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

page: 25
127
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Kevin there are a few speeds at work in the data you present.
One is indicated airspeed. Indicated airspeed is maxed out at about 320 for most airline jets. As you climb beyond a certain altitude you transition from Indicated airspeed to mach number.
example-At 35000 feet my mach number is .82 My indicated airspeed is 280 knots. but my TAS or true airspeed is 460 knots or in this example 530
mph.With 0 wind thats 530 over the ground.
this is all about compressibility-air density and air temperature.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown


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.



The type certificate data sheet is made by the manufacturer and then approved by the FAA.

767 Vmo is 360 knots.

Please note the altitude in your source for cruise speed. The speed is quoted at 35,000 feet. you need to learn the definition of Equivalent Airspeed and crossover altitude. You also need to learn the fundamentals of air density as altitude increases and the effects on True Airspeed.

As for the source of the Radar data, this has also been posted numerous times in this thread. Here it is again, straight from the NTSB.

NTSB Radar Data Impact Speed Study
(9.5mb pdf)

Happy studying!



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

Are you on the same thread, "GenRadek"? I have not seen Tiff claim what you are asking once in this thread. I have seen no one say the jets will "instantaneously fall apart" at any given speed. Can you show me please, or are you going to fall back to "I was just asking"?


Why must you misrepresent what others say just to win a lame internet argument? You do realize as soon as you start exaggerating what others are saying to the point of not even matching anymore, you have already defeated the entire purpose of the conversation, right? Now the OP just has to correct your warped representation of what she is saying, before explaining that the rest of your post was therefore irrelevant, and now look at all the time you have wasted just because of such a dishonest "mistake."

Who is really spreading the disinformation here?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by AquariusDescending]


Wait wait wait, "Tiffany" here is saying that the aircraft speed is too high as recorded by the aircraft on impact with the WTC. "She" is claiming that the aircraft cannot fly at that speed so low and in the "pull up" would have higher Gs which would damage or destroy the aircraft. Did you see "her" little diagram with the shaded in red area of: "Structural failure" at the high speed of 510? Ergo that is precisely what she is claiming. That the aircraft cannot operate at that speed for any amount of time because it will damage or destroy the aircraft. I'm sorry but its you who need to catch up with the thread.

What is constantly being said by members like TrickoftheShade, hooper, thedman, pteridine, and myself, but ignored by "Tiff" and the rest of "her" followers, is that:
A) the aircraft can exceed such speeds in a shallow dive and not lose structural integrity
B) there have been quite a few instances where large aircraft have gone into uncontrolled dives where both the speed AND G forces were exceeded by the aircraft, but managed to stay intact and in some cases land safely, even though the aircraft itself approached or broke the sound barrier and had nearly 5Gs pulled on the plane
C) The terrorists didnt care about operating the aircraft within safety limits when they were aiming at the WTC. They descended from 33,500ft to 28,500ft, and then continued the descent to 1,000ft in 5 minutes.
D) A controlled descent right into the WTC. Also done at full throttle. Usually aircraft on descent slow down, but in this case they sped up. Its like accelerating while going down a steep hill. It was not flying at 500mph for 5 minutes at 1,000ft, it came down from 28,500ft. At the most they were traveling at that high speed for a minute prior to impact. There were no fighter pilot style maneuvers, or jinking, or loop-de-loops. Just a controlled dive at full throttle with minor inputs to keep the aircraft on target.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JetStream
 


Agreed am no aeronautical engineer however it is possible for a 767 to achieve the speeds alleged. Would be interesting to find out what else it could have been, what I mean by that is that if it was to fast to be a 767 and they have radar data then they should be able to used that to tell us what it was. unless of course it was really a 767



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I know that wasn’t directed at me, but thanks for the catch up. I agree with what you said.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

There is no need to compare it to another aircraft.


IOW, you know that it's absurd to compare a modern jet to a straight wing fighter plane, and wish to avoid making yet another absurd comparison.


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


Over 5 G's worth. I think the brainiacs at pffft claim what 3 G? I think someone needs to check this, especially after their 1000G delusion of the plane at the Pentagon. Something tells me that their math sucks.


I suppose you now think al-Shehhi can fly a 767


Yep. I had zero hours, and zero prior interest in aviation when I flew a King Air once on a business trip with some colleagues. They had no idea that was the case for a few minutes until they noticed the pilot looking around for a chart or something similar. The look on their faces was priceless...

Flying is easy. Takeoff/landing, not so much.


with half it's tail missing


You claiming this was the case?


at more than 150 knots over Max operating, running out of elevator, trim, pitch authority


Looked like he had pretty decent authority to me.


and hit a target with a 25 foot margin of error each side of wing tip?


Sharpshooter fallacy. I guess that the amount of roll was as "they" wanted to maximize damage too, eh?


Not to mention the "hijacker" was perhaps wearing a G-Suit to counter the effects of A-LOC?


Were the 747 pilots wearing them?


Your theory gets more absurd every day Joey.


My theory is that pfffffft and its members are delusional, insane idiots.

So far it's been proven by way of:

1-their 1000G insanity
2-their cabin door insanity
3-their tracking of IP's to harass dissenters insanity
4- their insta-banning of anyone that doesn't agree with them at their website insanity
5-their throwing Warren Stutt under the bus, after his data didn't back their views insanity
6-Rob's veiled threats against people like Mark Roberts insanity

You get the picture......



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by JetStream
 


Agreed am no aeronautical engineer however it is possible for a 767 to achieve the speeds alleged.


A NASA Flight Director, United and American Airlines 757/767 Capts and a whole list of Aeronautical Engineers, pilots and Aircraft Accident Investigators, disagree with you.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

@GenRedek

This has been cover ad nauseam in this thread.

You need to learn the fundamentals of a V-G Diagram. I didn't create the diagram, nor design it. I just plugged in the V Speeds from a 767 which correspond to the definitions of a V-G diagram.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the manufacturer for assigning such speeds.

(Remember to use the bottom horizontal scroll bar to scroll right)


Here is the link once again for your studying pleasure, use it.

www.apstraining.com...

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by Crakeur]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 

I don't want to jump in on something directed to TiffanyInLA but since she has explained this stuff already or directed people to places where it is addressed, I just want to remind you that the cruising speed of the aircraft is given for the usual cruising altitude. When the plane goes into a dive it may reach higher speeds but these bleed off as the plane enters denser air.

If the speed does not bleed off, the aircraft will break apart when it reaches low altitude if it maintains speeds exceeding manufacturer's specifications.

In the case of Egypt Air 990 (EA990) the flight data recorders were found and the plane which crashed in the ocean after a dive from 22,000 Ft., exceeded the manufacturers specified speed during the dive. However, at the bottom of the ocean, two distinct debris fields were found 1200 meters apart. One of these fields contained the fuselage and most of the wings while the other contained an engine, part of one wing and some other parts.

The NTSB concluded that the aircraft broke apart in the air, losing one engine before it hit the water. Air pressure on the engine could not be processed by it's fan and led to the engine being ripped off the wing.

This info is recounted in the video linked to by the OP.

This in essence is also the argument cited against the high speeds of impacting aircraft on 9/11 by the designer of the Boeing "shaker system", who also doesn't believe the officially cited speeds for the aircraft involved at the WTC that day.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by freighttrain
 


Not by the bridge.. It was at our 9 oclock and if was on an angle down... there are over passes there and the pentagon is down below.. On the angle it is impossible that it could have done anything other than hit the building.. we could see it until about 300 yards from the building. Then we saw the explosion.. We didnt see it enter.. but with the speed and angle.. it would be impossible to do anything but!


First off you never ACTUALLY saw the hit... but let's assume there was NO way for the plane to pull up... you DO realize that 911 commission claimed a "PASSENGER plane" crashed into pentagon and many lives were lost.... ?!
and that their remains were found on site... if as you claim it was a Jet flying into the pentage (which I personally don't discredit) could not possibly carry more then ONE passenger!

So even if it was a jet plane (which is as plausible as missile story, rather then a flight 77) this does not discredit OP thread or the movement, as this was a fabrication. The TRUTH still remains to be hidden from public with miss info.

So if THEY lie to you about it being a passenger plane and you saw a Jet, why do you assume that ANYTHING else they tell you is the truth?! So far OP has more truth in what she says and so do many 911 movement then official story.

So please.... don't bash the OP because she said it's a missle?! bottom line is that a plane went down somewhere and many were killed


six

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Some interesting comments from Rob Balsamo here...

Rob Balsamo on Pilots for 9/11 truth forum


He was merely pointing out that when an aircraft exceeds such limitations, it does not immediately fall out of the sky and he is correct. Vne/Vmo/Mmo are limitations set by the manufacturer with a safety margin built in. Actual structural failure speeds can only be obtained from the manufacturer wind tunnel testing which we have been trying to gain access t such data with not much success to date.


In other words, he doesn't know whether the plane could do it or not.

Those words are worth bearing in mind when citing Pilots for 9/11 truth, particularly in the VMO argument.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
So if NASA Expert A says that there is no conspiracy, because here's the proof



and NASA expert B says that there is a conspiracy, because here's the proof


you will always side with expert B.

Not because he has "Proof" but because he agree's with you. Because you get to make him into the bad guy, so you can further your heathen agenda.

His "Proof" has been proven false, time and time again. Over and over, and will continue to be such, until the end of time.

But-you-will-never-be-able-to-comprehend-any-of-it.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by JetStream
 


Agreed am no aeronautical engineer however it is possible for a 767 to achieve the speeds alleged. Would be interesting to find out what else it could have been, what I mean by that is that if it was to fast to be a 767 and they have radar data then they should be able to used that to tell us what it was. unless of course it was really a 767


Various posters in this thread are using confusing juxtaposition of terms without either knowing or understanding what they mean.
Aircraft, at least under Part 25 for Air Carrier aircraft are certified by giving it a Type Certificate. The TC is prepared by the manufacturer (Boeing) and approved by the FAA. That TC sets out design limits and operating limitations. For instance, it will set out design g load limits, which must fall within certain parameters. The certification documents must also contain test results showing that the aircraft has a 50% g load margin of safety. So if the 767-200 has a design load limit of 2.5 gs, the ultimate load limit would be 3.75 gs. At that loading, something breaks, usually an upper wing panel failing in compression for positive loading. It is quite spectacular to watch an ultimate load limit test.
The Type Certificate Data Sheet also sets out speed limitations. For these there are no safety buffer zones. The "never exceed" speed (Vne) is really the NEVER exceed speed, not the rarely exceed or don't exceed for more than a little while speed. The concern with exceeding these speeds is not only that the aircraft will suddenly start shedding parts but also that it will become aerodynamically uncontrollable by virtue of compressibility, mach tuck, high speed control reversal, or any number of other things that can make you want to go back to towing banners in Myrtle Beach. There are all sorts of speeds specified: Landing gear extension (Vlo); landing gear extended (Vle); Flap extension and extended speeds; slat speeds, etc. There is a great story about Hoot Gibson and the "go-faster" flap circuit breaker switch on a 727.
en.wikipedia.org...
Anyway, there is no required testing, destructive or otherwise, required to document the speed restrictions
You can look up the TCDS for any certified aircraft here - www.airweb.faa.gov...
OOps - I'm running out of 1s and 0s.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
This video contains the "shaker system" designer's opinions among some other stuff. He speaks right after the short opening voice over by Dan Rather.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
This is going to be said once, and once only...

The topic of the thread is:

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

Yep. Just checked, it still is. It is not conjecturing upon who might be who, or calling each other whatever names you think you can get away with...

Discuss the topic at hand.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


BRAVO, and thank you for your ability to shed light on this dark issue, i for one do believe ! You have done a wonderful job of your post, well researched and the facts presented, with the links as well, i have been at this since last night when i came across it. I for one have read, studied and watched the videos! Add all this info up, and the only wise conclusion is; Yes there is something more to this than meets the eye! There are still a lot of unanswered questions,such as: was the gov involved? was and is there a on going cover up? if the towers were so well built why did the come down? was this planed? will we ever find the truth? will we except the truth? will we ever know!

[edit on 13-7-2010 by bekod]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
The max CRUISE speed for the 767-200 is 493 knots. Where does the 360 come from? A plane doesn't break up immediately upon exceeding design limits. This is the same sort of garbage as steel doesn't melt at those temperatures". It may not but it loses structural integrity by 800 degrees.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pacific_waters
The max CRUISE speed for the 767-200 is 493 knots. Where does the 360 come from? A plane doesn't break up immediately upon exceeding design limits. This is the same sort of garbage as steel doesn't melt at those temperatures". It may not but it loses structural integrity by 800 degrees.


360 is the Max Operating Speed of the 767. It is in the Type Certificate Data Sheet. Just google those words.

493 is at cruise altitude, 35,000 feet. Not at or near sea level. Air is thinner at higher altitudes.

This was covered above on this page, and the bottom of the last page.

(Those who I PMed, disregard the PM).

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



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

Originally posted by neformore
Some interesting comments from Rob Balsamo here...

Rob Balsamo on Pilots for 9/11 truth forum


He was merely pointing out that when an aircraft exceeds such limitations, it does not immediately fall out of the sky and he is correct. Vne/Vmo/Mmo are limitations set by the manufacturer with a safety margin built in. Actual structural failure speeds can only be obtained from the manufacturer wind tunnel testing which we have been trying to gain access t such data with not much success to date.


In other words, he doesn't know whether the plane could do it or not.

Those words are worth bearing in mind when citing Pilots for 9/11 truth, particularly in the VMO argument.


The above post was made in Nov 2008. It has since been updated and expanded upon with the further research of Pilots For 9/11 Truth in their latest release, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

You can find it streaming free on the web, or in the various links posted on past pages.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Dear Tiffany, Do you know how to examine the black box data? Why must I repeat myself.





new topics
 
127
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join