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: 35
127
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So continuous radar tracks don't support it......


Correct. Radar tracks show the aircraft exceeding Vmo by more than 150 knots. EA990 broke up in flight at 65 knots over Vmo.



So from your perspective, if a new, HD quality video was released from.... the Pentagon, or the WTC, that show details that proves the planes are as reported, and at speeds as reported, you would still reject this evidence?

And all because Deets says so?

What if plane parts/serial numbers are released, showing a clear chain of evidence? This is what truthers have been asking for. And just because Deets says those planes can't fly straight and level (they weren't, btw)into the towers, then any evidence to the contrary may be rejected, like you do with the phone calls/remains?

Is that how these delusions work?

Damn, your cognitive dissonance is strong, dude....

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Joey Canoli]




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So from your perspective, if a new, HD quality video was released from.... the Pentagon, or the WTC, that show details that proves the planes are as reported, and at speeds as reported, you would still reject this evidence?

And all because Deets says so?


It's not just Deets, I guess you missed the list I posted on past pages.

Here's the link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How about first giving access to the parts, parts data and MX logs to the numerous Aircraft Accident Investigators asking for them?

Oh, I forgot, all that was given back to the airline within weeks of the event and destroyed. Or wait, it was placed in Iron Mountain, where our govt "hides it's most dark secrets".




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by hooper
 



You should have opened your OP with the disclaimer that you have no way of scientifically proving or testing your hypothesis, just hope all readers will rely on the faith of your experts.


Ok hooper, why don’t you tell us what planes hit the WTC and what proof do you have that proves the government OS of said planes belong to AA, United Airlines.
You continue to ridicule everyone who pokes holes in the OS yet you do not tell us what you believe in.

Do you believe in the OS?


To date no "holes" have been poked in the commonly known narrative regarding the events of Septmber 11, 2001. There is a microscopic subcult that is dedicated to inventing, out of thin air, alternative and sometime outright bizarre narratives for their own purposes. You already know what information is out there and it proves the common narrative. Unilaterally dismissing the information is not proof that it is incorrect nor is proof that any alternative is correct.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Or wait, it was placed in Iron Mountain....


It was? Funny I thought it was out by Pittsburgh. Where did you get your info?

Oh, I'm sorry, were you confusing the name of the company providing the storage with the actual location?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The above, plus the fact that the number of 767 airframes is known, and so is their location.


Can you show me the facts as proof? Or is this hearsay information? You say is known? By whom?


You will reject this of course, since your bar of proof is set well beyond what any rational person needs.


Just because I do not take our government word as truth does not mean my bar is set well beyond rationality. You supporting the OS and the proven lies only makes you gullible.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Do you believe in the OS?


To date no "holes" have been poked in the commonly known narrative regarding the events of Septmber 11, 2001. There is a microscopic subcult that is dedicated to inventing, out of thin air, alternative and sometime outright bizarre narratives for their own purposes. You already know what information is out there and it proves the common narrative. Unilaterally dismissing the information is not proof that it is incorrect nor is proof that any alternative is correct.


Therefore, your answer is yes.

We are not here to promote ignorance, I just assume to have this conversation with a roll of toilet paper than have this discussion with someone who is in absolute denial of the proven facts that have been uncovered that proves the OS is hogwash. If anyone has proven to be dismissing all the scientific data that again proves the OS is a lie, it is you.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Or wait, it was placed in Iron Mountain....


It was? Funny I thought it was out by Pittsburgh. Where did you get your info?

Oh, I'm sorry, were you confusing the name of the company providing the storage with the actual location?


According to this journalist who visited the secure facility, Iron Mountain is where:

the charred evidence from United Flight 93, brought down by terrorists on 9/11, is heavily guarded in one of the underground vaults.





The crash site itself is now fenced in and guarded around the clock by the Somerset County Sheriff’s deputies. Officers stand vigil over what, beyond its historic and symbolic meaning, is also a burial ground.
www.nationalparks.org...



[edit on 14-7-2010 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
To date no "holes" have been poked in the commonly known narrative regarding the events of Septmber 11, 2001. There is a microscopic subcult that is dedicated to inventing, out of thin air, alternative and sometime outright bizarre narratives for their own purposes. You already know what information is out there and it proves the common narrative. Unilaterally dismissing the information is not proof that it is incorrect nor is proof that any alternative is correct.


To date no debunker has been able to prove that he is not posting from a cubicle at Langley.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The list of conspirators is getting huge. I went to Pilots for truth. Ted Olson didn't mind that his wife was murdered? It is all just to hard to believe. Some conspirator would come out and tell the truth, his moral compass getting a bearing. If so many top officials were swayed to lie, why not NASA guys too?
Anybody got a commercial jet I can take supersonic and end this fun debate?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 

A DEBATE?
LOL!
Did you guys think you were debating? LA Woman and her EDUCATED friends walked all over the shills, that is what I witnessed.
NO holes in the OS...that would be funny if the truth weren't so tragic.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I see that you are still avoiding the issues that you can't answer.

1. How many WTC planes are elephants? One or both?
2. How many pilots on ATS or at PFT have told you that they have direct experience with these aircraft in the flight regime in question?
3. What data were used by Dwain to provide his estimate?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Pilots for 911 truth are Educated Professional people. They know what they're doing and what they're talking about. No dis-respect towards you... don't you think they took *your thought pattern* into consideration? Being that your a professional pilot yourself...email them with your thoughts... it would be interesting to see what they have to say. btw...I'm a truther too... =0)



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
It makes you wonder how the Twin Towers should have been able to withstand a hit from a 707 even. A smaller 'plane yes, but it was a deal faster and had four projectiles albeit smaller, as in the engines, rather than the two in the 757 but it was still a big 'plane, and the question is would its kinetic energy at a higher speed be enough to compromise the Towers integrity. If it was a connections failure between the joined up outer columns that was the primary cause of collapse for example, then a very fast 707 with or without a mad terrorist could more than likely, have had a similar effect. I don't doubt that a 'plane hit either of the Towers, but there is a gap in the understanding of how those planes could perform and how the Towers could perform as stated, as they are in conflict.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Ladies and gentlemen, Exhibit A: The continued distortions and bluster and just plain INCORRECT rants of this OP, It is a posting history that rings VERY familiar and resembles OTHER persons, who have variously posted on ATS (and elsewhere) under various names, to include the name "Rob Balsamo", at one point. I suggest an agenda here, and it is none too subtle --- but that is up to ATS staff to deem, and deal with.


Back to Exhibits. I wasn't able to copy/paste/quote every example, as they are conintually scattered throughout this thread...metered out in the different posts.

Let's examine this one, for now though, in a recent response to a valid question from another valued ATS member, and let's recognize the illogic, and distortions----

RECALL, please, the discussion was regarding the values of the manufacturer's published MAXIMUM airspeeds, TiffanyinLA said:


Originally posted by TiffinayinLA

This margin is 41% over Vmo.


OK, now let's see if this convoluted "logic" doesn't make any of 'her' fans on this thread stop and say "HUH?":


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.


See??? "Tiffany" attempted to bamboozle (yet, yet again) with a completely off-the-target non-sequitor "comparison" --- clearly designed to make those who DO NOT HAVE the aviation and aerospace experience think, "Well, I guess that seems reasonable." --- when, in fact, it is nonsense, and invalid as a 'comparison' example. It is the STANDARD TACTIC seen for years, by this (alleged) person, or person who so similarly resembles one "Rob Balsamo".

It is ALSO the same STANDARD TACTIC employed continually by most in the so-called "Truth" movement. It is apparent to most thinking, rational adults who still possess a pulse.

Still, "Tiffany" (her)self said it best (and, still rings like a bell, it sounds so, so familiar):


How absurd.



Further Exhibits to present, but not linked in to this posting, are the (oft, oft repeated...spammed, one may wish to call them) "V-G Diagrams" that are tactically put into the posts, ad infinitum....ONE clearly labeled for the North American Aviaiton-produced WWII renowned fighter, the P-51.

THEN, "Tiffany", just up-thread FINALLY admitted (after earlier ignoring MY request for the provenance of the other "V-G Diagram" purported to be representative of the Boeing 767-200 parameters)....it was ADMITTED that the chart was made up!! The numbers were, I believe the actual quote was, "plugged in". Or, perhaps the terms used was "extrapolated".

Ladies and gentlemen, a more thorough re-examination of the OTHER posts on this thread by the OP will reveal more examples, and Exhibits, to make what I've just wrote not only evident, but more clear --- I invite those interested to do the proper studies....


~~~~

It IS imperative for the FULL, and complete airing of facts surrounding the events of 9/11. There is NO such 'strawman' animal as the so-called "official Story' -- or "OS". The so-called "Truth movement" rants wish to maintain such an EASY target (hence 'strawman') as part of the continued agenda.

Instead, the so-called "Truth movement" consists of scatter-shot, and disparate attempts (desperate attempts, in most cases, as exampled here) that largely comprise a heap of dis-and bad-information, that is disseminated, repeated, re-hashed, and cycled again...all with the assistance of our modern marvel, the World Wide Web.

THIS SAME WEB technology allows them to flasify, lie, distort, whatever...in their continuing agenda.

On the otherhand, there is NOTHING being hidden (one notable exception, IMO, is the politically charged circumstances that surrounded the Congrssional "9/11 Commission" investigation...BUT, only thing that "smelled bad" there was from the cover-our-arses that went on...it was a POLITICAL animal, and that stank).

Yes. That is politics, careers, and maybe possible criminal negligence for incompetence....(LOOK FOR THAT!!! Instead of this other ridiculous stuff).

But, to imagine some other incredibly convoluted, intentional and vile pre-mediated "plot" by any other than determined suicide bombers...who used airplanes, rather than cars/motorcycles/fuel tanker truck/bicycles, or even their own feet, to inflict damage because of a skewed religious/ideological bias?

THAT'S ABSURD....



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
THEN, "Tiffany", just up-thread FINALLY admitted (after earlier ignoring MY request for the provenance of the other "V-G Diagram" purported to be representative of the Boeing 767-200 parameters)....it was ADMITTED that the chart was made up!! The numbers were, I believe the actual quote was, "plugged in". Or, perhaps the terms used was "extrapolated".



Once again the only relevant part of weedwhackers rant is quoted above.

Weedwhacker, are you saying a V-G envelope cannot be constructed if the V speeds are known?

If this is what you're saying, you would be wrong.

Please click the links to the APS Training course linked several times throughout this thread.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

I see that you are still avoiding the issues that you can't answer.


Sigh...

Your questions have all been asked and answered numerous times in this thread. You just don't like the answers and/or ignore the answers. But I'll be happy to answer again. I'll save a link to this post so next time you ask I'll just post a link so I don't have to keep typing the same thing for you. Please try to answer my questions as well. For some reason you and your herd love to ask questions that have been answered ad nauseam, but repeatedly evade questions ask of you.


1. How many WTC planes are elephants? One or both?


Deets does not claim the WTC planes are the "Elephants". He is referring to the reported speeds as "An Aeronautical Improbability" and "The Elephant in the room" of UA175, if the aircraft was as reported. Pilots For 9/11 Truth feel the speeds of AA11 are plausible. Sorry you are having a hard time grasping this concept and retaining the information. Hopefully now you are able to understand it -- now that it has been explained to you perhaps more than 5 times.



2. How many pilots on ATS or at PFT have told you that they have direct experience with these aircraft in the flight regime in question?


No one has taken a positively identified standard 767-200 so far beyond it's flight envelope. The one that tried, suffered structural failure at 425 KEAS.

Perhaps you can find a Capt who will? Will you sit First Class? Those who claim to be pilots and feel an aircraft can easily achieve 150 knots over Vmo have so far avoided the proposal and instead anonymously elected to smear the good members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth.


Better yet,

Can you find ANY Capt willing to take ANY airplane 150 knots over it's Vmo at ANY altitude? Will you sit in the cabin when attempted?

Let me know when you find one willing.


3. What data were used by Dwain to provide his estimate?


His decades of experience in designing flight controls systems for various aircraft including top classified high performance aircraft, and through knowledge of why limitations are set for different airframes.

What data have you provided which positively identifies the 9/11 aircraft as reported?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Based on your answers, do you conclude that only one aircraft was somehow modified to allow it to reach higher speeds at low altitude?

I see that Deets has no flight experience, but his design skills allow him to select numbers based on his gut. Given that both aircraft showed an overall probability of 1.0 for striking their targets, one modified and one not modified, how do you think this reflects on Deet's probabilities?

Are you asking for serial numbers or aircraft type?



[edit on 7/14/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I'd still like to know how the airliners could have been modified without anyone noticing. A claim has been made that the 767 and 757 can't reach 510 knots at sea level even in a dive. I find this hard to believe but if that is true, where did the extra thrust come from? I didn't see any larger engines on the jets in the videos and I didn't see any extra engines. Also if the plane can only reach 410 knots before breaking apart, how would they have modified the plane structurally without it being obvious?

The whole theory is just too complicated. You need bigger engines and a re-designed plane. How would the pilots not notice this when flying their plane? If you claim the plane was modified, what on earth for? I thought the usual claim here that the WTC buildings were blown up by explosives. What difference would there be from a plane hitting the WTC at 510 kts or 410 kts. In either case, it would leave a big hole and in either case the fuel would still explode.

If you start claiming the plane was modified, then you have to start assuming things like the plane was not actually owned by an airline. And if that's the case you have to assume that the passengers that boarded the plane and the pilots were somehow all kidnapped and killed and that the plane was flown somewhere else. Somehow ATC would have to have missed the point where the planes were switched either on the ground or in the air. There are far too many secrets to keep hidden all these years. It makes a whole lot more sense to suspect the published speeds were incorrect or that the plane was lucky enough to survive for a few seconds at 510 knots before hitting the building. I think if the gov't really was behind the whole thing, they'd take the simplest approach so as not to be found out.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Based on your answers, do you conclude that only one aircraft was somehow modified to allow it to reach higher speeds at low altitude?


For perhaps the 30th time...

From the OP:

"The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. "


I see that Deets has no flight experience, but his design skills allow him to select numbers based on his gut.


Not from his "gut". For the perhaps 6th time and copy/pasted from the post above yours...

It is based on,

"His decades of experience in designing flight controls systems for various aircraft including top classified high performance aircraft, and through knowledge of why limitations are set for different airframes."

Thank you for avoiding my questions once again. Can't say that many readers will be surprised.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghofer
...how would they have modified the plane structurally without it being obvious?


I do not design aircraft, and this would be pure speculation (and no doubt open a can of worms for the debunkers to scramble quickly and neutralize), but I can take a stab at it as I do have lots of experience designing and constructing RC aircraft and overcoming problems associated with speed.

There are several methods for reducing control surface flutter at higher speeds. Boeing already employs many of these methods, but only within the flight envelope established. I suppose they can be further modified to reduce flutter at higher speeds.

Many jet engines are derated so that you will not exceed the limits of the airframe and for prolonged use of the engine. Since the engines have never been positively identified, who knows the amount of thrust they were able to produce.

Here is a good discussion that I found with a quick search on derating engines and the purpose.

www.pprune.org...

You can also do a google search to find more.

Employment of increased amount of Vortex Generators and other various airfoil modifications can be made rather simply, preventing boundary layer separation at higher speeds.

Different materials can be used, stronger, lighter (but more toxic). An interesting topic on Beryllium was started at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Ballast combined with small airfoil modification can be used to prevent Mach Tuck at higher speeds outside the envelope.

The physical stops on the control surfaces can be modified to produce larger "throws" for more authority. Hydraulic actuators with higher limits and dampeners can afford more control authority as well.

None of the above you will able to see in a youtube video of the impact.

Again, all pure speculation. But these are some of the methods used when modifying airframes for higher performance from the original prototype.

I once built an aircraft and put a very powerful engine in it so I could stand it on it's tail and climb, and accelerate, vertically. Once level, the speed increased so rapidly, the left aileron started to flutter and ripped half the wing off. Needless to say, I didn't use more than half throttle after I fixed the plane and employed some modifications mentioned above to reduce flutter at higher speeds.



Originally posted by ghofer
What difference would there be from a plane hitting the WTC at 510 kts or 410 kts.


Speed is time. Fighters were inbound from Otis.


[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join