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: 23
127
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by yarosh
 
First off, I agree the whole 9/11 fairy tale the government expects us to believe is a sham.

Having said that, it's a tad hard to find rocket launchers here in the US so that's probably not going to happen, unless the government sells arms to people here in the US.

I've said it time and time again, if terrorists are so hell bent on killing US citizens here in the US, we can't stop them. Terrorists could kill dozens of people in a few seconds at any Mall in the country. They could blow up gasoline storage tanks easily. What guards those 20,000 gallon tanks? Chain link fence. There are countless ways to cause harm to people here, but it doesn't happen often, why? Because tptb want to keep people scared of those boogiemen to keep then in line. With that comes war funding, which is another way of saying MONEY. follow it and find your answers.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

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!"


Huh?

So Rob's been posting info from a P-51 MUSTANG and passing this tripe off as being relavant to the Boeing?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by largo
 


" ... 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. "

Although this thread is not about the plane at the Pentagon , I've seen several of you allude to it . Therefore , I hope I'm not off-topic by asking if you would consider that your above statements might be erroneous ?

I tend to remain silent on these 9/11 threads anymore , as I have grown weary of them .

But , I will provide a very credible source , if you'd like , that has shown the above assumptions to be untrue .

I have no intentions of getting into this debate but , I will link the source if anyone would like to consider the alternative .



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie

OH, OKAY.
So this is what PROOF looks like, your visuals at "9 o'clock" and NO WAY it could not have hit the Pentagon.


Notice that he DIDN'T see any flyover. And that his view was blocked, it eliminates the excuse that pffffft uses about the"explosions" being designed to"stun" everyone momentarily so that the "flyover" would be missed.

Note that there are zero witnesses to any flyover.

That has escaped you, eh?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream
maybe I am not being clear enough for some to understand.

An airplane-any airplane-is a balance of forces. Lift Drag thrust and gravity. The controlability of the airplane is designed within a certain speed range and weight range.

If you exceed Mach speed limits,you run into shockwave formation that can wash out the tailplane. This is caused mach tuck.
If you exceed airspeed-and at low altitude this is the major limitation on the airframe, you run out of pitch authority to keep the nose down.
The horizontal stabilizer of an airplane-the tail mounted wings- have up and down limits. these limits are mechanical stops.
Angle of attack works like this sccaracing.com...

As an airplane goes slower it needs more tail down force to maintain a nose up angle.
As the plane goes faster it needs less tail down force. As you increase speed beyond the design limits you need more nose down. At a certain speed you will run out of nose down authority.And the Aircraft will climb regardless of your nose down force on the yoke-simply because the aircraft is not built to exceed or fly 200 kts outside of its flight envelope.
Thats just a cost for no gain.

So please stop with the bs of exceeding limits and breaking apart etc. Thats not the argument. The argument is that the plane CANNOT maintain level flight at a speed almost 230 mph faster than its design maximum. The control surfaces do not have the necessary "bite" into the air to allow you to do that.

So-the issue is then the total energy of the aircraft.Kinetic and chemical(fuel) on impact.
The reason for the high speed is the theorized energy required to drop the WTC.
If the aircraft cannot reach that speed something else is needed to account for the energy. If you break apart the speed argument you are then forced to think the unthinkable.

That is the issue and thats why people seem to be trying so hard to derail this thread.
If you realize the physical impossibility of a 767 flying 200 knots above vmo in straight and level flight the whole house of cards comes falling down.



Well said Jetstream.

If anyone would like a visualization of what Jetstream is talking about above, please see the analysis in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
pilotsfor911truth.org...

You're looking for the "Control" Scene toward the last half of the presentation.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream
If you realize the physical impossibility of a 767 flying 200 knots above vmo in straight and level flight the whole house of cards comes falling down.

I agree with this post. There are a couple of other issues like that, which bring the whole house of cards tumbling down . . . if one can think.

Thinking. That's the problem.

The 9/11 debate is largely a battle for the minds and hearts of people who can't think . . . as are elections. For people who can think the 9/11 debate ended a long time ago. 9/11 was an inside job.

The preponderance of the evidence points to that fact, for people who can think.

Unfortunately for truthers arguing a technical argument, the mass of the people in any country decide all the important issues. Most of these people have to be convinced in order for any intiative to be undertaken on any issue.

The NWO solved that problem by reducing the mass of the people to a state of apathy on virtually every issue not connected with an entertainment or sports personality.

This means that now truthers are fighting a war on two fronts. A war against apathy and a war against intellectual weakness.

There is only one weapon that can be successful in that sort of war.

-------------------------Personality.----------------------------

To make headway against the NWO or any Globalist agenda, 9/11 truth or any other anti-globalist group has got to sell sizzle. The big question for us is where is the sizzle going to come from?

Rock and roll and Hollywood have really done a Leni Reifenstahl on the public, with some exceptions. We are still waiting for the star who can make our cause the cool one. That's the reality.

Being right and being smart doesn't cut it in these sorts of contests. Sadly.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by trebor451

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!"


Huh?

So Rob's been posting info from a P-51 MUSTANG and passing this tripe off as being relavant to the Boeing?



And yet the P-51 has a faster rated dive speed than the 767.

Don't let that one bake your noodle too much.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream
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.


I would agree with your conclusions but have some disagreement with the aerodynamics in your post. The center of gravity is fairly fixed, except to the extent you move fuel around among tanks or reseat pax. The center of lift moves aft with increasing speed. In almost every aircraft the center of gravity is forward of the center of lift, giving the aircraft, in the absence of any countering forces, a tendency for the nose to drop. Stability is achieved by using the horizontal tail and elevator to generate negative lift or a downforce that balances "nose-heaviness." If the CG is 1 inch forward of center of lift and the effective weight at CG is 200,000 pounds, then the tail needs to produce 200,000 inch pounds of downforce divided by the distance in inches from the center of lift to the center of downforce. So, as speed increases and center of lift moves aft, the lever arm (distance from CL to center of downforce decreases making the elevator need to work harder. At some point you run out of elevator and encounter "mach tuck" when the nose radically drops and usually the tail rips off rapidly followed by the wings. Several Learjets were lost in such accidents. MMO in the 20 series Lears is, if I remember correctly from freight dog days, was .92. Aileron buzz started at about .96 and tuck at .98 or so.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by saturnsrings
 


you are correct and your point of view is normal as normal as it should be
why not go to the wallmart buy an ak 47 with few clips of ammo walk into lets say mall and kill everyone around... much simpler than 9/11 cost of operation few hundrerd bucks per terrorist... you could deploy hundreds of them because necessary training involves walking and pulling a trigger... much simpler than an aviation course...



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
Easy, our thread hostess is only regurgitating what she is reading off of someone's website. She has yet asked herself, "Who owns the website, do they have a personal agenda, and is the information on the site fabricated?"


This was posted for you before, numerous times, please click on it.

patriotsquestion911.com...

You can see all their pretty smiles, many in uniform, along with summaries of how they got started researching 9/11.



Anyone can Photoshop charts and images. People can also fabricate videos and audio clips. It is not that hard.


It's also not that hard to just google the name of the charts used to see if they were fabricated. You should try it. Many lead back to official sources, such as faa.gov, ntsb.gov.

Now certainly the FAA and NTSB can fabricate information. But they need to be held responsible for the information they provide. Don't you think?


Another question she has failed to ask is, "Did the site owner really talk to a NASA flight director, or did the site owner sit down with a buddy and make the whole story up?"





Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996
Release: 96-10
Printer Friendly Version
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.

Source - www.nasa.gov...
< br />


Always look before you leap.


You should take some of your own advice.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
But, since you're willing to accept his conclusions based on his experience, you don't dismiss the hundreds of thousands of structural engineers and pilots who accept the Official Story, do you?


Certainly you can lists these "hundreds of thousands"?

Because the only lists I see are listed here.

patriotsquestion911.com...

They seem to grow.

You seem to be the one offering logical fallacies. Especially if you are unable to list your "hundreds of thousands".



Here are the membership totals of architectural and engineering societies that DO NOT question the official report:

American Society of Civil Engineers: 123,000

American Institute of Architects: 80,000

American Society of Mechanical Engineers: 120,000

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: 370,000

American Institute of Chemical Engineers: 40,000

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: 35,000

Total: 768,000.


Please provide evidence that these 768,000 people read through the NIST reports and critiques of said reports in order to make the claim they do not question the official report. Thanks!

Nevermind, we all know youc an't support with facts that 768,000 people do not question the official report/s.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NineEleven11
Has anyone mentioned the fact that commertial airliners have built in governors that don't even allow the pilot to exceed certain G forces? They would have had to modify/override the governors to pull such maneuvers I think.

Only on Airbus aircraft.

Boeing have a different design philosophy, which doesn't restrict the pilots in anyway.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NineEleven11
Has anyone mentioned the fact that commertial airliners have built in governors that don't even allow the pilot to exceed certain G forces? They would have had to modify/override the governors to pull such maneuvers I think.


What you are describing is a "fly-by-wire" system which the Boeings don't have. The Airbus does have such a system where pressures on the sidestick controller are digitally converted and run through a computer to activate actuators on the control surfaces. The Boeing 757/767 series does have a stick shaker/puller to warn of aerodynamic stall and warnings for overspeed but nothing for g forces. biggles-software.com...
Aircraft certified under Part 25 of the regs have load limit requirements that are pretty complicated but basically require a design and testing to 2.5 gs positive and 1.0 negative at max takeoff weight.
adg.stanford.edu...
It would be speculation but I've always suspected that Boeings were used because they were not fly-by-wire and have a conventional yoke instead of a sidestick controller.
BTW, the warning systems are fairly easy to override using an emergency disconnect button.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Some would have us believe that the conspiracy of the century was pulled off with perfection only to fall victim to armchair sleuths discovering inconsistent details.


Others may argue that considering the scale of the 9/11 event, that these "inconsistent details" could be cleared up without much effort by people who know what they are taling about. That doesn't seem to be the case though does it.

The rub seems to be that some believe that these plane can fly at sea level at 500mph at a fixed altitude, while other believe it is an impossibilty.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Wow, this is really bizarre. NO ONE in the world is as stupid in real life as these three bozos are pretending to be. I guess there are people that stupid but they probably wouldn't be able to figure out how to turn on the computer.

NO ONE is saying the planes will start to break up at one knot over 420. However, 90 kts above is a different story. It is NOT like exceeding the speed limit in your car, nor is it like redlining the engine. To drag out the car analogy, it's more like taking your car with the alleged top speed of 130 and somehow getting it to hit 230 mph. And for that matter, I'm sure you are as inept as 99 percent of drivers on the road are, and wouldn't be able to keep it on the road at 100, let alone 200.

Within days after this scam happened, I remember there were a bunch of "top gun" real fighter pilots who went on the record saying only a pilot of their caliber would MAYBE be able to fly the plane the way these guys did. Most of them doubted if they themselves, pretty much the best pilots in the world, would have been able to make a 767 do that, not even counting getting it up to those speeds, but just to pull the type of high G turns that they did.

These diagrams of operating parameters are not MADE UP. Where is that coming from? They are from Boeing, you know, the guys who BUILT THE PLANES. Do you think they just guess at the numbers? What if they didn't know what would happen at 100 kts? Do you think they would just build the planes and see what happened? Come on. These numbers are calculated with tons of model testing, computer modeling, and wind tunnel tests.

It's true, they NEVER will build a 100 million dollar airplane first, and then get a test pilot to suicide test it until the wings tear off. You wanna volunteer to do that to prove your moronic points?

I happen to know SEVERAL people who lost family members in the WTC that day. ALL of them think the OS is complete bull. My brother watched the entire second plane striking, people leaping from the windows, and all the rest from the roof of his office four blocks away. HE doesn't believe the OS. His wife was IN one of the other WTC buildings during the whole thing. They kept all of them captive in there until 530 pm that day so they could not see what was going on and then be live eyewitnesses to the whole charade. We didn't know if she was dead or alive ALL DAY LONG. Why would they do that? SHE does not believe the OS either. Are any of you people ACTUAL EYEWITNESSES? I don't think so....

I know several commercial airline pilots as well. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM agrees it was impossible. They're sort of unwilling to go on record as such and then lose their cushy jobs just so that...............NOTHING will change. Are any of you willing to wreck your careers over this issue? I doubt it.

These three freaks here trying to "debunk" this just CANNOT be this dumb in reality. So why would they be bothering with this thread, onto the second day now? Don't they have anything better to do, like a job? Or is THIS THEIR JOB?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by CaptChaos]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

Thanks for the heads up princess,greetings from ireland.
It is shocking that nothing has being done over it! I do belive there will be justice!! It might take a long time and it might be a pattsy but someone will be held responsable



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So "Tiffany", let me get this straight.....

There is no way, shape or form any aircraft can reach speeds of 500mph in a controlled dive? Especially passenger jets? And thats because they will instantaneously fall apart the second they reach that "critical" speed?


Nice strawman, but I never claimed that "any aircraft" cannot reach such speeds.


Is this what you are "claiming"?


No


Either you are just regurgitating the same ol tripe from Rob's site, or you have no clue when it comes to aircraft and their capabilities.


It is clear you don't know what any one else claims as Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not make this claim either, which is why you never source your claims. Because you make it up out of thin air.


You dont think that an aircraft plummeting from 41,000ft to 9,500ft is going to put some serious stress on the aircraft, especially with G forces at 5?? You really should do some REAL research into aircraft durability and study up on the many instances of large passenger jets reaching very high speeds in dives that were well above the "danger" zone.


Of course it will put major stress on the aircraft, Perhaps the aircraft will even suffer "major structural damage". And it did.


Also, do you really think the terrorists gave a crap about "overstressing" the aircraft in this high speed dive?


Does it make sense for a primary trained pilot to fly an aircraft WELL into the Structural failure zone if he wants to make it to his target? Perhaps it does to you, but not to a pilot.


I also saw you posted earlier about how 3Gs of force would have "snapped" the wings clear off the aircraft,


I never made such a claim. Don't you ever get tired of using such blatant strawman arguments? Stop making stuff up.



but in the 747 high speed dive, the aircraft reached forces of 5Gs. And the pilots managed to regain control after plummeting nearly 35,000ft.
www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de...

The maximum vertical acceleration forces recorded during the descent were 4.8Gs and 5.lGs as the airplane descended through 30,552 feet and 19,083 feet, respectively. The 5.1G peak value was recorded on a portion of the tape where data had been lost originally and subsequently recovered, but this value is consistent with the adjacent data which show an arresting of descent rate and a pull-up.


The 747 is not a 767. The 747 is a faster airplane than the 767. The 747 in this accident was also an "SP". Do you know what the SP stands for? Probably not. Here's a hint, it is a modified version of the 747 for higher performance and faster speed. The 747SP cruises, yes CRUISES above the Max operating of a 767.

Do you know what this means? Clearly you don't. Let me explain.

The 747 is designed to handle higher speeds than the 767. The 747SP is designed to handle higher speeds than the 747.

Yet, this 747SP also suffered "major structural damage".


Although the airplane suffered major structural damage during the upset, descent, and subsequent recovery, only two persons among the 274 passengers and crew on board were injured seriously.


Source - aviation-safety.net...

It is only because of the great skill of the Captain that he was able to get it on the ground safely, with an airplane missing pieces.





Another plane crash involving a 767 had the aircraft going into a nosedive and approaching Mach .99, with a 2.4G force. The plane managed to stay together through the dive, regained short control, before finally losing control and impacting the ocean: EgyptAir flight 990
www.ntsb.gov...


EA990 broke apart in flight. This was discussed thoroughly in the Pilots For 9/11 Truth analysis and presentation, as well on pages 3-6? (maybe more) of this very thread. Read it.



Are you aware that the human body can withstand 4-5Gs before G-LOC? Also "Tiff" did you know that roller coasters can easily cause between 3.5Gs and 6.3Gs?


Depends on the human body. According to the F-22 Accident report I sourced, A-LOC onset happens between 2-3 G. I suppose you think your Hijackers were wearing G Suits?



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join