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: 24
127
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
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.


Seeing that every video and every eyewitness watching the events of the day saw the passenger jets hit WTC 1 and 2, that necessarily means that it WAS possible, doesn't it?




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
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.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by CaptChaos]


Well said CaptChaos.

Check this out for a good analogy regarding control.

Scene From: "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" - Control
pilotsfor911truth.org...



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?


They cannot debate the facts. All they can do is attempt character assassination, libel and spin as much as possible hoping someone, anyone, will look the other way.

Case in point, look at JoeyCanoli above twisting in the wind claiming Rob Balsamo as homeless.

Anyone who checks faa.gov airmen database will readily see Rob is not homeless. I read the threads, Joey and his herd just flat out lie. Rob rented a room from Tino for a month, more than 2 years ago. But they bring it up in this thread. Why?

Because they have nothing else in their arsenal. All they can do is blatantly lie.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


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

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



Oh, don't worry Rob, it won't bake my noodle in the slightest. The only ones getting their noodles baked (or re-baked?) are truthers over the sheer lunacy of comparing a WW2 straight wing fighter plane, designed before compressibility was understood, to a modern jet plane when they were.

So what WW2 fighter plane do you propose to explain the fact that there has been an instance where a 747 exceeded Mach 1 and 5G's, recovered from the dive, and was returned to service?

How can that be? How can a plane so severely exceed its safety zone and still be flyable?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Ok, Maybe Tiffany is a woman. She holds fast like a woman. Please explain why the data from the black boxes was not properly faked.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
so that wasnt a passenger plane i saw hit the tower that day ??

guess me and several other million witnesses must be dellusional ??

if someone has any real evidence i would say bring it to the attention of your local officials or give larry king a call real proof of this being more then a horrible act of fear and inhumanity would be monumental and certainly jumped on by any media source... RIGHT?

Be Well



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
...it won't bake my noodle in the slightest.


Clearly it is... baking your noodle.


The only ones getting their noodles baked (or re-baked?) are truthers over the sheer lunacy of comparing a WW2 straight wing fighter plane, designed before compressibility was understood, to a modern jet plane when they were.


And yet the P-51 has a higher rated dive speed, cruises about the same speed as a 767, and has a service ceiling of 41,000 feet, higher than the 767.

Do you know why that is?

Clearly you don't, but don't let it bake your noodle.

S

o what WW2 fighter plane do you propose to explain the fact that there has been an instance where a 747 exceeded Mach 1 and 5G's, recovered from the dive, and was returned to service?

How can that be? How can a plane so severely exceed its safety zone and still be flyable?


Seems you missed my reply on the bottom of the last page.

Here is it again.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
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.





Joey, go outside, get some fresh air. You don't have what it takes to play with the big boys, nor a little girl.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by triplescorpio
so that wasnt a passenger plane i saw hit the tower that day ??

guess me and several other million witnesses must be dellusional ??


I'm not commenting on whether you are delusional or not but even if you were not delusional, it might still be possible for you to be mistaken.

This small clip contains some comments from your fellow eyewitnesses who didn't think the plane they were watching was an ordinary airliner.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by triplescorpio
if someone has any real evidence i would say bring it to the attention of your local officials or give larry king a call real proof of this being more then a horrible act of fear and inhumanity would be monumental and certainly jumped on by any media source... RIGHT?



Dwain Deets tried. It was outlined in the OP.

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who Is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.


Pilots For 9/11 Truth have also contacted the FBI, NTSB, ALPA, APA, a whole list of media outlets, numerous members of Congress...

NTSB
pilotsfor911truth.org...

FBI (mp3)
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Congress
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Media
pilotsfor911truth.org...

The list goes on...




[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


So what WW2 fighter plane do you propose to explain the fact that there has been an instance where a 747 exceeded Mach 1 and 5G's, recovered from the dive, and was returned to service?

How can that be? How can a plane so severely exceed its safety zone and still be flyable?


Seems you missed my reply on the bottom of the last page.

Here is it again.



Why aren't you comparing this to another WW2 fighter to explain?

Surely not because you're comparing apples to oranges?

Where's the chart for the 747?

Let's see where its safety zones are.....



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
triplescorpio...after all the posting i did thats what you get out of the post?

The speed was reported by the various agencies to explain how WTC1 and 2 could be brought down by impacts from planes-planes similar to a Boeing 707 that they built the towers to survive a hit by.

the speed reported cannot be flown in the 757 767 with a straight and level path.

so something else had to make the towers collapse after impact.
If the aircraft cannot meet the speed requirements as presented by .gov...we have a whole new ballgame.

I strongly believe the buck stops here on the speed issue. I have always said this is the magick bullet.
Yet ppl have said everything from micro nukes to scaler weapons to probably 2 NYC rats humping in the basement.
Maybe its all just red herrings to throw you off the scent. 2 airplanes hit the WTC towers 1 and 2. Three buildings collapsed.
The USAF was off on bomber and airline hijack intercepts for a military war game run from the WH basement by Cheney on that fateful day.
6 months prior to 911 the WH ordered that all intercepts would be approved by the WH. That one rule allowed 911 to happen.Without that rule Norad and the AF would have been on scene on time in all probability.
we know many of the so called telephone calls couldnt happen and didnt happen in flight...yet the stories were preped and ready for us to digest.

I am use to the mushroom routine by big brother. Without giving a thread creep I was 15 minutes ahead of TWA800. I asked why we had a different route that day to the North Atlantic Tracks to our dispatcher. the dispatcher said because the alert or warning areas on the usual track were active. About a year later i see the FBI mouth piece with the CIA made video telling me the areas were not active.go figure.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by GenRadek



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?


The physiology of g-forces is way more complicated than that. The effects depend on a.)rate of onset; b)amount of load); c) duration; d) tolerance of the subject; e) physical status of the subject.
I fly competition aerobatics in a Sukhoi 31 and can, at the end of a season when tolerance is high, tolerate rapid onset short duration loads of +10 (multiple inside snap roll)to -9(outside snap on a vertical down line. But at the beginning of the season if dehydrated, a long 5 g pull at high speed from inverted horizontal to upright can start tunnel vision symptoms, the first sign of impending g-lock. And a g suit doesn't help much. It gives you an extra g or so of tolerance. The reclined seat in the Sukhoi helps much more by effectively reducing the heart-brain vertical distance. I have G-lokked in the centrifuge back in my F-4 days. It's really weird. Vision goes tunnel, then hearing goes, then the lights go out. Even after lessening the load, the lights come on but nobody's home for quite some time. Full recovery from sightless, silenced addleness can take 30 seconds or more.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Case in point, look at JoeyCanoli above twisting in the wind claiming Rob Balsamo as homeless.



But you DID IN FACT post using Tino's screen name, yes?

And deny it?

Not to mention the little indiscretion where Rob decided to post under the R_Mackey username.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Hi, I am going to debunk this information.

Your “expert source” said that it was a Boeing 767-200 that hit the south tower, it was in fact a 767-222 there is his first mistakes in any case it does not matter because his speeds are wrong. According to him a Boeing 767 has a “maximum operating velocity of 360 knots” That’s about 414.3 MPH. This is wrong because a Boeing 767 has a maximum cursing speed of 540 MPH it is reasonable to assume that the dive speed is greater and that it would be possible to achieve a dive speed of 586MPH (510 knots).

Source

aviation-safety.net...
www.boeing.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 



And here's a lttle presentation by Rob Balsamo from youtube..

www.youtube.com...

The tests done, clearly show you the plane falls apart in those speeds..



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why aren't you comparing this to another WW2 fighter to explain?

Surely not because you're comparing apples to oranges?

Where's the chart for the 747?

Let's see where its safety zones are.....


There is no need to compare it to another aircraft.

The 747SP exceeded it limits, this caused the aircraft to suffer "major structural damage". This was expected. It exceeded its limits.

Did you not see it was missing half it's tail?

The only reason it got on the ground safely was due to the expertise of the Captain.

I suppose you now think al-Shehhi can fly a 767 with half it's tail missing, at more than 150 knots over Max operating, running out of elevator, trim, pitch authority, zero time in type, and hit a target with a 25 foot margin of error each side of wing tip? Not to mention the "hijacker" was perhaps wearing a G-Suit to counter the effects of A-LOC? Perhaps he was trained in AGSM....


Your theory gets more absurd every day Joey.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Hi, I am going to debunk this information.

Your “expert source” said that it was a Boeing 767-200 that hit the south tower, it was in fact a 767-222 there is his first mistakes in any case it does not matter because his speeds are wrong. According to him a Boeing 767 has a “maximum operating velocity of 360 knots” That’s about 414.3 MPH. This is wrong because a Boeing 767 has a maximum cursing speed of 540 MPH it is reasonable to assume that the dive speed is greater and that it would be possible to achieve a dive speed of 586MPH (510 knots).

Source

aviation-safety.net...
www.boeing.com...




For the 10th time, Boeings do not cruise at 1000 feet above sea level.

Air is thicker at sea level than their normal cruise altitudes above 30,000 feet.

Vmo for the 767 is 360 knots.

Vd is 420 knots. (410 for other models IIRC)

Google 767 FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet

Learn your V speeds directly from the FAA. It would be a good idea to read the thread as well as this has been covered numerous times.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Na i would rather use the manufacture, as inconvenient at that may be for you. Then I also want specifics on how they calculated that speed 510 knots, and sources. I also suspect that the FAA talk about safe operating velocities rather than what the aircraft can actually achieve.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
The physiology of g-forces is way more complicated than that. The effects depend on a.)rate of onset; b)amount of load); c) duration; d) tolerance of the subject; e) physical status of the subject.
I fly competition aerobatics in a Sukhoi 31 and can, at the end of a season when tolerance is high, tolerate rapid onset short duration loads of +10 (multiple inside snap roll)to -9(outside snap on a vertical down line. But at the beginning of the season if dehydrated, a long 5 g pull at high speed from inverted horizontal to upright can start tunnel vision symptoms, the first sign of impending g-lock. And a g suit doesn't help much. It gives you an extra g or so of tolerance. The reclined seat in the Sukhoi helps much more by effectively reducing the heart-brain vertical distance. I have G-lokked in the centrifuge back in my F-4 days. It's really weird. Vision goes tunnel, then hearing goes, then the lights go out. Even after lessening the load, the lights come on but nobody's home for quite some time. Full recovery from sightless, silenced addleness can take 30 seconds or more.


Agreed 4nsicphd. Thanks for taking the time to explain it more thoroughly.

I just didn't feel like typing out a long explanation to someone who wouldn't understand it anyway.

By the way, the "hijackers" were not trained for Aerobatic competition.

2-3 G's was experienced for a duration of more than 2 mins on the final leg, at more than 150 knots over a 767-200 Vmo, according to the data provided by the NTSB.

al-Shehhi didn't appear to be in all that good shape either.





[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join