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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?"
Anyone can Photoshop charts and images. People can also fabricate videos and audio clips. It is not that hard.
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?"
< br />
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...
Always look before you leap.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Is this what you are "claiming"?
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.
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.
Also, do you really think the terrorists gave a crap about "overstressing" the aircraft in this high speed dive?
I also saw you posted earlier about how 3Gs of force would have "snapped" the wings clear off the aircraft,
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.
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.
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...
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?