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: 33
127
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
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.


Hi 4nsicphd,

Good post, well said.

All the above you mention is thoroughly covered in the presentation mentioned in the Original post.




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream
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.


Hi Jetstream,

That is basically the same argument being made by the OP and the presentation mentioned.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by pteridine
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.


So I gather you would take a turn in a Ford Truck at the same speed you would a Corvette? Because clearly you don't know when your car would be out of control unless you done it before.

Give it a rest. You're reaching.


No one is "guessing", it is based on experience, precedent and data. AS you can see, other pilots here on ATS get it. You never will.



Everyone is guessing and it's based on feelings. Based on what experience, Tiffany? Flight simulators that don't have algorithms capable of modeling behavior outside the normal envelope? Based on what data? Manufacturer's data that may be a tad conservative for the common suicidal pilot?

List the data and Dwain's experience with planes at this speed and altitude. Show Dwain's personal involvement is assessing the skills of suicidal pilots.

The 30%/10% numbers are guesses.

Will all those other pilots that Tiffany claims "get it," now please speak to their experiences and data in this flight regime?

You never did answer my question about the other plane. Was it another elephant or are you claiming only one plane was modified? Of course, a really good plan is to just modify one plane because the other was just fine the way it was. That way all the armchair sleuths can sell CD's about why only one plane was modified.

Your purported conspiracy is based entirely on Dwain's guesswork and assignment of random probabilities to events. No one, including award-winning spaceman Dwain, has any idea of these probabilities other than they must lie between 0 and 1.0. Based on the results, it looks like 1.0 for both the WTC aircraft.

Until the data and experience dealing with the conditions under discussion can be shown, 3% probability is the product of 2 wild guesses and the elephant is stillborn.
Of course, you either don't get this or don't want to. Stop reaching.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


huh?? Still changing topic, spinning and spinning, in order to dazzle and confuse those who aren't in the aerospace fields??


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by JetStream
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.


Hi Jetstream,

That is basically the same argument being made by the OP and the presentation mentioned.


You agree so readily with "JetStream", yet don't bother to question the assumptions?? Oh, and WHERE did the "presentation" suggest it was a pitch authority issue? Was that something you've just madeup?

Firstly, as you know doubt realize, the post by "JetStream" was incorrect, and non-specific to the Boeing 767, in any case.

Before jumping up and applauding, one should ask for more details, and the EXACT type of simulator, and situation that was attempted to recreate, before accepting this ATS members' assertions. Apples/oranges, unless proven otherwise.

Second, I have re-read the OP, where the propasal by Mr. Deets was outlined, in one of the openeing paragraphs. He suggested, among other things, a "modified" B-767 (Not exactgly sure how THAT ties in with your apparent agreement with "JetStream"??? Specfics are scant, as usual, coming from the "sources" ever offered or promoted by "Pilots4Truth". That group has a POOR record of accuracy in the projects and "presentations" they tout so often).

Another of Mr. Deets' suggestions was some vague mention of radra target recording tampering...sorry, but as I said earlier, there can be a nut in every organization. Despite the "appeal to authority" that this former Dryden researcher has been attributed.

WHERE are the hundreds of his former colleagues who have joined him in this chorus?? WHY are there (out of the tens of thousands of professional airline pilots worldwide) only a handful who also "buy into" this load of manure?

I question their motives, for there is obviously something else afoot, here.

And, it is not "truthseeking". It is obfuscation, with pseudo-science shrouded in technical joargo to confuse and baffle those unsophisticated enough to see through, and recognize it for the travesty it is.

~~~~~

This image of a B-777 horizontal stab in its extreme ANU and AND trim range settings is an example....the B-767 is similar.

(For non-pilots, note that the entire horizontal stabilizer moves...it pivots, and the leading edge changes its angle of incidence, in order to alleviate pitch control forces --- IOW, to "trim" the to a new neutral -- for airspeed, CG, and power changes that affect the "balance' of forces on an airplane in flight):

www.avsim.com...


[edit on 14 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Manufacturer's data that may be a tad conservative for the common suicidal pilot?


"A tad conservative"?

A tad??? Really now.

You think exceeding Vmo by 150 knots, exceeding Va by 220 knots, is just a "tad" margin over a "tad conservative limit set by the manufacturer?

Talk about attempting to minimize the Elephant in the room. Wow.... you take the cake pteridine. Too bad for you, not many pilots support your notion of "a tad".

Once again, bottom line, NTSB reports 510 knots near sea level for a 767. This is well beyond the envelope of the 767. Egypt Air 990, a 767, broke up in flight at 425 KEAS. This is one of the many reasons pilots and aviation professionals are throwing up their red flags.

Whether they feel the NTSB data is erroneous and the aircraft HAD to be traveling slower, or they feel it is physically impossible for the aircraft to exceed their Vmo by such a wide margin, or they flat out feel the airplane will tear itself apart (as do 757/767 pilots who have actual time in these exact aircraft), they all agree there is something very wrong with story the govt is trying to sell to the global public.

Your attempt to tell people "Nothing to see here folks, these aviation professionals are all just guessing, move along now...", is not working. Get a new hobby.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



they all agree there is something very wrong....


Now wait a minute - they ALL agree? All pilots and aviation professionals agree with your unvalidated opinions? Really? ALL? Or just the few dozen conspiracy afficiandos that may have signed your petition?

By the way - how many more "avaition professionals" joined your petition yesterday? Want to make sure that "list is growing"!



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Here, let's put this in perspective,

pteridine feels 510 knots is only a "tad" outside the envelope of a "tad conservative figure" set by the manufacturer.

This margin is 41% over Vmo.

Now, if manufacturers build in this "tad conservative" margin for error in aircraft envelopes, that means a 767-200ER with a Max Take-off weight of 395,000 lbs can exceed that envelope by 161,950 lbs and still get off the ground. In other words, A 767 certified with a MTOW of 395,000 lbs can get airborne with 556,950 lbs on board. After all, the Manufacture limits are a "tad" conservative, according to pteridine.

How absurd.

You know what the manufacturer does when they want to increase aircraft performance of a particular make/model? They modify the original.

That is why there is a 767-200/200ER/300/300ER/300F/400ER

The 400ER cannot even hold the "tad" margin you claim. MTOW for the 400ER is 450,000.

You really need a new hobby pteridine. Too funny.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



they all agree there is something very wrong....


Now wait a minute - they ALL agree? All pilots and aviation professionals agree with your unvalidated opinions? Really? ALL? Or just the few dozen conspiracy afficiandos that may have signed your petition?

By the way - how many more "avaition professionals" joined your petition yesterday? Want to make sure that "list is growing"!


Tiffany's post is doubly misleading: even her plucky conspiracists don't even really agree with each other. Some of them seem to think it impossible. Others say it's possible, and assign a probability based on - well, I'm not sure what.

Like others here I'd be amused if this reached court. You'd have half the P4T "experts" claiming it was possible, and half saying it wasn't. And then at the end they'd go, "Well. I think we've proved there's something VERY wrong here." Which would, I imagine, be met with laughter.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



This margin is 41% over Vmo.


Can you provide some engineering proof that this is impossible? Been asking for awhile. Guess there really isn't anything out there except your appeal to authority and your personal incredulity.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Like others here I'd be amused if this reached court.


Perhaps "P4T"they could subpoena Tino (aka ATS member 'turbofan")


(Not sure which side he'd take though...shame, huh?)

"IF" is the operative word, here...because there's no merit. But, even in Imagination-Land one wouldn't need Tino...barring his testimony, there are plenty of aviation and aerospace experts who don't live on the fringes, and don't spread disinfo in the guise of these so-called "theories"... who would be available to testifgy and blow Mr. deets' already shaky reputation to smithereens.

As the old joke about what you call the medical student who graduates at the bottom of his class (hint: you call him "doctor") will imply, EVERY professional field represents a broad spectrum of talent and actual ability.

Unfortunately for these "XXX For 9/11 Truth" groups that have sprouted (many, as noted, with overlapping members' lists) the totality of their membership rosters represent a VERY small percentage of other well more qualified professionals in various fields of expertise. Other more qualified professionals who SHUN them, after recognizing them for the shams and charlatans that they represent.

You see, IF there were actual, SOLID and compeling, undeniable evidence to support all these many (and disparate) claims, then there WOULD BE NO DEBATE??

There would be NO so-called "9/11 Truth" groups, and no ATS Forum devoted to the topic...because it would be obvious to everyone...and would not be up for "debate". But, alas it is not so, is it??

....a logical and reasoning and rational individual must reach the inevitable conclusion, here...

Smoke and Mirrors.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Some of them seem to think it impossible. Others say it's possible,


Like the rest of your posts, you spin words into your bias.

The exact words used were "impossible" and "improbable".

The people with the most experience flying these aircraft say it's impossible.

The people with many years aeronautical engineering design experience on Flight Control Systems at NASA and designing high performance prototypes say it's improbable.

Deets leaves a 3% probability (not "possibility") because he has never flown the airplane yet is very familiar with how limits are set on aircraft, why they are set, and how flight controls are affected should you exceed those limits by a wide margin.

Clearly you don't understand why limits are set, nor have any expertise in the field to draw any conclusion except for your bias to blindly support anything the govt tells you.

Those that have flown the airplane 1000's of hours, including the exact aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, leave a 0% probability.

Where they all agree is that the speeds reported need to be investigated thoroughly as it is the "Elephant In The Room". It appears you are not familiar with this phrase and instead spend your days and nights trying to get people to look the other way. It's not working.

We don't expect you to understand. But good luck trying!



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream

The pitch up tendency of the aircraft is greater than the control surface force available to maintain straight and level.



The analysis of videos shows that this wasn't the case though.

What happens if the plane is in a very slight dive?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"IF" is the operative word, here...because there's no merit. But, even in Imagination-Land one wouldn't need Tino...barring his testimony, there are plenty of aviation and aerospace experts who don't live on the fringes, and don't spread disinfo in the guise of these so-called "theories"... who would be available to testifgy and blow Mr. deets' already shaky reputation to smithereens.



Does this reputation look "shakey"?




Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996
Release: 96-10
Printer Friendly Version
Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, Center Director Kenneth J. Szalai announced recently.

Before this appointment, Deets became Director, Research Engineering Division in March 1994 and served as acting division chief from 1990 to 1994. In that position, he directed the research and engineering aspects of the flight research programs at Dryden.

Deets has had several special assignments since September 1994 that took him away temporarily from the Research Engineering Division responsibilities. He led the preparation of the Dryden response to the NASA Federal Laboratory Review. He was Chairman of the NASA Non-Advocate Review of the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program in 1995, and will again serve in the capacity for the 1996 review. 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.

In 1986 Deets completed a special assignment at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., where he led an effort to define the needs for flight research and flight testing within NASA. He then headed development of a flight research strategy for what was then NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, now called the Office of Aeronautics. This effort led to a major increase in emphasis on flight research by NASA.

In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.

He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995.

He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978.



Source - www.nasa.gov...

weedwhacker, it appears your ethics are non-existent to be so arrogant to smear and libel a man on the interwebs, anonymously.

Put your name to your claims, as Deets has done, or stop smearing the man.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
In a debunker's dream the speculations and hypotheses of truthers "go to trial". They are trounced in court and the whole truth movement is denounced and discredited once and for all.

Fascist America is then free to proceed with its NWO dreams. New wars of conquest, new eco-disasters due to slack regulations, new financial catastrophes due to de-regulation. More money for the few and more suffering for the untermenchen.

Well wake up debunkernation. Hypotheses will not be going to trial, only evidence. The truth movement exists to demonstrate to the public that there is reason to investigate, anomalies and improbabilities of such an order that realistically speaking an "inside job" appears to be the only explanation for the events as they unfolded.

I think we are getting that job done. In any case we are not going away.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Clearly you don't understand why limits are set



What's absolutely clear is that Deets doesn't have the vg for a 767, and so he took that and extrapolated it onto one for a P-51 MUSTANG and claims this is his engineering proof/hard evidence that there are errors from the NTSB. Maybe that's clear proof for truthers, but it is an inescapable truth that no one cares what they think, without solid proof behind it.

It's also clear that until someone does get that specific vg, then this is just another ploy to sell DVD's.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


What's absolutely clear is that Deets doesn't have the vg for a 767, and so he took that and extrapolated it onto one for a P-51 MUSTANG and claims this is his engineering proof/hard evidence that there are errors from the NTSB.


Are you saying that Maneuvering speed as set by the manufacturer has a different definition than the one set on a V-G diagram? Are you saying the definition for Max Structural Cruise is different on a V-G diagram, than the one set by the manufacturer?

Are you saying the Limit Dive Speed on a V-G diagram has a different definition than the one set by the manufacturer?

If so, you would be wrong. as usual.



Joey, give it a rest, it's clear you will never grasp the basic fundamentals of flight.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Some of them seem to think it impossible. Others say it's possible,


Like the rest of your posts, you spin words into your bias.

The exact words used were "impossible" and "improbable".

The people with the most experience flying these aircraft say it's impossible.

The people with many years aeronautical engineering design experience on Flight Control Systems at NASA and designing high performance prototypes say it's improbable.

Deets leaves a 3% probability (not "possibility") because he has never flown the airplane yet is very familiar with how limits are set on aircraft, why they are set, and how flight controls are affected should you exceed those limits by a wide margin.

Clearly you don't understand why limits are set, nor have any expertise in the field to draw any conclusion except for your bias to blindly support anything the govt tells you.

Those that have flown the airplane 1000's of hours, including the exact aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, leave a 0% probability.

Where they all agree is that the speeds reported need to be investigated thoroughly as it is the "Elephant In The Room". It appears you are not familiar with this phrase and instead spend your days and nights trying to get people to look the other way. It's not working.

We don't expect you to understand. But good luck trying!



I am sorry Tiffany, but you are wrong about the impossible part.
Here is an article about a DC-8 breaking the sound barrier. This is much more than a tad over the safety limits. 760 mph I think.
www.dc8.org...
This happened in 1961 and I'll bet other commercial jets have done it. Sometimes machines just hold together way above where they are graphed to fall apart.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Before I decided to reply, I thought back to various aircraft types I have flown, and noticing your screen name, the Weedhopper came to mind. It is a 500 pound gross weight powered kite with a cruise speed of 55 mph and a Vne of 65 mph. At the other end of the spectrum in my experience is the C5B with a MGTOW of 840,000 pounds (it has 28 wheels to support the weight) and a Mmo of .79.
And then it occurred to me. I have never seen a group called "Pilots for 911 Official Story" or "Architects/engineers..." or anyone who will put their real name and reputation on the line. I wonder why. The core members of P4T sign on with their real names and the list is there for all to see.
One other random thought. Some have posted their belief that control is easier if remotely controlled. NASA tried that with a Boeing 707 in a test of fuel tank fire suppresant. At a low speed low to the ground, the remote pilot lost control and prematurely crashed. The video is at www.youtube.com...

And there was a right spectacular Airbus crash resulting from fly-by-wire at low altitude.
www.youtube.com...

And a high speed low pass by a Boeing B-52 ended in disaster.

www.youtube.com...

And for a close up of what happens when the envelope is exceeded look at
www.youtube.com...

If you think I'm badmouthing Mr. Boeing's airplanes, I'm not. My philosophy re airliners is "If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going."



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Are you saying the Limit Dive Speed on a V-G diagram has a different definition than the one set by the manufacturer?



IIRC, that graph is for a P-51 MUSTANG, right?

So how do you know for a fact that this is correct for a 767?

Just admit that Deet's work is based on an assumed and made up graph, since he doesn't have the right one.

Or are we to take as true that the 767 is safe to fly at 7 G's, as indicated in your graph? To reject this lunacy is to reject the entire graph as worthless, and renders Deet's work as pure speculation and not worthy of any action.

If you feel that it IS worthy of action, then implore pffffft to make another court case.

At least it'll be good for some more LULZ......



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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

Oh! touche! One could say the US government might hesitate to kill its own citizens, but we do it anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join