It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 32
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Illustronic
Flying from Columbus Ohio to Wilmington NC for summer vacation at the beach, late June for the 4th week.

Ahhh yes. I knew it was flying east. But apparently I missed the fact you gave the speed in mph. Sorry, when I see speed numbers, I see knots.

Ready for some math?

660 mph = 573 Knots

If this were a True Airspeed figure, EAS = 312 Knots at sea level (assuming cruise altitude in the 30's)

Vmo for the 737 is 350/340 knots.

You were traveling roughly 40 knots below Max operating.

Now, most likely the pilot didn't give you a True Airspeed figure and gave you a groundspeed, most do that to "inflate" the numbers, especially if they have a tailwind (and they did since they were traveling mostly east). They have to be "macho" to their passengers after all..

So subtract the above EAS by about 50-70 knots, due to it being summer and all.

You were well below the max operating limit of the 737.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:28 AM
By the way, what airline offers 737 service from CMH to ILM? That's a CRJ route.

Was your flight on ATA?

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:18 AM
No radars capable of "seeing" this purported data are located in the vicinity
of the impact site.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:41 AM

Originally posted by CosmosKid
No radars capable of "seeing" this purported data are located in the vicinity
of the impact site.

Clearly you are not familiar with the NY Terminal Area as the "impact site" was covered and surrounded by ASR radar at three major NY area hub airports.

Newark, JFK and Laguardia.

They are all within a 10 mile radius.

This is considered very close "vicinity" in Radar 'speak'.

Still confused?

Google Sidewinder AIM-9, Sparrow AIM-7 and Slammer AMRAAM Capability for comparison of accuracy based on radar guidance. And if you're really feeling brave, Google the Phoenix.

The only thing closer, is switching to "guns"

Trebor, this should be right up your alley no?

How accurate is ARH?

Then again, you probably weren't very good as a RIO either. I understand you never made it to Top Gun, shame. But understandable.


[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:05 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

weedwhacker to clarify-it was done in a 737 400 LvlD sim. Not microsoft.
You have hit exactly what I was saying-stab trim and pitch authority..The stab on an airplane is designed to compensate a large CG range plus controlability.
If you fly jets next time you go to FlightSafety or Simuflite try and maintain a controlable flight path at Vmo plus 200 knots.You will find that you cannot.
The issue of course is that so few flight tests are run that far out of the envelope ,sim performance is based on theoretical data instead of actual flight test data.

I again ask everyone to remember why this hi speed was necessary from the official story point of view-it was the only way to generate enough energy to knock down the building.
My argument is not P4t that I know of. My argument is that the planes could not physically fly 510 kts indicated airspeed(9.775 miles per minute)
at a few hundred feet above sea level and have the pitch authority to maintain straight and level.
This doesn't mean in my opinion that the aircraft used were not 75 and 767s.I believe those were the aircraft at the WTC.Nor do I believe they were modified.It just means that the aircraft were traveling much slower than the official story
If its the subject for a different thread the I apologize to the OP.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:38 AM

Originally posted by JetStream
It just means that the aircraft were traveling much slower than the official story

How much slower?

When ATC assigns you an airspeed in IMC, with traffic in trail and in front, while on approach in the terminal area at the approach gate, how far are they off based on your own FMC? 10 knots? 20 knots? 50 knots?

This is the same radar used in the "official story" data.

So, how much do you think ATC radar is in error in the terminal TRACON approach/departure routing?

I'll give you a hint, those who "believe" in the govt story need to prove an error of more than 100 knots in ASR radar coverage in a terminal area. Those who believe ATC radar is this unreliable, better never shoot an IMC arrival/approach in a terminal area ever again, especially in traffic.

This doesn't mean in my opinion that the aircraft used were not 75 and 767s.I believe those were the aircraft at the WTC.

Beliefs are better accepted in Church. We require data. The data does not support the govt story, as you agree.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:13 AM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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.

Is it my "contention" ?

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

With these two comments you show your hand.

You are unwilling to say at what point you think a plane would actually start to fall apart. And now you acknowledge that it doesn't necessarily happen exactly at your "red line", and that therefore "excessive" speeds are at least theoretically possible.

This is a subtle difference from your earlier position, and indeed it's taken pages for you to answer that simple question. You're probably right that you didn't explicitly say it before. Your tactic - which is designed I imagine to fool the gullible into visiting P4T - is to post the diagram repeatedly, avoid interpreting it, and when asked the above question point to EA990 and refuse to extrapolate to a general position.

This will fool the more gullible, and P4T might sell a few more DVDs, but it's not going to pass muster with anybody more discerning.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:15 AM
Tiffany the only vids and pics I have seen had a 757 and 767 in them.
I cannot comment on them being another type of a/c.
The speeds on the radar tape CANNOT be accurate if the aircraft are 75 and 767s.In a dive maybe.In a pullup initiated by the natural design of the aircraft maybe. But in straight and level controlled flight -no way. Not at under 1000 feet.The pitch up tendency of the aircraft is greater than the control surface force available to maintain straight and level.

A typical speed range for an airline transport is about 200 knots.
meaning at average weight it stalls at 120 clean (no high lift devives extended like flaps or slats) to a 320 Vmo redline.When certified these speeds are taken into account for stab/elevator control authority. The manufacturer builds excess into it. an aircraft is trimmed at 200knots. You apply power and do nothing else the aircraft will start climbing at 200 knots.Cut power and she will descend at 200 knots. The trim stability speed stability of an aircraft is a very important design consideration.Its mandated by the regulatory agencies to be that way.So this is the normal speed band that she is made to fly in-this is a major component of the flight envelope.
Furthermore the deflection angles of the flt control surfaces are limited to prevent overcontrol by the pilot and excess fuel consumption.
An aircraft is more capable of positive g than negative g. Meaning it has more nose up authority than nose down.-pax dont like having coffee fly in the face...pilots dont either.
As speed increases nose down force will be insufficient to keep the nose down.And the aircraft will start to pitch up no matter how much you push. At about 200 knots above Vmo you have no nose down authority left and she wants to pull up.
The guys on the WTC attack could not maintain that speed and fly level.Its not possible.They could be at 30000 feet-push over and accelerate to a higher speed than Vmo but the aircraft will keep trying to pull up,and at a certain speed well below 200 knots above Vmo it will pull up.
So we have a master warning alarm-an aircraft fighting you every inch of the way-no autopilot because that will kick off when you play silly games like Vmo exceedance-and finally no pitch authoority to maintain straigght and level flight at that speed.
So I state again-That speed is not possible in straight flight.
Does that mean that it wasn't a boeing? Not to me.
Does it mean it is physically impossible to fly? Yes-at the stated speed
Does it mean some other form of damage was needed to take down WTC1 and 2?...Most definitly yes.(this doesnt mean mini nuke or scaler weapons fyi)
Beyond this I am out of words,the only thing I can ask is someone with access to a 757 767 sim go and try this in the sim. I fly Airbus and they will not allow you anywhere near Vmo plus 200 or I would video tape the results .

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:32 AM

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I'm not familiar with the Grand Jury system in the US but I suspect that there is more than enough evidence to get a Grand Jury to weigh evidence in matters related to 9/11.

This is why I love you guys. You routinely overestimate the strength of your evidence.

Take this topic. A guy who worked at NASA says that the situation is highly unlikley, but still possible. He backs this up with probability exercises that look very rough.

Asked for wider evidence, some people post a document from 1962 about something that didn't actually happen.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but this is probably not enough to get Dick Cheney into prison.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:40 AM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

I'll give you a hint, those who "believe" in the govt story need to prove an error of more than 100 knots in ASR radar coverage in a terminal area.


posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Beliefs are better accepted in Church. We require data.

Yeah - by the way, when are we going to see some of that (data) that supports your "opinions"? So far all we got are homemade charts and a lot of "I said so".

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Data that is used in a court of law all the time. Are you familiar with Flight Data Recorders?

And we remember how your LAST visit into the US Legal system went. Can't wait for the next one. Not for a minute do I think it will ever happen, though.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by skeptic_al
I believe it is possible if they were flyin

Google "Argument from incredulity"


I don't want to derail such an interesting thread but I saw this post and something about the style reminded me of another "elephant in the room".

Tiffany, you're not John Lear are you?

If so, welcome back to ATS. If not, welcome to ATS anyway.

If your avatar is really you, then a big hearty helping of welcome to ATS.

Anyway, back to serious stuff.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:51 AM
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I think a quicker way to get Cheney into prison would involve Haliburton and contracts in Iraq. Just saying.

Usually people are nailed on financial stuff before the criminal stuff. Al Capone is the most prominent case of the mobster never found guilty of many crimes, but sent to jail for tax evasion.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by ghofer
I'm guessing there is lots of travel left since the control surfaces don't need to be deflected very much with all that airflow over them.

What about all that airflow also going over the wings?

What happens when airspeed increases?

The wings generate more lift. Bernoulli ring a bell?

I think the aspect ratios of the wing is a bit higher than the horizontal stab and elevator, no? (hehe)

What happens when the wings generate so much lift due to airspeed, there is no more "throw" on the elevator and trim to maintain level flight?

This is one of the many reasons why manufacturers set a Vmo.

How much time you have in jets? Any civilian jets?
[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

I mentioned the jets I've flown in the message you responded to. Surely you've heard of the T-33? I have 200+ hours in jets. What does it matter if I've flown civilian jets or military jets? Do you think a KC-10 flies differently than a DC-10? But like I said, I haven't flown airliners if that's what you're getting at. I understand perfectly well the basic laws of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics. From flying jets at high indicated airspeeds, there is a lot of down travel available for the controls. Hell the planes I fly don't even have a moving stab, they just have elevators so an airliner I suspect would be even better in regards to control authority. They were only at maybe M0.75.

I think you're getting a bit defensive and also carried away with this whole trim issue. Whether the 767 can fly at M0.75 at sea level and not fail structurally, that's a different issue. If the real-world 767 pilots claim it would break apart before then, well I won't argue. Aerodynamically though, I don't think a 767 would have any trouble getting up to that speed for reasons I and another airline pilot here have suggested.

For fun, I tried flying a 767 in the X-Plane flight simulator. Many aircraft companies use X-Plane as an engineering prediction tool when designing their aircraft since the flight model is calculated using blade element analysis (poor man's computational fluid dynamics model). As expected, there is lots of control authority at over 500 kts, trimmed or not. While it may not be 100% accurate, it does well enough to give you a rough idea of how a plane might fly.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:03 AM

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?

It's even more complicated than that.
It depends on your definition of failure. The FAA considers "permanent deformation" to be failure. If you bend it and it doesn't spring back, you broke it. It fails. In 40 years of investigating aircraft crashes, I have seen tension and torsion tail failures, compression failures of upper wing panels, delamination of composite structures, loss of complete control surfaces due to flutter (which is a common cause of failure in overspeed situations.
To see a terrifying (to pilots) video, look at the first part of
And what do you consider failure? Both wings ripping off? Part of the empanage breaking? Popping all the rivets in the fuselage? A permanent anhedral forming in the wings?
And, as you mentioned, the prior history is crucial.Metals are crystalline structures that are, unlike most wood, subject to fatigue failures. If you bend it once, that makes it more sucseptible to failure on the next bend. Take a clothes hanger and bend it back and forth. It probably won't break on the first bend, but keep going and watch. That is fatigue failure. Age is important since aluminum, even with corrosion proofing, oxidizes over time,weakening the structure.
Total operating time is important since it relates to cycles. A cycle is a flight. For every flight in a modern airliner, it is pressurized inside to maintain a sustainable cabin pressure by pumping air from the compressor section of the engine. The maximum pressure differential is 8.6 psi. The interior area of the 767 pressure vessel is almost a million square inches. So, that is 8 million pounds trying to expand the fuse. And then for landing it depressurizes, releasing the expansion . It was this sort of cyclic expansion and contraction that doomed the deHavilland Comet and combined with a little corrosion to do this to Aloha Airlines Flight 243.
So the question is a strawman attempt to conflate the impossibility of predicting failure of a hypothetical example of an airframe with the evidence based reality. Of course, reality is just too hard for some to accept. And a common weakness I find in forensic analysis is the feeling by some people that to acknowledge the education, training, expertise and experience of someoneelse somehow lessens them. That's probably why AIDS deniers, holocaust deniers, and the like can never be convinced. They fear being convinced so much that they will avoid even considering a differing position.ignoring all reality and suspending disbelief.
We can argue oiver the necessity land/or utility of trying to convince others of the viability of our position, but in the long run I don't think it really matters. The truth (and knowing the truth) doesn't really become depreciated because someone else lives in fantasyland. Entopy doesn't become any less true because some Pashtun goatherder in Afghanistan doesn't believe in it.
It is akin to finding a body with a gunshot wound to the lateral aspect of the head, next to a note in the victim's handwriting apologizing for the suicide, and high speed blowback spattering and gunshot residue on the dominant hand, and roseate stippling of the wound, and the family denying suicide because you can't tell them the precise second the trigger was pulled.
In my opinion, people are focusing too much on only the structural failure aspect and not paying attention to the controllability issues like flutter, control reversal, mach tuck, and compressibility induced compressor stall. It may be because they have never flown a transport category airplane at flight levels at mach numbers approaching 1.0 or engaged in expeerimental flight testing. They've never experienced control "buzz" incipient to flutter or walked around muddy field among the dead bodies of the victims of an in flight loss of control or structural failure.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:31 AM

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I'm not familiar with the Grand Jury system in the US but I suspect that there is more than enough evidence to get a Grand Jury to weigh evidence in matters related to 9/11. I'm not sure if they have subpoena power. I assume they do.

I don't know what is involved with seeking a Grand Jury indictment. I assume that Craig Ranke or Rob Balsamo must have taken legal advice on it. Seeking criminal indictments against members of the Nazi Regime obviously would not be taken lightly by them.

Trying to get an indictment against John Gotti was very dangerous to some witnesses. It would be no different with the 9/11 perps.

First you have to find a Judge to accept the evidence in a prelim hearing, then itTgoes to the Grand Jury.

iff, stick to your field of competence. A case only goes to a preliminary hearing if it was begun by arrest or other non-indictment means. A case can be a direct indictment case where it is taken, by the prosecutor, directly to the Grand Jury. The 2 potential tracks for a criminal case are:
1. Arrest - presentment/arraignment/preliminary hearing/grand jury/ pretrial motions/ trial.
2. Grand Jury/arraignment/pretrial motions/trial

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:37 AM
Has anybody seen this vid? its an Egyptian General - 9/11 Was An Inside Job ,

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

For me the most encouraging thing about this video is that it is a broadcast that was made by a general in the armed forces of a US ally.

Long time truthers would regard many of the statements made by the general, not as the slam dunk against the US that he seems to think they are, but rather as items in need of further investigation and clarification, possibly leading to indictments.

His portrayal of Bush and Cheney as victims of Israel is not credible to me. Bush himself may have been a dupe to some degree but I can't believe that Cheney was.

I would class the general as someone operating with a degree of tunnel vision conditioned by his long struggles against Israel.

I would give the interview a B. Student shows marked signs of improvement.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by ghofer
If the real-world 767 pilots claim it would break apart before then, well I won't argue.

It's good that you say that as here are just a few on the record in the presentation mentioned in the OP.

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

Here are a few more that are on the record as well...

John Lear
Son of Bill Lear
(Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
More than 40 years of Flying
19,000+ TT
23 Type ratings
Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

Field McConnell (Captain Sherlock?)
23,000+ hours
Forced to retire due 9/11 exposure

Captain Paul A. Trood
B737-800/400 Captain
Qantas Airways
Experience: 18,000 flight hours

Jim Mustanich
ATP 20,000+ hours
Typed in CE-500, DHC-7, EMB-110, BA-3100
Aircraft flown include Boeing 727,737, Douglas DC-9, MD-80
United Air Lines, American International Airlines, Air Pacific Airlines, West Air Airlines
6-7 years corporate flying in Cessna Citations
Factory demo pilot for Cessna Citations

Ted Muga
Naval Aviator - Retired Commander, USNR
A/C experience - Grumman E-1 and E-2 ( Approx, 3800 hours )
Pan American World Airways - Retired Dec. 1991 ( that's when PanAM went bankrupt )
Flight Engineer/First Officer -- Boeing 707 & Boeing 727 ( approx. 7500 hours )

Col Robert Bowman
President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies
Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation
retired Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church
101 combat missions in Vietnam
directed all the “Star Wars” programs under Presidents Ford and Carter
recipient of the Eisenhower Medal
George F. Kennan Peace Prize
President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace
Society of Military Engineers' ROTC Award of Merit (twice)
Six Air Medals
Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech
chaired 8 major international conferences
one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security
independent candidate for President of the US in 2000

John Panarelli
friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #11
ATP: L-300, B-737, DC-10, DC-8, FE, TT=approx. 11,000 hours
USAF-C141-IP, Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery
Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo

Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines
Director of Operations Training at Polar Air
Cargo, and Asst. Chief Pilot for Presidential Air
Manager of Flying for Eastern Airlines
Falcon 900 and a G-200
Check Captain
B737,A300, Da-50, G-200 and C-500
FE, A&P.

The rest of the list is too long to post here.

You should check out the presentation.

<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in