center of pressure etc all start to change.

A long tube with wings like the 75 and 76 also have a variable center of gravity. The aircraft horizontal stabilizer is set prior to takeoff for the known cg-and that cg is computed from takeoff weight to landing weight.it must be in the zone for all sectors of the flight.
Makes sense?of course.Your aircraft center of lift is the point were the wings exert the maximum upward force-lift.At different speeds you need a different pitch angle to maintain straight and level flight,
Example at 280 kts indicated airspeed my airplane needs about 2.5 degrees nose up.At minimum clean speed or green dot its about 6 degrees nose up for 210 knots.
The faster you go the less nose up you need-actually forward pressure that you trim out.As your speed increases beyond Vmo you quickly run out of nose down authority to maintain straight and level flight.This is a boat not a fighter plan.
Ok so sorry for the long worded background-the bottom line is that I do not believe that you can maintain 510Knots at sea level or 1000 feet on a 767 or 757. Its not an issue of engine performance. Its an issue of aircraft design.Aircraft are built for stability in a certain weigh cg and speed range.
When you exceed speed by almost 200 knots you are well beyond the controllability limits of that airframe.

I did a simulator test on this concept years ago.It wasnt a 75 or 76 sim.
It was a large commercial airliner however.
At about 60 knots beyond Vmo I was full nose down on the yoke to maintain straight flight. At about 80 knots it was impossible to maintain altitude. The airplane just climbed in a nose flat attitude.
Now if you know anything about sims-they do not do a good job showing true effects beyond the data points they are programmed with. The programming takes flight test data and interpolates it for the sim.I doubt anyone has taken a 767 or 757 to 500 knots in a real airplane-including on 911.

So we are left with another option if I and Pilots for 911 truth are correct. The total energy of the aircraft are not sufficient to drop the Twin Towers.
If they didn't fly as fast as advertised then that energy to drop the buildings came from elsewhere.
sorry for the disjointed typeing.Its only my 2nd time replying on ATS and its well past my bed time.



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

Originally posted by airspoon
With that out of the way, do we have any data on the tailwinds at altitude? If you combine the possibility to exceed the maximum operating velocity with a high tailwind and the relatively short distance that the velocity was maintained, I don't see why the conditions could not be just right as to exceed the max operating velocity by 150 knots from point to target.


Considering the OS said one plane had a ground speed of 510 knots and that the Structural Failure Zone begins at 420 knots, there would have had to have been a 90 knot tailwind (or 103mph) to bring the plane into a tolerable/realistic airspeed.

So unless there was a hurricane in New York on 9/11/01, there is no way a tailwind could account for the impossible airspeed that 767 was traveling at.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by harrytuttle]



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

Originally posted by thedman
So you are saying that once you exceed Vmax the airplane starts to break up ?


No.

The V-G diagrams as set by the manufacture and airspeed definitions used to create such an envelope make that claim.

Also, I'm not sure what "Vmax" is. It is not defined on the TCDS for the 767-200. Are you just making it up as you go along?

rgl.faa.gov...$FILE/A-767.pdf

Please use proper terminology if you want to claim you know what you are talking about.

Since the rest of your post is based on "Vmax", I won't bother to address it as clearly you didn't have the courtesy to study the V-G diagrams, Limit Dive speed definitions, nor V Speeds defined in the TCDS.

As for rudder usage on AA587, please familiarize yourself with the change in Va speed definition after such an "accident" and why most pilots were dumbfounded when a large portion of a structure separated below Va. Then familiarize yourself with the repeated full control deflections depicted in UA93 and AA77 NTSB data well ABOVE Va and Vmo.


[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Excuse me, sphinx, did the terrorists take-off? No. Did the terrorist want to land the plane? Nope! What did they want to do? Fly it and hit a building. Its not that hard to aim and hit when given the basic requirements and understanding of the aircraft. Oh yes, and they really werent cave-dwellers. Didnt many of them hold degrees and were well educated? Do you even do any real research? Or just parrot the nonsense from the TM sites?

Ah yes a race-car at 200mph looks pretty fast right? And a 90mph baseball thrown by your head will look faster than that too! Youre point being? A smaller object at higher speed will look faster than a larger object. Its called perception of movement. Larger objects tend to look as if they are going slower, while smaller object appear to zip by.



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join