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

reply to post by hooper

I gotta ask, who the heck are you to question these pilots?

I've seen obstinacy in the face of facts, so let me do a little geometric explanation to your weak kneed objection.

Multiply 505 X 505. 255,025

Multiply 410 X 410. 168,100

The difference proportionately 1.517

The reason we use the squares is to compute actual stress comparisons. These are not linear comparisons.

This means the airframe would have been over stressed by over one half it's maximum. Now remember this is a plane that according to witnesses was not in a steep dive.

As to the Pentagon.

It came in over the Naval Annex.
It was tilted according to the witnesses. The grass was unmarred and supposedly the plane struck dead level. It wasn't diving anymore and the plane is INCAPABLE of maintaining that speed in level flight at that altitude. The ground effects would have pushed it up from a pancake.
Additionally it was flown by an amateur hi-jacker pilot.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by largo]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by largo]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

However, if you would like to learn the exact "improbability" as defined by Dwain Deets, he claims 3% "probability", when considering all of the information.

How much flight time do you have pteridine. Any experience working for NASA? Any awards while working for NASA?

Care o put your name to your claims as Dwain Deets has done?

I do not work for NASA. I am not a pilot.

Why having flight time is a prerequisite for posting is not apparent. How much P51 flight time do you have, Tiffany? Don't worry, I'll let you post the plots again, anyway.

You try to appeal to authority with your arguments when you are really appealing to Dwain's opinions, unless Dwain won his NASA awards for estimating probabilities of terrorist events. NASA is not known for terrorism external to NASA. Are his experiences estimating suicide crashes by terrorists well known in the world of probability and statistics? Perhaps a peer reviewed paper or two would help convince the readers of his expertise in estimating events involving modern aircraft and partially trained, suicidal pilots.

The results show that two aircraft struck their targets and that their measured speeds were higher than safety limits for the aircraft. this brings up a point; are both planes elephants or is just one an elephant? Maybe an elephant and a pigmy elephant.
Dwain is guessing about what the chances are and they are much lower than 1.0 according to him. This means we should all immediately conclude that one or two giant cruise missiles laden with Jet-A struck the towers because Dwains estimates are so low. Their engines and airframes were specially constructed and disguised as commercial airliners. Dwain implied this with the 3% number. The designs were tested in secret because having actual fuel laden aircraft striking at only 425 knots wouldn't have been convincing. All the passengers were murdered at a secret facility, etc., and we are back to the same old theories which you have difficulty articulating. I admit that a complicated theory is far more interesting than a simple plot and surely the Government bureaucracy that everyone laughs at would have an easy time of pulling it off. Ask Dwain for the probability estimates of that.
The bottom line is that you consider multiplying two estimates based on gut feelings as providing an exact probability. Could Dwain have guessed 50% and 50% for a total of about 4:1 odds? Sure, but he chose to guess at 30% and 10%. How about 12.3% and 28.2%? These are what we call guesses to three places or being precisely wrong.

Mention to the "Pilots..." that "improbable" is still not "impossible." Ask how many have direct experience in flying at the speeds and altitudes indicated. How much flight time do you have at 510 knots below 1000 feet, Tiff?

reply to post by largo


Is this thread about the Pentagon plane, largo? I thought that we were discussing the WTC aircraft.

Originally posted by pteridine

Care o put your name to your claims as Dwain Deets has done?

I do not work for NASA. I am not a pilot.

So you accept the fact that your commentary here is layman commentary, and is just your personal opinion against the opinions and facts of experienced professionals?

I figure you will have something clever to say like a politician to twist this around, but nonetheless it is invariably true that you have no reputable name to go with anything you say.

reply to post by pteridine


Sorry the original portion of the discussion is the math concerning the planes and the WTC.
The second part is my normal rant concerning the Pentagon.
The same issues apply for the report on the Pentagon. They used the same zany air speeds which are so far beyond the capabilities of these aircraft and any other commercial craft.
Also someone else had mentioned the Pentagon.
Sorry for wandering afield.

I edited the prior entry.

reply to post by AquariusDescending


Unless Dwain has significant experience estimating this sort of thing, he is in the same boat as the rest of us. He can always be challenged and that is what I am doing. He hasn't justified his estimates; he has just estimated.
Anyone can do the same thing, even you. Give it a try. It will be as valid as Dwain's estimate and will give Rob something to discuss other than the diagrams of P51 flight characteristics.

reply to post by largo


No problem. We older folk who can't see well also get off track. If the Pentagon plane was a missile, it was sized like a commercial airliner and filled with Jet-A, based on the fireball and fires.

I have single handedly confirmed that the analysis by the NTSB is faulty and they they overestimated the planes velocity before impact. See my thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
He hasn't justified his estimates; he has just estimated.

By what qualifications or experience do you figure your own estimations to be more reputable than Dwain Deets'?

From NASA's Official Website....February 28 1996.


Looks to me(and anyone else that reads below with a honest, open mind) that Mr. Deets is uber qualified...and, working for NASA, is a World Leader in Aeronautical Research, with a CV second to none....his credentials, like others that have spoken out about the absurdity of 9/11, are of the highest calibre...thanks again for the OP Tiffany....an "Elephant in the room" indeed..

It is this seniority that rattles the usual suspects...and I am lovin' it!!


Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, Center Director Kenneth J. Szalai announced recently.

Before this appointment, Deets became Director, Research Engineering Division in March 1994 and served as acting division chief from 1990 to 1994. In that position, he directed the research and engineering aspects of the flight research programs at Dryden.

Deets has had several special assignments since September 1994 that took him away temporarily from the Research Engineering Division responsibilities. He led the preparation of the Dryden response to the NASA Federal Laboratory Review. He was Chairman of the NASA Non-Advocate Review of the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program in 1995, and will again serve in the capacity for the 1996 review. Among the programs Deets has been associated with at Dryden during his NASA career are the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, the X-29 Forward Swept Wing technology demonstrator aircraft, the F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) aircraft and the Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft.

In 1986 Deets completed a special assignment at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., where he led an effort to define the needs for flight research and flight testing within NASA. He then headed development of a flight research strategy for what was then NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, now called the Office of Aeronautics. This effort led to a major increase in emphasis on flight research by NASA.

In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.

He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995.

He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978.

Watchin' 'bunkers squirm with nonsensical invalid

arguments......priceless!!

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


HOW AND WHY WTC was destroyed

1.ATS was initially funded by CIA to get feedback on public reaction to accidents and incidents so watch out.You can observe that any real info is swiftly removed.

2.Regarding 911 Crash here is how it happened
a.WTC is the center of Phoenix worm hole center as similairly Pentagon part of the building
b.Using Sonic impulse beam weapon through ley lines of titicaca and another place a standing scalar wave pattern was created.
c.To mask any building collapse a holographic insert was placed to display planes crashing
d.Also Osama' s sleeper agents were asked to assist in diverting the people's attention

This is done at the behest of Draco and Annunaki and the NWO is still on.

If this does not wake up people then they will never will.

Do not ask for prooof or be naive to debunk this.The information is there ,it is upto you to make a CHOICE now an present which way you want to go

Good luck in your choices

With all the thread creep I am a little lost.
I dont speak for Pilotsfor911 truth.I actually got pissed at them because this speed issue and pitch authority issue should have been talked about on Sept 12.

Now to get to the red fish.
Can an aircraft made to fly at 300 kts/.80 mach fly faster? Yes
Can an airplane designed to handle a max of 2.5 G's take more?Yes

How controllable is that same aircraft at 500 knots and X G.s?
If it was possible to hit 510 Kts at sea level on the Boeings the "pilots" would have to push the nose down to the limits of the yoke. An arm twitch and she will start up. This is just basic speed stability that almost all aircraft are designed with.-exceptions are hi performance military fighters.
Wing mounted engines are below the center of gravity. Power up gives a nose up force.
So the terrorist is pushing with both hands on the yoke to keep from climbing-Picture the yoke pushed to the stop.This gets tireing after awhile. The aircraft Master Warning alarm is screaming at him,and he manages to find the WTC. Shortly his Habibi in the other airplane pulls off the same feat.

The USAF and Norad and sitting on their hands because most USAF Tactical Aviation are somewhere over Canada and the North Atlantic on War Games about Hijacked airlines and Russian Bombers .The war Games being run by the NMCC and the White House.(vigilant Guardian I believe it was called)

So now not only did OBL have the luck of the Taliban on flying the aircraft about 200 knots faster than they could fly-his lads actually hit something!
His luck didnt run out then either-the day he picked for the attack was the day when the NE USA was pretty much stripped bare of any means to stop him. I tell ya good thing god is on our side caused this SOB is looking blessed.

If you in all honesty think that something like 911 could have been done without some serious inside help then nothing I say-nothing written anywhere will change your minds.
I state again-an aircraft like a 767/757 cannot be flown straight an level at 510 kts at sea level.Not by me-not by a test pilot not by a guy with limited flight time.Its not a function of ability. Its a matter of aircraft design and flight control limits.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
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.

Tell that to the families that lost people. Tell that to the hundreds if not thousands of eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit (not to mention the "live" TV broadcasts).

If your mother, father, and siblings had been killed in the crash, what would you think of someone telling you that their plane was swapped, and the govt shot them all in the head and incinerated their bodies in order to fake it? Just saying

As a matter of fact, there are lots of families who believe the US govt. had a hand in their family members murder....particularly family members killed in the WTC's.

And your right, its the most terrible, unimaginable realisation for any person to have to accept that their own Govt. the very people you elected to govern would even consider such horror, let alone act on this thought....yet this is exactly what happened on 9/11.

Originally posted by dwiggen
Hey,

Why don't all of you enlightened/awake/(insert buzzword here) know-it-alls out there try to HELP the people who don't understand what really happened on 9/11 as opposed to making fun and criticizing the average Joe/Jane who might not know the whole story?

I mean, not everyone has the time to do all the research or fact-finding that many of you do. People have families, jobs; lives that they must attend to. And I realize that many of you do as well, but most of us aren't able to devote the time it takes to forgot the OS and believe something different. Maybe that's the real problem though... we're so busy that we don't have time to think for ourselves any more. But Christ... is it really our fault?

Help, don't hate.

Just a wild stab in the dark, but I imagine the feeling of superiority is important to them.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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

No.

Wow, it took a long time to get there. Phew.

So - at what point does it begin to break up? I assume you have some opinion? Perhaps a diagram?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by V1g0r0u5
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Whether you care for your safety or not, maximum limits are set for a reason. Does your car have a rev counter? If yes, does it have a red line?
What would happen if you routinely operated your vehicle beyond the red line?

If you ROUTINELY operated past red line, your engine would be destroyed. But what if your intent was to destroy the car anyway, how long, and how far past redline would it go before it blew? I have personally seen several engines go quite a bit past redline for brief periods with no ill effects, I wonder how much longer and farther they could go if preservation was not a factor?

I don't want to get into this, especially since the discussion has been reduced to name calling, but I just wanted to point out that almost all mechanical limits are overstated slightly for safety sake. Your speedometer reads slightly faster, your gas gauge says its empty before it really is, and your tachometer does have a red line that can be and often is hit without your car blowing up (just watch most motorcycle drivers or street racers). If your cars redline is 10k rpm, do you really think its going to explode when it hits 10,0001 rpm? In fact you can probably hit 15k rpm for a short period of time before all hell breaks loose.

That being said, do you think the terrorists were bothering to fly the planes within their safety limits right before they were all going to die anyway? If I was flying a plane into a building, I would have the throttle maxed, and doing a dive, anything I could to make the plane go as fast as possible, and I wouldn't give a damn if the tail or wing ripped off right before I hit.

In short, I am saying that the planes going faster than their rated speed is not only possible, but probable. If you are flying into a building, is there any reason NOT to be at full throttle? Has anyone even flown a plane to its "redline" at full throttle in a dive to find out its TRUE limits, other than the specs which any and every engineer pads just for breathing room.

I meant to just give a 1-2 line reply, but I guess I spewed a bit more and probably will just garner TLDR and being called an "idiot". So be it

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Blazer]