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: 16
127
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by g146541
But still we have film of planes hitting the towers at some speed.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth nor Dwain Deets dispute that planes hit the towers. It is not listed as any of the possibilities in the OP.


Good point. Why purposely fly a UAV into the newly remodeled section of the Pentagon after 2 real planes hit the WTC and one was shot down en route to the White House or Capitol Building?






posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
"Pilots For 9/11 Truth nor Dwain Deets dispute that planes hit the towers."

When you say planes, what kind of planes? The commercial aircraft which we were told hit the towers? Modified aircraft? Remote controlled aircraft? Missiles made to look like commercial aircraft? Also, what are they basing their conclusion on? The video evidence is not enough for me, because doctoring video evidence can be done by a first year video/special effects graphics student.

Do they believe that a plane hit the Pentagon as well? How about that rather barren crash site in Shanksville?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
Good point. Why purposely fly a UAV into the newly remodeled section of the Pentagon after 2 real planes hit the WTC and one was shot down en route to the White House or Capitol Building?





According to numerous witnesses interviewed on location in Arlington, the aircraft observed approaching the Pentagon was on a path impossible to cause the physical damage. No UAV was observed at the Pentagon.

See interviews here.
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...


But this thread is about the WTC aircraft, Please try to stay on topic.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Now on somewhat of a side note, years ago there was a video game designer that simulated the JFK assassination.
You would be LH Oswald with your bolt action up in the depository and if you could get all of the shots perfect like they hit the JFK limo occupants there was a $1 million dollar reward.
I suggest someone do a simulator with the same intention.
It would be tasteless as heck but hey maybe it would make people believe.
Or in the very least wake people up some.
Imagine how people would flock to the game with the negative coverage of the MSM.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Pilots For 9/11 Truth nor Dwain Deets dispute that planes hit the towers."

When you say planes, what kind of planes? The commercial aircraft which we were told hit the towers? Modified aircraft? Remote controlled aircraft? Missiles made to look like commercial aircraft? Also, what are they basing their conclusion on? The video evidence is not enough for me, because doctoring video evidence can be done by a first year video/special effects graphics student.

Do they believe that a plane hit the Pentagon as well? How about that rather barren crash site in Shanksville?


From the OP,

(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200;
(2) the radar data was compromised in some manner;
(3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous;
(4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.

Back to your question,

"What kind of planes"?

It appears they don't know. How could they know? That is what they are trying to figure out. The data provided by government agencies clearly does not support the government story of a standard 767-200.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not speculate. They raise the BS flag when being told BS, and they do it often. They put their names on it.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
This is an oldish PDF file from an MIT professor, Eduardo Kausel. Right at the top he gives the estimated speeds of the jets in Mph and Km, the South tower jet at 503 mph. The rest of the PDF is the reasons why. That includes video research, Radar differentials and more. The South tower jet speed that he has come to is still very high for the jet at the impact height. That I think is the real nub of the problem, this passenger jet flying in heavy air at 503 Mph, only 55 Mph off its maximum cruising speed in clear air. The 510 kts, or 586 to infinity Mph speed estimate could be moderated as this professor has done. The idea that a dedicated terrorist would not care about his speed is silly, he would need to achieve his target up to an unknown moment before crashing and in saying that, it makes no sense. The jet that hit the South tower was visually intact,(although it could have been aerodynamically distorted beyond repair but only Boeing would know that) so it is quite possible that it could have been a modified plane in some way, with "dirty engines" as in military craft, but whatever, there is an issue of speed.

web.mit.edu...

Edit to add this low pass of a 757,
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by __rich__
Good point. Why purposely fly a UAV into the newly remodeled section of the Pentagon after 2 real planes hit the WTC and one was shot down en route to the White House or Capitol Building?





According to numerous witnesses interviewed on location in Arlington, the aircraft observed approaching the Pentagon was on a path impossible to cause the physical damage. No UAV was observed at the Pentagon.

See interviews here.
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...


But this thread is about the WTC aircraft, Please try to stay on topic.


It is on topic that the "plane" that hit the Pentagon also did "impossible" maneuvers.

Sorry about the confusion.

Anyway...all this conjecture and hair splitting and hypothesizing all leads to the same end:

WHY?

Maybe there is a damn good reason to cover up the truth. Public panic. Knowing that "Uncle Sam" can't really protect us worth a damn. Knowing that our entire existence balances on the thinnest line.

Maybe..just maybe...the truth is best left hidden?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
This is an oldish PDF file from an MIT professor, Eduardo Kausel.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth cover this in their presentation.

In summary,

The NTSB is the final authority on all analysis according to pilots, the FAA and the traveling public. Pilots train by what the NTSB analyzes, regulation is employed by NTSB analysis, the NTSB is tasked to protect the traveling public, paid for by the American taxpayer.

If the NTSB is incompetent according to an MIT professor who analyzed "video", again, one might think twice about getting on your next flight or perhaps consult "Eduardo" prior to getting on such a flight.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
well this is very intresting... Now im no expert but this opens a can of worms so to speak for possibilities. Maybe it wasnt a controlled demolition but a military jet or airplane, or a UFO, or possibly a missle



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
WHY?


Cui Bono?

When you research that, you will have your answer.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Actually, some of the tests are literal and some are modeled with computers. You couldn't produce and aircraft and get it certified for a +/- "G" rating without hard data to base it on. As far as positive Gs, that's as simple as supporting the aircraft by its wing tips and adding weight to the fuselage until the wings collapse. Negative Gs can be simulated by supporting the fuselage and adding weight to the tips of the wings until they collapse. Those number are then used in factoring the published "G rating".

I am sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt, they have attempted to fly an airliner at rated, cruise altitude, at near sea level. In that case, it's not a matter of the airplane falling apart, it's a matter of physics. The aircraft's max. cruise is determined at a cruise altitude of say, 25,000 ft. The air is thin with little resistance. At sea level, it just can't do it. It would be like trying to drive your car at 55 MPH in a foot of water.

Now, factor in the fact that we have a bunch of ragheads, with "zero time in type", meaning they have no actual time flying those aircraft, yet they managed to disable the autopilot and hand fly it directly to the target, almost flawlessly and you have a recipe for a healthy helping of BS. Hand flying an airliner is no easy task, even for an experienced pilot.

There are many factors and I could be missing something but this is my observation.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by smurfy
This is an oldish PDF file from an MIT professor, Eduardo Kausel.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth cover this in their presentation.

In summary,

The NTSB is the final authority on all analysis according to pilots, the FAA and the traveling public. Pilots train by what the NTSB analyzes, regulation is employed by NTSB analysis, the NTSB is tasked to protect the traveling public, paid for by the American taxpayer.

If the NTSB is incompetent according to an MIT professor who analyzed "video", again, one might think twice about getting on your next flight or perhaps consult "Eduardo" prior to getting on such a flight.


Oh dear Tiff,
You have to read the man's link. I am actually agreeing with your post in the main points, but you don't see that.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by General.Lee
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Actually, some of the tests are literal and some are modeled with computers. You couldn't produce and aircraft and get it certified for a +/- "G" rating without hard data to base it on. As far as positive Gs, that's as simple as supporting the aircraft by its wing tips and adding weight to the fuselage until the wings collapse. Negative Gs can be simulated by supporting the fuselage and adding weight to the tips of the wings until they collapse. Those number are then used in factoring the published "G rating".

I am sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt, they have attempted to fly an airliner at rated, cruise altitude, at near sea level. In that case, it's not a matter of the airplane falling apart, it's a matter of physics. The aircraft's max. cruise is determined at a cruise altitude of say, 25,000 ft. The air is thin with little resistance. At sea level, it just can't do it. It would be like trying to drive your car at 55 MPH in a foot of water.

Now, factor in the fact that we have a bunch of ragheads, with "zero time in type", meaning they have no actual time flying those aircraft, yet they managed to disable the autopilot and hand fly it directly to the target, almost flawlessly and you have a recipe for a healthy helping of BS. Hand flying an airliner is no easy task, even for an experienced pilot.

There are many factors and I could be missing something but this is my observation.


General Lee?

The infamous General Lee from flightinfo?

If so, welcome to the jungle.. :-)



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by smurfy
This is an oldish PDF file from an MIT professor, Eduardo Kausel.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth cover this in their presentation.

In summary,

The NTSB is the final authority on all analysis according to pilots, the FAA and the traveling public. Pilots train by what the NTSB analyzes, regulation is employed by NTSB analysis, the NTSB is tasked to protect the traveling public, paid for by the American taxpayer.

If the NTSB is incompetent according to an MIT professor who analyzed "video", again, one might think twice about getting on your next flight or perhaps consult "Eduardo" prior to getting on such a flight.


Oh dear Tiff,
You have to read the man's link. I am actually agreeing with your post in the main points, but you don't see that.


Yes, I see that. My apologies if I came across abrasive.

My reply was more directed towards, and "nipping in the bud" common arguments made by those who blindly support the government story who use video study over NTSB analysis.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by __rich__
WHY?


Cui Bono?

When you research that, you will have your answer.


Those who opposed BushCo's Iraq invasion and occupation plans might have benefitted.

Eecept their plan didn't work. The US and World Economy didn't collapse. Almost.

We are now perhaps in the midst of the 2nd phase of financial terror.

All about the oldest game in the book: Power. The last remaining world powers bickering over the last remaining table scraps...in this case: oil.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Pilots For 9/11 Truth nor Dwain Deets dispute that planes hit the towers."

When you say planes, what kind of planes? The commercial aircraft which we were told hit the towers? Modified aircraft? Remote controlled aircraft? Missiles made to look like commercial aircraft? Also, what are they basing their conclusion on? The video evidence is not enough for me, because doctoring video evidence can be done by a first year video/special effects graphics student.

Do they believe that a plane hit the Pentagon as well? How about that rather barren crash site in Shanksville?


From the OP,

(1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200;
(2) the radar data was compromised in some manner;
(3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous;
(4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.

Back to your question,

"What kind of planes"?

It appears they don't know. How could they know? That is what they are trying to figure out. The data provided by government agencies clearly does not support the government story of a standard 767-200.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not speculate. They raise the BS flag when being told BS, and they do it often. They put their names on it.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


I got 20+ years as a radar operator for US Navy (SPA-25's fed thru SPS-10 radar, SPA-66 fed thru SPS-40 radar, NTDS/ACDS/Block 1's 2's you name it). I know radar data can only be as good as the operator that is processing said data. If I mark my target in even the slightest position off when it paints from last mark, I could make a Frigate go from 20 knots to 750 kts. Now modern day radars like Sentinals and SPY-1 do a better job at removing the human element....when I have more time I will look at the radar data and post up.

Right now work has me swamped designing a radar and comms suite for an upgraded military aircraft that I won't mention here lol ;-)



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Newbomb Turk
I could make a Frigate go from 20 knots to 750 kts.


So, basically what you're saying is that you can fabricate radar data as a military man. Thanks for sharing...

What else type of radar data can you fabricate? Perhaps phantom returns?

Care to put your name on any of this?

With that said...

Have you ever worked an ASR radar with 5, 6, 10 flights in trail on approach squeezed in between two other major hubs within a 10 mile radius, and perhaps numerous hubs of the most busiest Executive Airports within 3 to 10 miles of the above mentioned?

Do you feel NY TRACON and the NTSB could be in error of more than 100 knots in a terminal area covered by multiple ASR radar and Mode C returns?

Cause that is what is needed for the government story to be plausible.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


See that is what is wrong with a dilusion.... I saw what I can say with 100% certainty was a plane hitting the pentagon... Just because I didnt see the impact you are going to fall back on internet lunacy??? You my friend are destined to be "special".

Ok... if that plane can go from 400+mph and 10 to 15% downgrade to verticle life... ok your right...

How much do your parents charge you for rent in their basement?

How many layers of tin foil does it take to block harp? Get out of your fantasy world and listen to real people with real facts...

I wish this site wasnt so strict.. I would tell you much more about yourself!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Add it to the list.


This and 100 other "factoids" will never change the opinion of an OS follower.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
You know your on a winner when the attack dogs come at you with such force and venom....

Nice work LA Woman.....love your work.




new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join