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: 27
127
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I can see the diagram quite well thank you. Very pretty colors. However, as you have ignored this time and again, the fact that REALITY makes mincemeat of your idea. Will you address the 747SP and why it managed to survive the 5Gs without falling apart? Will you address the EgyptAir 767 that broke the sound barrier in its plunge before regaining altitude momentarily and not breaking up, before it finally impacted with the ocean?

Also why is so hard to recall in the SHORT time the aircraft that impacted the second tower was descending from 28,500ft within five minutes to 1,000ft. I'm pretty sure aircraft can survive a few minutes of "pushing the envelope". After all, that 747 managed to do it.

Also here is a picture of that 747SP:


Yeah that does not look like half of the tail missing.


www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Will you address the EgyptAir 767 that broke the sound barrier in its plunge before regaining altitude momentarily and not breaking up, before it finally impacted with the ocean?


Was it definitely concluded that the Egypt Air plane did not break up before impacting the water? In the film cited by the OP there is mention of two debris fields 1200 feet (I said meters before, apologies) apart on the ocean floor. Would that not indicate a breakup of the aircraft while still airborne?

en.wikipedia.org...


From the presence of a western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field, the NTSB concluded that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact.[3]


www.ntsb.gov...


Examination of the left engine (which was recovered relatively intact) revealed evidence of little, if any, rotation at the time of impact. The right engine was severely broken up, and only about 80 percent of it was recovered. Examination of the recovered portions of the right engine showed evidence of little, if any, rotation at the time of impact. The observed deformations on the right engine were consistent with a steep impact angle, whereas observed deformations on the left engine were consistent with an inverted, slightly aft-end-down impact angle. Although the recovery location of and damage to the left engine were consistent with it separating from the airplane before impact, no evidence of any preimpact catastrophic damage or fire was observed on either engine.60


Of course the engines were turned off early in this "suicidal" episode. The left engine undoubtely came down independantly at a much reduced rate of speed.

Did the NTSB change their minds about a mid-air breakup of the aircraft?



[edit on 13-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
reply to post by pteridine
 


I asked you what qualifications or experience you have personally to criticize a NASA engineer.

Your response was a drawn-out rant about how you don't understand how he derived some numbers, and how you wonder whether there are formulas for such things. That's why people go to engineering schools, "pteridine", and that's why you aren't qualified to criticize his work.


On one hand you say anyone can review his work, which is an obvious exaggeration, and then you turn around and say you don't even understand it yourself.

I have a feeling I'm going to be reading about you one day in one of these breaking news threads, like the one about 26% of Americans not knowing who they fought for independence. There is something really wrong about the US today, and everybody knows it.


And your response is the result of completely misreading my previous post. Yes people do go to engineering schools and you obviously aren't one of them. Try not to be too in awe of engineers making estimates on the spur of the moment.

Now to keep it simple for you....Dwain made the numbers up. He's guessing and I asked what he based his guesses on. There is no formula for estimating the chances of partially trained pilots hitting large buildings.
Anyone can ask for the basis of his estimates; I just did. Some people may say that it is "experience" that allows him to guess. This would be more tripe, as no one has the experience necessary to accurately estimate this. Not Dwain, not NASA, certainly not PFFT.

Bottom line: Dwain is guessing and there is no real basis for his estimate. This means that 3% could just as easily be 83%. Dead elephant.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

www.ntsb.gov...


Examination of the left engine (which was recovered relatively intact) revealed evidence of little, if any, rotation at the time of impact. The right engine was severely broken up, and only about 80 percent of it was recovered. Examination of the recovered portions of the right engine showed evidence of little, if any, rotation at the time of impact. The observed deformations on the right engine were consistent with a steep impact angle, whereas observed deformations on the left engine were consistent with an inverted, slightly aft-end-down impact angle. Although the recovery location of and damage to the left engine were consistent with it separating from the airplane before impact, no evidence of any preimpact catastrophic damage or fire was observed on either engine.60


Of course the engines were turned off early in this "suicidal" episode. The left engine undoubtely came down independantly at a much reduced rate of speed.

Did the NTSB change their minds about a mid-air breakup of the aircraft?



[edit on 13-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field



The western debris field, which was estimated to be 62 meters by 66 meters and was centered about 40° 20' 57" north latitude, 69° 45' 40" west longitude, contained mainly parts associated with the left engine and various other small pieces of wreckage (including portions of two wing panels, fuselage skin, horizontal stabilizer skin, and the majority of the nose landing gear assembly). The eastern debris field, which was estimated to be 83 meters by 73 meters and was centered about 40° 20' 51" north latitude, 69° 45' 24" west longitude, contained the bulk of the airplane's fuselage, wings, empennage (including the outboard tips of the right and left elevators and all recovered elevator PCAs), right engine, main landing gear, and flight recorders


Same source as your NTSB link above.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



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.


Ah yes, a suicidal kamikaze pilot knows exactly what the "Structural failure" zone is and will not endanger the plane as he flies it............ right into a building.


Was he a certified airline pilot with hundreds of hours in all different types of aircraft? What was his objective:
1. Hijack plane
2. Aim plane at WTC
3. Hit WTC.

May not make sense to you, Tiff, but that is what the terrorist wanted to do. Take plane, crash into building. I doubt he was worrying about the structural integrity of the plane. Look into the kamikaze pilots during WWII. They were just given rudimentary flight "training" then just told to fly, find carrier, hit it. Nothing else. And this is precisely what the hijackers on 9/11 did. No sane pilot would EVER intentionally push his aircraft past the "red line". But this was not some "sane" pilot. It was a suicidal maniac. Why this is hard to understand I dont know.

As for Egyptair, that plane broke up only after the second dive, not the first most catastrophic dive. I do not deny it broke up, it just didnt break up until well after the FIRST major dive. It dived twice. The first dive took it nearly past Mach 1, it regained control, actually increased altitude, THEN dived again and broke up. The key point, it survived the initial plunge of most severe stresses intact.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Bottom line: Dwain is guessing and there is no real basis for his estimate. This means that 3% could just as easily be 83%. Dead elephant.


Opinions based on experience are used all the time in industry.

For example, who would know better about the skills of a flight student who was described as "trouble understanding what the instruments were there to do", and "had skills so bad she couldn't believe he had a commercial certificate of any kind" -

....You or multiple Flight Instructors who have taught enormous amounts of primary and advanced students?

Yes, "PFFT", know a lot more of what they are talking about than you.

That is why you see the lists grow with their peers and why you see Pilots chiming in here agreeing with the OP (Jetsream et al), who have no connection to P4T whatsoever, and while you remain.. .well... in denial.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ah yes, a suicidal kamikaze pilot knows exactly what the "Structural failure" zone is and will not endanger the plane as he flies it............ right into a building.


So now you are saying the hijackers had no basic flight training whatsoever?

Make up your mind.

V-G diagrams are taught to student pilots before they even get their Private.

They are taught from day one never to exceed redline or the plane will break apart. They are taught to stay away from the Yellow caution zone or the plane may break apart if they hit pockets of turbulence. (mostly a fear tactic so they stay away from it and stay in control of their airplane, keeping it in the green)


As for Egyptair, that plane broke up only after the second dive, not the first most catastrophic dive.


If the first was more "catastrophic" than the second, why didn't it break apart on the first?

That quote above deserves a stundie award at JREF. Too funny.


You have no clue what you are talking about and you contradict your own theory.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



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.


Ah yes, a suicidal kamikaze pilot knows exactly what the "Structural failure" zone is and will not endanger the plane as he flies it............ right into a building.


Was he a certified airline pilot with hundreds of hours in all different types of aircraft? What was his objective:
1. Hijack plane
2. Aim plane at WTC
3. Hit WTC.

May not make sense to you, Tiff, but that is what the terrorist wanted to do. Take plane, crash into building. I doubt he was worrying about the structural integrity of the plane.


Apparently these pilots were miraculously able to fly at such astonishing speed when their flight instructor said the following:

www.latimes.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">web.archive.org...://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-092701atta.story
Duncan Hastie, the school’s owner, finds Hanjour a “weak student” who is “wasting our resources.” According to Hastie, “He was not able to fly solo in a small plane, which is equivalent to getting out of a parking space [in a car] and stopping.”

Why hasn't either the Bush administration or some element of law enforcement in the United States issued a single solid piece of evidence connecting the hijackers to the hijacked airplanes? Why don't the alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos? Why aren't there credit card records of their ticket purchases?

Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11?

[edit on 7/13/10 by Big Trouble in Little Chi]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 21st century man
 


"Us americans have not bought it "hook line and sinker"!!!! It's just a majority of us have listened to the experts the skeptics, and I personally believe in my Government enough (enough)that I do NOT believe they would kill 4,000 innocent people.
I wish to move on but never forget!!
It must be very easy to judge the USA when not a citizen of the USA./
EVeryone else does.
Thats just my opinion



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by madhadder545
I personally believe in my Government enough (enough)that I do NOT believe they would kill 4,000 innocent people.


Think Again



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 





V-G diagrams are taught to student pilots before they even get their Private.

They are taught from day one never to exceed redline or the plane will break apart (a fear tactic so they stay away from it and stay in control of their airplane)


IT DOESNT MATTER what the hijackers were taught about structural breakup because they did not give a @#$% !

Overstressing the aircraft DOESNT MATTER when your objective is
crashing it into a building!


As for training Hani Hanjour - who supposedly could not fly completed a
course at JET TECH in Phonenix Az. Took number hours in a 737 simulator - among one of things checked off by the instructor was
"STEEP TURNS". No check was put at "TAXI"



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Overstressing the aircraft DOESNT MATTER when your objective is
crashing it into a building!


It does when you are trying to hit a target with a 25' margin for error each side of wingtip.

I don't expect you to understand as it is clear you never have taken a lesson, nor taught a student, nor understand the basic fundamentals of flight. Jetstream tried to explain it in past pages.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So did CaptChaos...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You should read it.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Tiffany,

I have a lot of knowledge of aerodynamics and flight.

What you should be focusing on which would strengthen your arguement is something called "mach tuck".

To create lift, the air passing over the top of the wing must be traveling faster than the air passing under the wing. This is accomplished with cambered wings.

Mach tuck is when the air passing over the wing is traveling faster than sound (mach). This happens well below mach 1. This supersonic air creates shockwaves and turbulence around the wings, and it REDUCES LIFT and the jet becomes UNCONTROLLABLE.

Every wing is unique and mach tuck happens at different speeds for each wing and jet. The mach tuck speed is usually linked to the maximum speed the jet should be operated at. If you "overspeed", that is when the jet becomes uncontrollable because of mach tuck and loss of lift. It also twists the wings.

I would really like to know how flight 175 maintained control. From videos, it shows the jet dive down and bank left at overspeed. At those speeds, a commercial jet wouldn't have been able to bank like it did.

You should look into that aspect Tiff.

Good day.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NineEleven11
Tiffany,

I have a lot of knowledge of aerodynamics and flight.

What you should be focusing on which would strengthen your arguement is something called "mach tuck".

To create lift, the air passing over the top of the wing must be traveling faster than the air passing under the wing. This is accomplished with cambered wings.

Mach tuck is when the air passing over the wing is traveling faster than sound (mach). This happens well below mach 1. This supersonic air creates shockwaves and turbulence around the wings, and it REDUCES LIFT and the jet becomes UNCONTROLLABLE.

Every wing is unique and mach tuck happens at different speeds for each wing and jet. The mach tuck speed is usually linked to the maximum speed the jet should be operated at. If you "overspeed", that is when the jet becomes uncontrollable because of mach tuck and loss of lift. It also twists the wings.

I would really like to know how flight 175 maintained control. From videos, it shows the jet dive down and bank left at overspeed. At those speeds, a commercial jet wouldn't have been able to bank like it did.

You should look into that aspect Tiff.

Good day.


It is covered in the Pilots For 9/11 Truth presentation. Mach tuck also happens below Mcrit. Due to Center of pressure moving too far aft of Center of Gravity as speed increases. Vsinphd covered this on past pages as well.

Thanks.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





I don't understand why you call disagreeing with the OP "derailing".


And I'm sure many don't understand why you seem to think the terms "disagreeing" and "derailing" have the same definition.


Eh? It seems to me that it's you who think that. It's a familiar refrain from Truthers. Stop derailing this thread by disagreeing with me.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadekAs for Egyptair, that plane broke up only after the second dive, not the first most catastrophic dive. I do not deny it broke up, it just didnt break up until well after the FIRST major dive. It dived twice. The first dive took it nearly past Mach 1, it regained control, actually increased altitude, THEN dived again and broke up. The key point, it survived the initial plunge of most severe stresses intact.


Egypt Air's altitude was 33,000 feet maximum (FL 330, if I interpret this jargon correctly). The initial dive started at that altitude. It was during this initial dive that the aircraft reached .99 Mach.

Here is what happened according to the NTSB report:


Performance calculations based on primary radar returns indicated that the airplane's rapid descent stopped at an altitude of about 16,000 feet msl. The primary radar returns indicated that the airplane then began to climb, reaching about 25,000 feet msl about 0151:15. During this climb, the airplane's heading changed from about 80º to about 140º.
After 0151:15, the data indicated that the airplane began a second rapid descent that continued until it impacted the ocean.


You are saying that the first dive was the most catastophic and that the aircraft survived the most severe stresses but, as TiffanyInLA has stated, that it was the lesser stresses of the second dive that tore the airplane apart.

I think that what you fail to credit is that for the lesser stresses to tear the plane apart during the second dive, the plane must have been severely damaged by the more severe stresses on the first dive, even though it did not come apart.

Undoubtely had the first dive gone all the way to impact with the ocean the plane would have broken up on the way, as it did during the second dive.

The Egypt Air 767 broke up in the air during a dive from 25,000 ft. If I recall, there was a similar increase in altitude I (don't know the exact figures) prior to UA 175's dive on the WTC.

I don't know if anyone has compared the data on the two flights in detail. Presumably PFT has. I haven't looked at all their material.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by pteridine
Bottom line: Dwain is guessing and there is no real basis for his estimate. This means that 3% could just as easily be 83%. Dead elephant.


Opinions based on experience are used all the time in industry.

For example, who would know better about the skills of a flight student who was described as "trouble understanding what the instruments were there to do", and "had skills so bad she couldn't believe he had a commercial certificate of any kind" -

....You or multiple Flight Instructors who have taught enormous amounts of primary and advanced students?

Yes, "PFFT", know a lot more of what they are talking about than you.

That is why you see the lists grow with their peers and why you see Pilots chiming in here agreeing with the OP (Jetsream et al), who have no connection to P4T whatsoever, and while you remain.. .well... in denial.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


What experience does Dwain Deets have of flying aircraft over your "red line"?

None, obviously, because according to you he would immediately die as soon as he hit 420 knots. But the question stands.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by pteridine
Bottom line: Dwain is guessing and there is no real basis for his estimate. This means that 3% could just as easily be 83%. Dead elephant.


Opinions based on experience are used all the time in industry.

For example, who would know better about the skills of a flight student who was described as "trouble understanding what the instruments were there to do", and "had skills so bad she couldn't believe he had a commercial certificate of any kind" -

....You or multiple Flight Instructors who have taught enormous amounts of primary and advanced students?

Yes, "PFFT", know a lot more of what they are talking about than you.

That is why you see the lists grow with their peers and why you see Pilots chiming in here agreeing with the OP (Jetsream et al), who have no connection to P4T whatsoever, and while you remain.. .well... in denial.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


What experience does Dwain Deets have of flying aircraft over your "red line"?




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.


www.nasa.gov...

I think Deets knows a thing or two about high speed maneuvering, aircraft stability, and what an airframe can achieve given its limitations set by the manufacturer.

Deets achieved the level of Flight Director in charge of Flight Control systems and Research. You don't get to that level without knowing a thing or two about aircraft design and it's limitations.

He certainly knows what a V-G diagram is, unlike many in your herd.. Listen to the interview linked in the OP article.

Folks, these guys have so much experience they can virtually estimate the performance of an aircraft just by looking at it, just like you can probably tell the difference in performance just by looking at a Corvette as compared to a Ford Truck.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I was looking on YouTube for the recording of the ATC who was handling Flt. 175 because he gives a dramatic account of what he observed, . . . the increase in altitude and then the dive on the tower.

Couldn't find that clip but I found a very interesting simulation which incorporates data from a Boeing 747 simulator and the NTSB data for Flt. 175 (a 767 the performance characteristics of which are inferior to those of a 747 as regards structural integrity).

The 747 is run through the Flt. 175's flight path to see how it would fair on that route to the WTC. It doesn't make it.

Please overlook the sound of the irritating computer generated vocal narrative.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Wow, all these technical experts at your disposal and still not an iota of proof that anything you are saying is true. Again, please post the failure analysis calculations that show the Boeing 767-222 immeadiatley breaking into pieces when it travels into your alleged red zone.

Short of that, well, you have nothing. Your NASA retiree? Sorry, opinions about movies, books, wine, or art are very interesting, but when it comes to engineering and science facts and numbers are the only things that counts. You have neither.



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join