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

page: 3
127
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



You should listen to the interviews and view the analysis as it's clear you haven't.


If you can afford it.


Or if you can read the article itself.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Interview with Dwain Deets.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
10mb download, approx 22 mins runtime.




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


If you don't know the rate of growth then how do you know other rates of growth are less?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Good work Tiffany. S&F.

I would add that the Pentagon impact is even more ridiculous to comprehend, not only do we have speeds exceeding structural limitations but also the added dimension of ground effect which would make it absolutely impossible for a large aircraft to achieve 50ft altitude nevermind the 10ft or so the PTB would have us all believe.


I would agree that the Pentagon story is ludicrous but I think you misunderstand ground effect. Ground effect reduces drag on a wing. That's it. It doesn't keep you from going lower, it just lets you go faster at a given power setting when in ground effect. It begins when the center of lift is at about one-half wingspan above the surface.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


If you don't know the rate of growth then how do you know other rates of growth are less?


Because ALPA is losing membership. Pilots For 9/11 Truth is growing.

I know you would rather attempt character assassination as it's clear you cannot debate the OP, nor read the article to find the analysis and presentation (you still claim people have to buy it when you been told twice where to find it for free), but please, try to stay on topic.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Good work Tiffany. S&F.

I would add that the Pentagon impact is even more ridiculous to comprehend, not only do we have speeds exceeding structural limitations but also the added dimension of ground effect which would make it absolutely impossible for a large aircraft to achieve 50ft altitude nevermind the 10ft or so the PTB would have us all believe.


I would agree that the Pentagon story is ludicrous but I think you misunderstand ground effect. Ground effect reduces drag on a wing. That's it. It doesn't keep you from going lower, it just lets you go faster at a given power setting when in ground effect. It begins when the center of lift is at about one-half wingspan above the surface.


Actually, higher airspeed reduces Induced drag on a wing which is the cause of ground effect. Higher speed = less ground effect.

Parasitic drag becomes a factor at high speeds.

You will also run into all kinds of other problems at such excessive speeds over Max operating as set by the manufacturer. This is covered fully in the analysis done by Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

There is a reason manufacturers set airspeed limitations for all aircraft. Contrary to what people like hooper and his friend tricky would like you to believe, any speed above Max operating as set by the manufacturer, is excessive.




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Can you provide a free link to all the contents of all the DVD's that this little group is currently hustling?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Can you provide a free link to all the contents of all the DVD's that this little group is currently hustling?


Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two, Flight Of American 77
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Flight Of United 93 Now On Google Video, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three
pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon - Official Release, Full Film Now Available to the Public on Google
pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Is there any chance you can stay on topic?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


"Definitely"?

No.


Your diagram above shows structural failure at 426 knots. So your diagram is wrong, by your own admission.

If you like you can show me another diagram done by someone with authority. But just making one up yourself, that two posts later you reveal even you don't agree with, is pretty useless.




However, airspeed limitations are set by the manufacturer for a reason. See above V-G diagram.


Airspeed limitations are set for safety reasons. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure that, as they screamed towards the twin towers, the hijackers were massively concerned about safety.

You seem to be confusing what the manufacturer - who is likely to be HIGHLY risk averse - says is desirable and what is possible.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Also, you keep saying that I don't think the speeds involved were excessive. I do in fact consider them excessive. Waaay too fast. Somebody could have got hurt... oh hang on.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Well as far as ground effect goes actually there are several factors.

The most important of which in this case is wing thickness.

On military aircraft with thin wings yes indeed induced and parasitic drag are the main cause's for GE.

However, here we are talking about a civil airliner with a wing thickness of 6-8 ft a wing designed for maximum lift, the air pressure from the leading edge alone will restrict the wing from descending below a certain altitude.

If this was not the case then the Russian Ekranoplan would not work and it utilizes ground effect with stubby wings.

Whatever hit the Pentagon, it was not a civil airliner, unless somebody dug up the lawn and laid down a very strong electromagnetic strip in the middle of the night to draw it down through the GE cushion.

Oh i forgot, massive cable reels, very large generator... were they not in the pictures?

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Cosmic4life]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Cosmic4life]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Your diagram above shows structural failure at 426 knots. So your diagram is wrong, by your own admission.


The Structural failure line is at Vd, the Limit Dive speed of the aircraft.

See it defined here on the P-51 (third time posted for you).



Vd for the 767-200 is 420 knots. Anything above that is considered in the "Structural Failure" range of an aircraft. Again, please learn the fundamentals of a V-G Diagram.



If you like you can show me another diagram done by someone with authority.


Here is a good lesson on the topic. A few videos put together by an aerobatic flight school.

www.apstraining.com...

If you disagree with any of the airpseed limitations/definitions within the diagram, please let us know which ones and hopefully you can get APS Training and every other aeronautical text book/flight school/manufacturer to change their definitions.

All you have to do is know the vari0ous definitions and plug them into a V-G envelope to get a rough picture of a particular aircraft limits, that is all I did.

I'm not the one who claimed or shaded red the "Structural Failure" range above "Limit Dive Speed", blame the person who designed the V-G Envelope and developed the standard airspeed definitions.



Airspeed limitations are set for safety reasons. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure that, as they screamed towards the twin towers, the hijackers were massively concerned about safety.


I'm not arguing that they weren't concerned about safety. But you are right, airspeed limitations are set for safety, because the aircraft can rip itself apart above those limits.

Every pilot is taught from day 1 that if you exceed the max operating limits of the aircraft, it may cause structural failure. It was spelled out here:




Those who make excuse for the govt story claim these so-called "hijackers" had training and pilots certificates, yet don't understand the meaning of Max operating speeds?

Primary pilots are trained to never exceed red line in the aircraft they fly. They avoid it like the plague and are taught the aircraft may rip apart if exceeded. If there were truly "trained hijackers" on board with their primary goal of flying into buildings, they would stay under red line speeds as they have been taught the aircraft may fall apart at any speed exceeding redline. It is counter intuitive for a trained "hijacker" to exceed redline in order to achieve the primary objective as they would be thinking the aircraft may fall apart before getting to it's target.


In other words, the duhbunkers can't have their cake and eat it too.. .although they try.


Source:
pilotsfor911truth.org...


You seem to be confusing what the manufacturer - who is likely to be HIGHLY risk averse - says is desirable and what is possible.


Actually, you seem to be the one confused. You feel 80 knots over a Limit Dive Speed is not excessive. You are wrong.

The people who seem to have it right are a NASA Scientist and a long growing list of aviators, aeronautical engineers and Aircraft Accident Investigators.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

There is a reason manufacturer's set airspeed limitations. Again, please review the above lesson on V-G diagrams and why limits are set.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
EA990 broke apart in flight at just above its Vd limits which is 420 knots.


I've just read the accident summary for this flight, and as far as I can see you're simply inventing this.

So, thus far you have

- produced a diagram that even you admit is wrong

- referenced a case that doesn't show what you say it does

- wasted everyone's time pursuing something that relies on you making things up



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I am a truther myself and don't believe the OS.
However, this report has a fundamental flaw.
That flaw being that it is assumed by the writer
that these aircraft cannot exceed certain limitations
in design when in actuality all kinds of vehicles
including submarines have safe operating limits.
But when under stress can exceed those numbers.
And if they can exceed those numbers then for proper
testing would require a test flight to fly said model
as fast as it could go until it actually broke up and
splintered in mid-air. To my knowledge, these tests
have never been done. So to prove this report to
have merit he would have to prove at what speed
these models actually broke apart.


A friend who is also a pilot with significant time operating the aircraft in question has stated the same as the OP. The issue, as I understand it, is NOT regarding the integrity of the fuselage and wings at the propsed speed, it is the engines themselves. They are NOT capable of producing that airspeed - at all! Now assume that the plane is in a dive, gaining airspeed and momentum through the use of gravity, such speeds could potentially be achieved, HOWEVER, he stated that the aircraft would become nearly uncontrollable and it would be impossible to pilot the craft to its intended target. Looking at the video it is clear that the plane was not executing a dive but was on a level trajectory while approaching the target.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Vd for the 767-200 is 420 knots. Anything above that is considered in the "Structural Failure" range of an aircraft. Again, please learn the fundamentals of a V-G Diagram.


I understand your diagrams, but they are misleading. You are implying that structural failure necessarily occurs after 426 knots (ironically you seem unable to read your own scale) but in fact, you later say




the aircraft can rip itself apart above those limits


So according to you structural failure is apparently not inevitable.



If you disagree with any of the airpseed limitations/definitions within the diagram, please let us know which ones and hopefully you can get APS Training and every other aeronautical text book/flight school/manufacturer to change their definitions.


I don't disagree with them. They just don't say what you think the do.





I'm not arguing that they weren't concerned about safety. But you are right, airspeed limitations are set for safety, because the aircraft can rip itself apart above those limits.

Every pilot is taught from day 1 that if you exceed the max operating limits of the aircraft, it may cause structural failure.

Those who make excuse for the govt story claim these so-called "hijackers" had training and pilots certificates, yet don't understand the meaning of Max operating speeds?


I imagine they knew about them. And that they ignored them based on an empirical reading of what was happening.

Also, they might have been a bit... you know... flustered?





Actually, you seem to be the one confused. You feel 80 knots over a Limit Dive Speed is not excessive. You are wrong.


Yeah. I literally keep saying it's not excessive. Continually saying it. I just can't stop.


The people who seem to have it right are a NASA Scientist and a long growing list of aviators, aeronautical engineers and Aircraft Accident Investigators.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


Quite a lot of pilots aren't members, are they? Perhaps they're not that convinced.

Look Rob, everybody knows you just do this to sell overpriced DVDs.


There is a reason manufacturer's set airspeed limitations.


Yeah. Safety.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Read the data provided by the OP. It suggests different.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So, thus far you have

- produced a diagram that even you admit is wrong


It's not wrong. The airspeeds are plugged into the definitions and limits on a typical V-G diagram.

Are you saying 290 is not Vra for a 767-200? That 360 is not Vmo for a 767-200? Are you saying 420 is not Vd for a 767-200?

You would be wrong.


- referenced a case that doesn't show what you say it does


EA990 reached a peak speed of 425 KEAS, shortly after reaching this speed, it broke apart in flight. This is fact. Watch the presentation and/or read the NTSB report.




- wasted everyone's time pursuing something that relies on you making things up


Just because you refuse to inform yourself, doesn't mean the data, airspeed definitions, and facts of the case do not exist.

Nothing is made up, you just don't understand it, nor take the time to review the information.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Every pilot is taught from day 1 that if you exceed the max operating limits of the aircraft, it may cause structural failure. It was spelled out here:....



Are you familiar with the words "may" and "can"? They are different from the words "will" and "does".

Not one of your "experts" has yet to show that when and that model aircraft reaches 510 knots at 1000 feet above sea level the aircraft will automatically and absolutely fall apart.

So, basically all these videos and DVD's and such are really just bad opinions. But just for fun, let me ask something. You are contend that this model aircraft can not go 510 knots without falling apart. The NTSB says that according to their analysis of the radar data Flight 175 it was travelling at 510 knots when it struck the building. So, this seem to be the alternatives:

1) The NTSB over estimated the speed.
2) The NTSB correctly estimated the speed, but the contention that the plane falls apart at 510 knots is incorrect.
3) The plane does absolutely fall apart at 509 knots and ergo the NTSB is lying, no plane hit the world trade center, their is a massive government cover up.

I think I am going to go with No.2.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

It's not wrong. The airspeeds are plugged into the definitions and limits on a typical V-G diagram.

Are you saying 290 is not Vra for a 767-200? That 360 is not Vmo for a 767-200? Are you saying 420 is not Vd for a 767-200?

You would be wrong.


So a 767 will definitely break up as soon as it hits 426 knots?

If not, at what speed will that occur?



EA990 reached a peak speed of 425 KEAS, shortly after reaching this speed, it broke apart in flight. This is fact. Watch the presentation and/or read the NTSB report.


I have.




Examination of the fracture surfaces on the recovered pieces of wreckage revealed that the fractures were consistent with failures generated by a high-speed impact. None of the fracture surfaces examined exhibited any sign of preexisting fatigue ... No evidence of pre- or postimpact explosion or fire damage was observed

no evidence of any preimpact catastrophic damage or fire was observed on either engine

all four of the recovered PCAs exhibited impact-related damage


There doesn't seem to be any reference to the plane "breaking up" before it hit the water. There is some coverage of damage that cannot definitively be said to have happened pre- or during impact, but that's about it.

Have you read it? Because it appears not to say what you think it does. Or perhaps you're just lying.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
As it is said...."Don't Shoot the Messenger".

Good Post OP. I have always wondered about the precise flight characteristics executed by the known inexperienced pilots which occurred on 9/11.

I mean, how many here have actually ever piloted and landed an aircraft before to really understand how difficult it really is ?

I think that as for those of us that have. It makes much of the 9/11 televised docu-drama even more concerning and questionable.

But to the OP's original thread....

We have radar data from the FAA, air traffic control radar that specifically documents the speed of the aircraft that hit the twin towers.

The recorded speeds are well beyond those of another identical aircraft of the same make and model, namely Egypt Air 990 which not only crashed, but crashed as a result of having experienced catastrophic structural failure exactly within the parameters established, defined and documented as being structurally critical by Boeing.

Why were the aircraft involved with 9/11 able to exceed these Boeing established structural limitations ? And by 25% ?

A poster here had said that we need to actually fly the Boeing 767 aircraft to the max limits to establish the point of catastrophic failure.

No, in actuality we don't. Structural analysis is performed fairly simply by using the CAD (Computer Aided Design) data, which is how aircraft and anything else structurally mechanical are designed.

This is how these limiting parameters are determined and established.

By use of the CAD system, You can exert pressure or force upon the entire plane or any subsystem/component within the plane. To the point of deformation and ulitimately to failure.

Additionally, with the air at sea level being considerably heavier, it actually places considerably more hydrodynamic load or force upon the airframe and aircraft. That's how the 426 knots was established.

What this means is that aircraft performance, speed, handling etc are vastly effected, kind of akin to attempting to run through jello.

But let me be a good American and believe everything we are told by the PTB when it comes to the 9/11 OS by NOT investigating evidence and instead by sticking my head back in the sand and repeating. La... La... La... La... La over the background Din of my Television broadcasting FOX news !




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I understand your diagrams, but they are misleading. You are implying that structural failure necessarily occurs after 426 knots (ironically you seem unable to read your own scale)


It appears it is you who cannot read the scale.



Red line is the limit dive speed, just as defined in the P-51 V-G diagram.








So according to you structural failure is apparently not inevitable.


According to EA990 NTSB reports, structural failure occured just above Limit Dive Speed for the 767. This corresponds to the red shaded area above in the V-G diagram.




I don't disagree with them. They just don't say what you think the do.


You're wrong, Please review airspeed definitions and the fundamentals of a V-G diagram.








I imagine they knew about them. And that they ignored them based on an empirical reading of what was happening.


So, a "hijacker" with zero time in type knows more about the "feel" of "what is happening" on a 767-200 than Captains from American and United airlines who have thousands of hours in these aircraft and state the speeds are impossible?






The people who seem to have it right are a NASA Scientist and a long growing list of aviators, aeronautical engineers and Aircraft Accident Investigators.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


Quite a lot of pilots aren't members, are they? Perhaps they're not that convinced.


Or perhaps they are unaware of the data, have not reviewed the data thoroughly, or don't want their name listed on a website only to be continually libeled by people like you and your herd.

But the list is growing, regardless of your denial of the facts.


Look Rob, everybody knows you just do this to sell overpriced DVDs.


Look JREFer -- who doubles up on his anonymity because his normal User ID is already discredited -- how can a DVD be overpriced if the presentation is available for free on the web? For some reason, you and hooper above continually ignore this point. It must really rattle your cage people will buy DVD's which they can see free on the web. I highly recommend the DVD's as well, I have my own set. Excellent quality.

Logic and common sense will tell anyone that clearly these jet pilots are not in it for the money yet are offsetting their operating costs. But it is typical of those who blindly support the goverment story to avoid such facts and logic.



There is a reason manufacturer's set airspeed limitations.


Yeah. Safety.


You'll get no argument from me on this point. Planes do break apart when they exceed their limitations set by the manufacturer. This is definitely a safety issue.





new topics
top topics
 
127
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join