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: 28
127
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I'm no aviation expert but i know one clear fact. The twins towers were the most dominating feature in the NY skyline. If i was to hijack a plane to ran it into these towers it would probably be easy and yes it doesnt matter wether or not my ground speed exceed the limit of the aircraft, it's not like the wings are gonna rip apart from the plane because i exceed the speed limit.

What makes no sense to me is the pentagon crash, i guess even the best pilot would have to try very hard to crash it's plane in such a low building.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Kaynos]




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
There has to be a better way to try and resolve something as important as the original OP, without all the shouting, especially as it is a 9/11 topic. The OP included a very high-speed for the designated aircraft that hit the South Tower, and you can include the lower North Tower speed as high also. The possibilty of that high speed has to be resolved in some way which is credible in relation to the designated 'plane. "Jetstreams" initial post has been the most thoughtful yet. There are some more things to take into account, New York's normally high summer humidity, which makes the air less dense, against a normal higher, low altitude density which could account for an induced higher airspeed to maintain lift. Against that, is if that particular 'plane used turbofan engines with a built in high drag, which would probably act against the humidity and so count against the very high-speed impact. There is another factor in high humidity, in that a jet engine is also less efficient in its burning. All in all the indicated impact speed is a mystery, unless that 'plane had something other that a commercial configurated engine, like military, much the same only differerent.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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.


Oh come on now, don't be dumb.

It seems that long ago you stopped talking about the subject, and just started attacking people. You need to step off.

Have you ever heard of a flight simulator??? I guess not.

You may not know it but, large jets have been around long enough for people to understand what types of stress is put on these jets in different situations. These stresses can be calculated and predicted accurately, and that information is used to design better aircraft, and manufacture metal parts with less flaws.

Because it is possible to calculate these stresses, it is also possible to make computer simulations of these calculations. This gives flight simulators more realism.

Even MS Flight Simulator that you can buy for your computer has simulated airframe stress...

Pilots and hobbiests should know how to avoid high airframe stress situations with enough time in a simulator.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaynos
If i was to hijack a plane to ran it into these towers it would probably be easy and yes it doesnt matter wether or not my ground speed exceed the limit of the aircraft, it's not like the wings are gonna rip apart from the plane because i exceed the speed limit.


But that is exactly what people are saying would happen. Either the aircraft would not be able to reach the officially cited speed or if it did, it would start to break up as it descended in altitude.

This is what happened to Egypt Air 990. Exceeding the speed limit in an aircraft is dangerous to its structural integrity.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NineEleven11
 


You're not following. I wrote this in response to the notion that posters here didn't have enough expertise to discuss the issue, particularly of Deets' makeshift probabilities. Like Pteridine it seems to me that he essentially pulled these out of the air.

I also wanted to highlight the fact that "Tiffany" continually avoids answering my question about the point at which a plane actually fails.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
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.


Hooper, no one claimed it "immediately" breaks apart once entering the "Red Zone".

V-G diagrams depict when an aircraft will break apart. I didn't design the diagram nor did I define or set the airspeeds limits which define the V-G envelope. Take it up with Boeing.


With that said, Egypt Air 990 did suffer major structural failure, at just 5 knots into the red zone. Corresponding to this V-G diagram.



This was all explained to you ad nauseam on multiple pages. If you haven't been able to understood it by now, you never will. But many other pilots do. Many have shared their thoughts on this very thread.

Please pay attention.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


It took a lot longer to happen to EA990 than "Tiffany" would have you believe though. Have a look at the wikipedia page - particularly the graph showing the descent - and ask yourself if, using the OP's criteria, it shouldn't have failed earlier.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Hooper, no one claimed it "immediately" breaks apart once entering the "Red Zone".


Oh okay. So when do they break apart?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


It took a lot longer to happen to EA990 than "Tiffany" would have you believe though. Have a look at the wikipedia page - particularly the graph showing the descent - and ask yourself if, using the OP's criteria, it shouldn't have failed earlier.


According to radar data, UA175 was traveling more than 90 over the speed which failed EA990, for more than 2 mins that of EA990.

This was all covered on past pages.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


I also wanted to highlight the fact that "Tiffany" continually avoids answering my question about the point at which a plane actually fails.



Wouldn't that be entirely dependent on the individual plane, itself?

Structural stress due to hours of wear and tear, last maintenance performed, etc?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Hooper, no one claimed it "immediately" breaks apart once entering the "Red Zone".


Oh okay. So when do they break apart?


According to EA990, at 425 KEAS.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


I also wanted to highlight the fact that "Tiffany" continually avoids answering my question about the point at which a plane actually fails.



Wouldn't that be entirely dependent on the individual plane, itself?

Structural stress due to hours of wear and tear, last maintenance performed, etc?





Exactly, Capt Aimer goes over this in the presentation. He feels it should have broke up before EA990 as N612UA (UA175) was a much older airplane with many more cycles on it. He has flown that exact aircraft.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


It took a lot longer to happen to EA990 than "Tiffany" would have you believe though. Have a look at the wikipedia page - particularly the graph showing the descent - and ask yourself if, using the OP's criteria, it shouldn't have failed earlier.


According to radar data, UA175 was traveling more than 90 over the speed which failed EA990, for more than 2 mins that of EA990.

This was all covered on past pages.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


Maybe. but according to what you wrote earlier EA990 should have failed much earlier.

You know - earlier. When you were pretending that planes automatically break up as soon as they hit 420 knots. It's only recently that you've quietly climbed down from this absurd position.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Hooper, no one claimed it "immediately" breaks apart once entering the "Red Zone".


Oh okay. So when do they break apart?


According to EA990, at 425 KEAS.


So it's your contention that on reaching 425 knots a plane of this type will always break up?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You know - earlier. When you were pretending that planes automatically break up as soon as they hit 420 knots. It's only recently that you've quietly climbed down from this absurd position.


Never have I made such a claim, which is why you fail to source it.

Par for the course with your type.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


I also wanted to highlight the fact that "Tiffany" continually avoids answering my question about the point at which a plane actually fails.



Wouldn't that be entirely dependent on the individual plane, itself?

Structural stress due to hours of wear and tear, last maintenance performed, etc?





Exactly, Capt Aimer goes over this in the presentation. He feels it should have broke up before EA990 as N612UA (UA175) was a much older airplane with many more cycles on it. He has flown that exact aircraft.


I think maneuvers are more important than speed , it itself. Sure, the wings of a 757 going nose-down will eventually rip off at a certain speed, but they will definitely rip off at a much lower speed with enough G forces from a crazy yaw, pitch, or roll.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
I think maneuvers are more important than speed , it itself. Sure, the wings of a 757 going nose-down will eventually rip off at a certain speed, but they will definitely rip off at a much lower speed with enough G forces from a crazy yaw, pitch, or roll.


Exactly, and this is the very premise and purpose of the V-G diagram and speed limitations set by the manufacturer for different phases of flight. Good job rich!

Next time you are on an airliner, notice when the Capt turns on the seat belt sign for upcoming turbulence, 9 times out of 10 he will also slow down the airplane if flying at high cruise.

This is because rough air can cause structural damage and failure due to sharp G Loading from the turbulence.. if operating above Vra (rough air penetration speed, also can be referred to as maneuvering speed).

Vra for the 767 is 290 knots. 220 knots below the reported speeds of the alleged UA175.

@ Tricky,

Is it my "contention" ?

No, it's what happened according to the NTSB.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Now the question begs, what automatic warning/limiting systems were in place on those flights that would either warn or prevent such dangerous operating conditions?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:35 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.



If these vauable opinions are based on experience, who has the experience of flying one of these aircraft at 500+ kts at under 1000' so they could make an informed judgement on the difficulty these pilots might have had striking the buildings?

Yep, Dwain is guessing, PFT is guessing, and you are guessing.

As we look at results we see 2/2 at the WTC, 1/1 at the Pentagon and 0/1 for the Capitol/Whitehouse. It seems that the probability of a hijack team hitting their target is about 75%. Dwain and you say that this number means that something was amiss. My claim is that because Dwain has no basis for his guesses, that this number does not prove anything.

I am in denial....of ignorance.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by __rich__
 

I think this is covered earlier in the thread with the "fly by wire" Airbuses which can't exceed specs versus the Boeing's which shout and holler at you but basically let you do what you want.



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join