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: 36
127
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Some of the debunkers here now talk about a court of law setting.All very good. Lets push for that and have subpoena powers so we can get Boeing data. We can see all the video of the Pentagon hit etc etc. I for one would love this.

Some want to find a test pilot who has actual experience in a 757 767 at 510 knots at sea level to verify the claims of the os?That pilot doesnt exist.

One poster says my argument of pitch authority is false.
Based on what data? I have done the "test" in a Boeing 737 Level D sim.You tested your rebuttal on software on your PC?

Another poster argues symantics and 3 percent 10 percent etc.
I will make it easy for you. A 757 767 cannot fly in straight and level flight at low altitude at 510 kias. Zero percent. Impossible to do.

Some posters go step by step into the P4T story and pick what they want to try and discredit the theory. Lets be clear-the point as I see it that P4T are trying to get across is government duplicity if not actual criminal intent.

Radar speed-impossible to be attained, Implication -someone jacked with the tapes-Probability?100 percent if the aircraft on that day were 767 757s.

Aircraft Modification- 100 percent if the aircraft hit at 510 knots.why? see my rant above

I forget the rest I am sure one of you will point it out.
The 911 event is full of people who spout absurd arguments and full of people who make logical arguments sound absurd.
Some of you get great joy out of sophistry.Yet you miss the goal.The goal is the truth. And the truth is not something to be taken lightly.

Now for your debunking to make sense here is what I have compiled.Again please feel to correct me if I have any omissions.
The Aircraft on that fateful day hit the WTC at 510 knots indicated airspeed at an altitude of under 1000 feet MSL in basically straight and level controlled flight.
You all believe this is possible because no pilot has taken a 757 or 767 to about 190 knots above max speed at low altitude and come back to say it can't be done.
You believe that a group of experts in the field are not qualified to make assumptions based on experience because they do not have experience on the handleing of aircraft so far outside the design parameters of the aircraft. While failing to mention that no one has experience that far outside the design envelope.
Some of you have brought up transport category aircraft that exceeded mach one-which it didn't
Here is the vid of that event.Be sure to look at the damage to the stab in the back.
www.liveleak.com... I couldnt copy and paste the link sorry.And remember that the 747 sp is made to go faster than the 75 and 76.Listen carefully to how he had to control the aircraft afterwards-throttle cause his elevators were damaged.

To the guy who wants to test this on an airplane-Rent the airplane on your credit card. Spend like there is no tommorow.cause guess what..
If I missed any please feel free to repost or send me a u2u.I cant reply back via u2u sadly.




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Allow me
1.neither of the planes are elephants. elephants cant fly unless you believe in Dumbo
2.None alive
3.Ask him

Somewhat absurd?Yes.But you are the expert on sophistic absurdity from what I see.
1.Now for some reality-All it takes is one of the aircraft to not be able to fly at the radar reported speed
2.Seriously-none.
3.Seriously ask him. Use your knowledge and intellect to finally kill this thruth movement and let us all go back to Baseball apple pie and mom.
So we will not entertain any more conspiracy theories.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Obviously the terrorists were well versed in plane overclocking.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 



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


NO - "Iron Mountain" is the NAME OF THE COMPANY providing the storage services, not the storage location. The company name is derived from the company's first storage location in New Jersey, not the current location of the mateial.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
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?


Your use of the term "commercial jet" is illustrative of a total lack of familiarity with the subject matter of this thread. The FAA defines as a commercial operation any flight for compensation or hire. So if you go out and hire a jet designed for supersonic flight like a Mig 29 at Zhukovsky airbase in Moscow or a Mig 21 from Rena Adventures in Stead for a quick supersonic ride,you think that it proves something. It doesn't.Going supersonic isn't the issue. Exceeding design limits by 40% is. For example, the Convair (now General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler was designed with a Vmo of 1147 mph, or right at 1000 knots. That's a Mmo of 1.73 mach. 3 of them broke apart in flight when design limits were exceeded for various reasons.
Until you can calculate compressibility factor, mach numbers, Reynolds number, dynamic pressures and kinematic coefficients for different airfoils at different speeds and altitudes, you're probably better off sticking to Popular Mechanics for your scientific discussions of this subject.
For instance, some numbers for United 175, assuming the government reported speeds are correct are: Dynamic pressure - 893psf; Reynolds number - 135417171; kinematic coefficient - 1.55962E-4 ft^2/s; P total compressibility - 3083 psf; T total compressibility - 579 R; viscosity density - 0.002308672 slug/ft^3.
Please advise which of these numbers with whichyou disagree and show the computations you believe are correct.
I didn't think so.

Edit to get rid of a dangling preposition. That's a word you shouldn't end a sentence with.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


As I have stated, these are all possibilities, some more probable than others. We just disagree on which are more or less probable. The "modified" aircraft seems most unlikely to me but that seems to be the one you favor.

Your reply to my comment on gut feelings was ""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."

When I decrypt this it comes out "gut feelings." What else could it be? He shows no calculations or data. He pronounces his numbers, oracle-like. The 30% number may have some validity but the 10% number is pure guesswork.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream
reply to post by pteridine
 


Allow me
1.neither of the planes are elephants. elephants cant fly unless you believe in Dumbo
2.None alive
3.Ask him

Somewhat absurd?Yes.But you are the expert on sophistic absurdity from what I see.
1.Now for some reality-All it takes is one of the aircraft to not be able to fly at the radar reported speed
2.Seriously-none.
3.Seriously ask him. Use your knowledge and intellect to finally kill this thruth movement and let us all go back to Baseball apple pie and mom.
So we will not entertain any more conspiracy theories.


Thank you for your succinct reply. I don't want to keep you from entertaining any more conspiracy theories or ATS readers.
You and “Tiffany” conclude that only one aircraft was suspiciously fast. To what do you attribute this? Do you believe that one aircraft was modified to go faster and for what reason?
Both of you say that no pilots have experience in flying at this speed and altitude in this type aircraft, so no one really knows if this is possible, although many have weighed in with theories and estimates.
Dwain’s estimates are just gut feelings and basing a conspiracy on the solid foundation of a guesstimate is not convincing. If this is an example of "evidence" and “reality” for the so-called truth movement, baseball might be more interesting.
For you, I suggest fantasy baseball.


[edit on 7/15/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
then a very fast 707


Kinda makes one think about why the towers were designed with a 600 mph 707 strike in the first place, when pfffft claims that these planes wouldn't be controllable at those speeds.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JetStream
 


Hey, I wanted to ask again.

Your contributions about mach tuck are appreciated.

But your statement about flying straight and level into the towers is in error. They were both pitched down at impact, and at 30-40 degree roll left.

What would happen, due to mach tuck, when the ac is rolled?

A harder pull up?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I said i would not continue to contribute to this thread. I lied!

Tiffany,

I have seen you say to a couple of posters that they have not proven that the planes were as the report says they were..

I have to call you out on that. It is not mine or someone elses burden to prove what the official report states, it is quite the oposite. It is your job to prove otherwise.

Ok, now on to my "elephant" in the room!

Lets say that very powerful people modified or switched the type of planes used that day. Why did they do that? So the planes could handle the stress of over the limits manuvers??

So their plan included these high risk manuvers?? Really? They told the terrorist, " I want you to pull off a near impossible manuver before hitting the target.. really?

That makes sense to whom? If we assume the planes were modified, we have to assume it was for a reason.
Conversation Cheney and Terrorists
Terrorist #1: I am ready boss, give me the flight plan.
Dick: Ok, notice here the completely insane turn and dive here on the chart?
Terrorist#2: Why can't we just add a mile or 2 to the flight plan so that we can have time to line up the buildings?
Dick: That would make far to much sense.
Terrorist#3: Oh I see... You would like to go way out of our way, to do extra work to the planes. I see the logic... You want to take these already reliable planes and add structural strength to them, because..... You want us to make this target almost impossible to hit...
Dick: Yes! we have it planned out so you must pull off amazing acts of acrobatics just to hit the target!!!!
Terrorist#4 Hey dick..... It makes sense to me ... to strap a bomb to my chest... it also makes sense, if I blow myself up in the name of allah... I get 72 virgins....But this makes absolutely NO sense to me.
Terrorist #5: Shut your mouth achmed!!! Dick and George are very intelligent leaders and they say that this is the best way to do it...
Terrorist#6 Yeah achmed....we could very easily just add 2 miles to the flight path... make a smooth turn and come in with plenty of time to line up the buildings...We have put years and years of work into this... We have to make hitting that target, as hard as humanly possible.
Dick: Ok look guys.. This is the plan.. You have the threat of hostile passengers.... You have the risk of being caught trying to board. There are so many risks... We think that adding one more risk to the plan is necessary!

You say the official report has "holes".

Here is the difference... Truthers pick apart every second of that day. Millions of people have put some sort of research into 9/11.

Other than arguing with truthers... nobody really cares to prove truthers wrong.

Why would they include in their plan ...a high risk manuver? The simple answer is... They wouldn't.

Truthers claim to be so intelligent... But you fail to explain a good deal of reasons and facts on several subjects.

I find it amusing that truthers automaticly believe that the speed given is the correct speed.. All of your charts and graphs are based on the given speed.

If we are going to stray off into fantasy lala land.. What if the speed was miscalculated by 100 knots? How would this change your (easily edited to fit a certain stance) graph?? Do I even care what it would do? Nope, not a bit, so don't take the time to explain.

Tiffany... You are a new name here, but NOT a new member..It is 100 percent obvious that you have had this duel here before. There is a reason that you are not using your veteran name anymore. It is only my opinion.. You do not need to address this.. I simply don't care.

I also feel that you are regurgitating all of this info from the names you bring up at nauseum through out this thread. You are well informed on this matter... Getting yourself so deep into a subject becomes a negative thing after time has passed..

You have so much emotion and time wrapped up into this, your opinion is set in stone at this point. Pou have to much time and research into this to ever be bias at this point.

Spewing this info to a truther is like crack to a crack head. Truthers are like cult leaders. They feel as though they are enlightening people. This becomes and obsession!

Now I am sure that truthers that have been battling my sort for years, will have a shoot from the hip answer for everything I have touched on.....
Do not get me wrong.. you are right on several holes in the events of 9/11.
But there are also holes in your story too.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Edit to get rid of a dangling preposition. That's a word you shouldn't end a sentence with.


Somebody had their Wheaties this morning.


That is damn funny.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974

Lets say that very powerful people modified or switched the type of planes used that day. Why did they do that? So the planes could handle the stress of over the limits manuvers??




I find this proposition very unlikely due to the fact that the number of airframes is known, and none are missing.

If pfffffft could show some wonky records, well then they might have a reason for the rational to listen and not just laugh at them.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by smurfy
then a very fast 707


Kinda makes one think about why the towers were designed with a 600 mph 707 strike in the first place, when pfffft claims that these planes wouldn't be controllable at those speeds.


Do you guys just make this stuff up. No one has ever said a 707 wouldn't be controllable at 600 mph.
The 707 was fast. Really fast. The -320version and 720 versions with the JT3D engines , had a design cruise speed of 607 mph. See, www.boeing.com...
And as an example of what happens when design limits are exceeded, a 720 version of the 367-80 (707), flying as Northwest Orient Flight 705 broke up in flight after a dive exceeded speed design limits. Both wings and both horizontal tail structures failed, probably in spar component compression, all 4 engines tore off and the fuselage broke apart. The wreckage ended up in the Everglades.
So, to answer your question, the towers were designed to withstand a 600 mph 707 hit because 707s would be flying around at 600 mph. Happy??



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


LOL funny.yet you fail to look at my previous post where I commented on the planes. If the airspeed is not as claimed then the KE is not sufficient to knock down the 3 building in NYC.
I am not a big believer on a modified plane theory.I am not sure if P4T does or not. I am not a member of that group.
Again you play games of words to deflect from events.Did you even bother to watch the link to the documentary of the 747 or are you so preoccupied with being witty that you can disregard data?

To the poster who asked about mach tuck-
Mach Tuck happens at high Mach numbers.The 510 knots as almost sea level is below the critical mach number I believe.So I do not think mach tuck is a factor. What is a factor is the high airspeed.
Mach speed changes with altitude.At low alt airspeed is limiting and as you climb higher into the flight levels mach becomes the limiter.
I am just a simple airline pilot with 3 Airline Transport Pilot licenses (FAA and JAA and one other I wont mention) and 5 transport category jet
type ratings.I think a previous poster who mentioned reynolds numbers and dynamic pressure etc can break it down better than I can.
I am going to play fantasy baseball. I suspect he has the bat hidden somewhere....


[edit on 15-7-2010 by JetStream]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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]


This is sounding even crazier. How would they have known so far in advance where the fighters would have been flying that day? How would they have known when the ATC would have noticed the planes being off course and then alerting NORAD or the air force to the situation? Like I said, it's just too complicated. If you claim planes were modified then you have all the other problems that arise which have never been explained.

Also, why wouldn't they have just picked a plane departing from New York to hit the WTC towers if the goal was to beat the fighters? That's a pretty simple solution, don't you think? Also the plane was only flown at 510 knots for a short time so that would have made very little overall difference to the total flight time? If you want to stick with the theory that the planes were modified to fly at 500+ knots, you're going to have to answer those questions.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by ghofer]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


No its not designed to fly at 600 knots indicated airspeed. Thats at altitude.
The indicated airspeed then would be much much less-by about half.
There are a few different speeds that airplanes use.
Indicated airspeed-whats on the airspeed indicator based on ram air pressure on the pitot tube.As you climb the air is thinner and the ram effect is less so you indicate a lower speed.But this is the speed the wing and aircraft "feels"
True airspeed-this is your true speed over the ground in 0 wind conditions-its indicated airspeed adjusted for altitude temperature and instrument error.
Ground speed-this is the speed as measured over the ground. Its not an aircraft limitation. Its just true airspeed plus or minus the wind component in flight.
Mmo- max mach number is the fastest speed to fly based on the local speed of sound, usually at higher altitudes this becomes a factor.
Vmo -Max airspeed-indicated. this is always a limiter. On transport jets its usually around 320 knots indicated airspeed.
As you climb initially you are limited by indicated airspeed then beyond about 30 thousand feet or so by mach number.
As you climb Your Mmo will keep droping.Your stall speed will keep increaseing. Above Mmo the wing can experience local shock waves and stalls. Your indicated airspeed stall speed also increases with altitude. This area were the 2 meet is called coffin corner.
AQgain sorry for the off thread background.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
the towers were designed to withstand a 600 mph 707 hit because 707s would be flying around at 600 mph. Happy??


So you're saying that it would normal for a 707 to be flying around at 1000' doing 600mph?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream

To the poster who asked about mach tuck-
Mach Tuck happens at high Mach numbers.The 510 knots as almost sea level is below the critical mach number I believe.


Ok, sounds reasonable.


So I do not think mach tuck is a factor. What is a factor is the high airspeed.


Due to loss of control?

Also, please address the point about the planes NOT flying straight and level into the towers. Video evidence says they were down 4-6 degrees.

What does this do for controllability?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by earthdude
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?


Your use of the term "commercial jet" is illustrative of a total lack of familiarity with the subject matter of this thread. The FAA defines as a commercial operation any flight for compensation or hire. So if you go out and hire a jet designed for supersonic flight like a Mig 29 at Zhukovsky airbase in Moscow or a Mig 21 from Rena Adventures in Stead for a quick supersonic ride,you think that it proves something. It doesn't.Going supersonic isn't the issue. Exceeding design limits by 40% is. For example, the Convair (now General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler was designed with a Vmo of 1147 mph, or right at 1000 knots. That's a Mmo of 1.73 mach. 3 of them broke apart in flight when design limits were exceeded for various reasons.
Until you can calculate compressibility factor, mach numbers, Reynolds number, dynamic pressures and kinematic coefficients for different airfoils at different speeds and altitudes, you're probably better off sticking to Popular Mechanics for your scientific discussions of this subject.
For instance, some numbers for United 175, assuming the government reported speeds are correct are: Dynamic pressure - 893psf; Reynolds number - 135417171; kinematic coefficient - 1.55962E-4 ft^2/s; P total compressibility - 3083 psf; T total compressibility - 579 R; viscosity density - 0.002308672 slug/ft^3.
Please advise which of these numbers with whichyou disagree and show the computations you believe are correct.
I didn't think so.

Edit to get rid of a dangling preposition. That's a word you shouldn't end a sentence with.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]

Cool science bro! I'll leave that stuff to you. Yes, the forces applied to the airframe were excessive, maybe even more than 40%. So what do you think my chances of surviving are? Use sea level as my end of dive. Please compute using a standard 727 and Murphy's Law. Also factor in the religious miracle component. I am sure I will be crying out to Allah and any other religous deities that might help. You can factor in lots of things but the integrity of the aircraft always boils down to the way it was built. One bad rivet can make all the difference.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream
reply to post by pteridine
 


LOL funny.yet you fail to look at my previous post where I commented on the planes. If the airspeed is not as claimed then the KE is not sufficient to knock down the 3 building in NYC.
I am not a big believer on a modified plane theory.I am not sure if P4T does or not. I am not a member of that group.
Again you play games of words to deflect from events.Did you even bother to watch the link to the documentary of the 747 or are you so preoccupied with being witty that you can disregard data?

To the poster who asked about mach tuck-
Mach Tuck happens at high Mach numbers.The 510 knots as almost sea level is below the critical mach number I believe.So I do not think mach tuck is a factor. What is a factor is the high airspeed.
Mach speed changes with altitude.At low alt airspeed is limiting and as you climb higher into the flight levels mach becomes the limiter.
I am just a simple airline pilot with 3 Airline Transport Pilot licenses (FAA and JAA and one other I wont mention) and 5 transport category jet
type ratings.I think a previous poster who mentioned reynolds numbers and dynamic pressure etc can break it down better than I can.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by JetStream]

I don't know if I can break it down better but I can take you to school on one statement. Mach number changes with temperature and pressure and only indirectly with altitude. For example, I'm sure you have been sitting all nice and comfy in the left front seat at 39,000 feet or so with the autopilot set on "maintain mach." The airplane is doing just fine holding a constant altitude on the RVSM ("damn that was close" ) altimeter when all of a sudden the airplane climbs or descends with the autopilot holding a mach number. And then you notice the OAT readout. It got colder. Or warmer, changing the mach number for that same altitude. People who don't hang around much up where the temp is -60 F and the ambient pressure is 150 millibars rather than 1000 or so think the atmosphere is this homogenous layer cake where if you go up a thousand feet from anywhere it will get 3 1/2 degrees F cooler. And that at the same altitude above sea level everywhere in a locality, the temp will be the same. Well, the baker of the layer cake is demented and you see a very wavy isotemp map at 40,000 feet or so. That caused a loss of a B-58 Hustler when it was cooking along at 45,000 at Mach 1.6 plus and ran into colder denser air and blew through Mmo. An upset (FAA word for "what the f's it doing now?) and breakup ensued.
As for mach tuck, think fat girls on a seesaw. The pivot point in the middle is the center of lift. Fat Flora is on the right end and Chubby Clara, who weighs a little less, is on the left end. The center of weight (also called center of gravity) is a little toward Flora from the center. Oh yeah, Flora is the nose and Clara is the tail. So, to balance things out Clara's got to eat some pizza. I forgot to mention that this is a moving seeasaw and the faster it goes, the more the pivot point moves toward Clara. So she has to eat more pizza to keep the seesaw balanced. Oh yeah, the extra pizza is the downforce from the horizontal tail and elevator.At some point Dominos runs out (you run out of elevator)and wham, Fat Flora plunges to the ground. And to think I got a PhD in physics for this kind of stuff.



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join