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

Originally posted by ghofer
Well, considering that you had claimed that the plane would break up at Vmo, 50 knots over is a large degree. Considering the 737 was not damaged and is still flying, one has to wonder, how much faster can it fly before it falls apart. A 737 may not be a 767 but the design principals, tolerance limits are similar.

For perhaps the 40th time.

EA990, a 767, broke up at 425 KEAS.

65 knots over Vmo. 5 knots over it's limit dive speed.





[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Four posts from benoni at 1150 really sum up this debate for me, and by extension truthers as a whole.

First Tiffany gets a big thank you from the above named for confirming his prejudices

LA Woman as you can no doubt see, the spooks are out in full force now....
which confirms that what you allude to is hurting them...



Keep your cool up LA Woman.....their tactics are clear.....and they are well trained, hunting in packs, trying to provoke you ....you have won the Moral Battle here....now to win the War...

I hope to see many more of your well thought out and presented threads soon here on ATS....

Then noplaner and soi-disant intellectual Sphinxmontreal weighs in, again with a rant about how much cleverer and morally superior he is because he agrees with the OP:

Either these people don't have much of a life (which is obvious), are insecure little twits who get their jollies from ridiculing others (also obvious), or are extremely threatened to see their despicable scam falling apart, piece by piece.

Whatever the case, it is better to have a conscience and stand on the right side of history, than to be a morally corrupt dirtbag who has to whore around and sell his soul for a paycheck or a pat on the back. Only someone with a very limited intelligence and no moral compass is capable of such behavior. Therefore, their constant juvenile and idiotic responses should come as no surprise to anyone.

This is a person who can, with a straight face, write that they "stand on the right side of history." The self-importance would be astonishing if it wasn't so commonplace.


Finally, after this, there's a post that's on topic.

Trebor eloquently sets out a series of examples that show that the OP is at best mistaken, at worst knowingly deceitful:

some information, easily obtained from the web and other sources:

From Twenty –First Century Jet – The Making and Marketing of the Boeing 777, Karl Sabbagh

Page 320 (comments paraphrased)

A Pan AM 707 flying Paris – NY encountered CAT and began a dive to deck. Recovery occurred at 4.5 g’s (limit 3.75 g’s)

1965 outboard engine of a 707 exploded, destroying 25’ of wing. Plane circled around and landed (fuel load, etc)

767 static test aircraft subjected to test loads – the fuselage broke before the wings did.

777 wing test - wing failed at 154% beyond design specifications




In 1965, a 707 collided with a Constellation at 11,000, lost 35’ of wing. – a/c landed safely and the Connie, which lost a good portion of its tail, made a crash landing - only 2 passengers and the pilot, who had returned to the burning aircraft to rescue a passenger, died.

Bunches of military aircraft have had parts of their aircraft ripped off from midairs and from high-speed runs and still flown back to a base.

Then there was the 737 in January 2009 on a customer demonstration flight profile, entered into a 21,000 fmp dive at observed speed of above 440 indicated. A/C recovered (Vmo was exceeded by 100 knots). Oh yeah...that aircraft is still flying, as of Dec 2009 (www.airframes.org... )

Don't forget that the Concord had an MMO of 2.04, but the certification aircraft went up to M 2.23.

etc.......

Then there's a couple more hand claps for Tiffany. Then impressme chimes in with his usual spit-flecked rant.

What evidences do they have to support anything regarding the OS, nothing they have absolutely nothing, that is why these OS supporters are so frustrated, because they have nothing to support their version of the OS

This just after a long post full of evidence. Of examples that directly refute the OP's claim. After a thread that continuously features Tiffany avoiding questions.

Do you just endorse and applaud this stuff because it makes you feel better? Seriously, I find it incredible that someone could not only disagree with the evidence that directly refutes "Tiffany's" claims, but also just pretend that that evidence hadn't even been posted. That people could display such self-righteous anger when some pilots' opinions are questioned, but happily assume that anyone who disagrees with them is a government agent.

Extraordinary.

Seems you missed this Tricky....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Trebors' post was, as usual, a house of cards.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by ghofer

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

The point being is these aircraft can indeed exceed, sometimes to a large degree,

None of the above were to a "large degree" as was the speed reported for the alleged UA175.

Well, considering that you had claimed that the plane would break up at Vmo, 50 knots over is a large degree. Considering the 737 was not damaged and is still flying, one has to wonder, how much faster can it fly before it falls apart. A 737 may not be a 767 but the design principals, tolerance limits are similar.

The wing spar of the 737 was beefed up above original design specs when it was discovered that the rear spar (the one that carries compression loads during high speed operations) buckled at a speed of only 34% above "normal" (not maximum but normal) speed. And the fuselage of a 737 shares cross sections with the 727, which was, for a long time, the fastest airliner in American skies (except the Concorde). The 737 was designed (or over designed) as a short haul, high reliability, high cycle utility airborne bus. And it has turned out to be just that. I'm not going to comment on the hydraulic system or rudder actuators, though. With respect to "tolerance limits" you mentioned, except for design g load limits, there are none. At 1 knot above Mmo or Vmo, you become an experimental test pilot. Without company benefits like life insurance.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Seems you missed this Tricky....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Trebors' [Sic] post was, as usual, a house of cards.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

No, it wasn't. He's shown you examples of aircraft flying outside an envelope that earlier in the thread you implied was impossible. When you subsequently admitted that planes can exceed your "red line" you stubbornly refused to say at what point you think they become structurally compromised. Instead you just repeatedly pointed to one example.

You've now been shown a series of examples that show you that aircraft can sometimes exceed the envelope. You've waved these away.

But we now know - well, obviously discerning readers have known it all along - that aircraft do not just fall to bits at the red line. And that you refuse to speculate at what point they might. Therefore it's safe to assume that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the 9/11 plane speeds were possible.

Indeed the only people who you can find to bolster your points are making money from the sale of DVDs based on their opinion, and this whole thread looks increasingly like an advertisement for a certain website. It's not really that compelling, is it?

[edit on 16-7-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

Lets play dodge the question again

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??

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Mobius1974]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

For perhaps the 40th time.

EA990, a 767, broke up at 425 KEAS.

65 knots over Vmo. 5 knots over it's limit dive speed.

There is some definite back-pedaling here. Cap't Tiffany posted on his/her's web page:

Again, it's not so much duration rather that when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

So *now*, when it hits its "design speed", it doesn't *have* to break up. Period.

Sorta. If it fits my narrative, it will. Or won't. They are robust aircraft...that are fragile and will not survive a *nanosecond* over design speed because...

... when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

Never mind those pesky other examples of aircraft exceeding design speed. EA990 broke up at a mere 65 knots over VMo. Torn to bits at 5 knots over limit dive speed.

Who cares about a 737 that exceeded VMo by 100 knots and is still flying (or was, as of last December - the OOC incident occurred in Jan of 09).

65 knots....100 knots over...whatever. Period.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

For perhaps the 40th time.

Here is my homemade chart that has no basis in facts or reality.

EA990, a 767, broke up at 425 KEAS.

And as every thinking person knows, if something happens once then whenever circumstances arise that are even remotely similar the outcome must always be exactly the same.

reply to post by hooper


STOP THAT...

Do not bring up valid points and or use logic to address her.. you will be ignored.

You must blindly agree with truthers ... oh and you must visit her links that she is on here pushing. I have watched the videos and read the before ordered material. All opinions by "qualified" individuals...

Qualified----- hmmm ....I have been a snowboarder for roughly 22 years... Does that make me a structural expert when it comes to snowboards?? Nope!! It allows me to make an educated guess.. but that is the extent of it!

I have posted the same series of points and questions, for roughly 10 pages.. Not one has been addressed.

The only responses I have gotten have been insults, and links to the sites, where she is regurgitating her limited knowledge from.

.. We actually had one poster say "The planes had to be traveling at such high speeds..... ready???? ...... Or else they would not have "KNOCKED OVER" the buildings....Oh yes he did...

Ill give you 2 guesses.. Did he support the OP?

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Mobius1974]

reply to post by ipsedixit


As you know that photo is a fake (at least the plane part), however, as you can see in the part of the photo that is not fake you can barely see the upper end of Manhattan on what appears to a relatively clear day. Also, from that altitude Albany is below the horizon.

reply to post by Mobius1974


Yes, my apoligies. I really should stop demanding that persons making statements about engineering provide something more than "he said so and he's smarter than you". We should just trust anyone that will post his name on the internet. That's the real clincher.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Mobius1974

 

Yes, my apoligies. I really should stop demanding that persons making statements about engineering provide something more than "he said so and he's smarter than you". We should just trust anyone that will post his name on the internet. That's the real clincher.

Not to mention we should trust a supposed someone such as "Tiffany", who at best is experiencing a sexual-identity crisis and doesn't seem to be able to defend "her" various speculative positions when faced with examples of real-world events that contradict "her" and her assembled "expert's" claims.

After all, "...it's not so much duration rather that when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period."

[edit on 16-7-2010 by trebor451]

reply to post by trebor451


Did anyone successfully contradict that a commercial jet cannot fly 500mph at sea-level?

Originally posted by prestel
reply to post by trebor451

 

Did anyone successfully contradict that a commercial jet cannot fly 500mph at sea-level?

Yes, the NTSB.

reply to post by prestel


Answer: Yes.

You see, there is a pattern involved with the way the OP posts. It helps to become familiar with it.

It is: "I know everything, and only I am correct. When presented with evidence that disputes what I say, I ignore it, and repeat my previous sentences, and post my previous -- unverified -- graphics. When confronted yet again, I resort to ridicule"

That's basically it...oh, one more thing...the OP cleverly and selectively OMITS a great deal of pertinent information.*** Rob Balsamo's "presentations" are rife with such mistakes/misrepresentations/omissions. Maybe he actually believes the garbage videos he promotes? If so, it is quite sad....


***I refer, here to ONE example: "EA" (that's EgyptAir, not 'Eastern Airlines') flight 990. It is the ONLY little tenuous thread he can use, and beat and trumpet repeatedly, in order to fool people who aren't equipped to know better.

It is the disingenuous way it is "presented" --- the airspeed at which EgyptAir 990 suffered some structural damage --- (NOT, as he keeps claiming, "broke up"). He (the OP) tries to imply, again by lying and omitting relevant facts, that flight 990 suffered this structural failure SOLELY due to the airspeed.

What he keeps FAILING to mention, and will SHUT DOWN (on his website, where he is the "Adminstrator") any mention of facts that refute this basic "thesis". TWO pilots in the cockpit were at odds, and fighting each other on the controls. That induced stresses on the airframe that were accentuated by the excessive airspeed.

In THAT case, the ubiquitous and oft-repeated "V-G diagrams" tell the correct story.

HOWEVER, on 9/11, the airplanes involved were mostly NOT operated with excessive control movements, nor were excessive G-loads imposed on the airframes.

BIG difference...and Rob Balsamo doesn't want his acolytes and followers to realize this....

reply to post by hooper

As I peered into the photograph looking for the Toronto skyline, thinking that surely our tower would be visible from your tower, I couldn't help thinking that Pittsburg, Cleveland and Detroit have a lot to answer for with respect air quality in the US and Canada.

Anyway, that post was mainly a reach for chuckles.

Just to make amends to debunkers, who, after all, I consider to be truthers in waiting, I should say that I did talk to an airline pilot three or four years ago about the ability of a novice pilot to fly a plane out of Logan, heading west, into the WTC.

"No problem", he said. "Just keep the Great Lakes on your right until you see the Hudson Valley, then fly down the valley and point it at the biggest things you see at the mouth of the river."

I sputtered, "But, but, but . . . it's more complicated than that. They circled . . ."

Unfortunately he was already headed back to the bar.


[edit on 16-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit

Just to make amends to debunkers, who, after all, I consider to be truthers in waiting, I should say that I did talk to an airline pilot three or four years ago about the ability of a novice pilot to fly a plane out of Logan, heading west into the WTC.

Well, there again, the "TMTP" litany. (My new acronym creation, to counter the one created by the truth movement folk, when they invented "OS". 'TNTP' is "truth movement talking points").

The intentional use of the word "novice" is meant to increase incredulity, and bolster the faith for the masses (the several hundred on this planet) who believe in the "VAST conspiracy of 9/11" --- even though they STILL don't have a consensus hypothesis, yet....


Again, I will try to explain how EASY it is, after only a little bit of instruction (which they had --- they purchased many hours of simulator time, and that would have included briefings, as well...both BEFORE, and AFTER the Sim sessions). If you can use a computer, you can be taught how to program the nav systems, and interpret the instruments sufficiently to navigate to the targets...from wherever they were, when they assumed control.

This is SHOWN in the DFDR reports that we have from the two readable units....AAL 77 and UAL 93.

Note the radio tuning and navigation display settings activity undertaken by the hijackers who were flying the airplanes:

www.ntsb.gov...

READ the report, please. Here, I will post a bit from it, starting on page #6. It would be useful for everyone to read the entire indroction narrative, in order to increase comprehension and understanding:

The points during the flight at which the VOR receivers were tuned to new frequencies are shown on the map in Figure 2 as yellow diamonds. The points shown occur after the hijackers took control of the cockpit. Lines from the airplane flight path to the stations indicate the VOR stations tuned by the left and right VOR receivers. The point on the flight path from which the lines originate are the points at which the station was first tuned, i.e., the points at which the VOR station frequency selected by each receiver changed.

Note that while the EFIS was initially in MAP mode, the left and right VOR receivers were tuned to stations whose bearings from the airplane differed by about 90 degrees, at the time at which the VOR station pairs were changed. This illustrates the method the system uses for obtaining VOR position fixes to update the INS.

During the turn back to the east, the frequency of the right VOR receiver was set to 111.0 MHz, corresponding to the VOR station located at Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA). At the time the DCA frequency was selected, the station was too far away for its signals to be received by the receiver. The right VOR receiver remained tuned to the DCA VOR for the remainder of the flight, except for a 1-minute period at 9:15. The left VOR receiver was tuned to various frequencies, but was tuned to 113.5 (AML in Herndon, VA near Dulles Airport) at approximately 9:08. At approximately 9:18, the left distance measuring equipment (DME) began receiving information from the AML VOR. After receiving the DME
signal, the airplane remained on a constant heading towards the Washington area. At 9:32, both VOR receivers were tuned to the DCA VOR.

Now, before this is claimed to be off-topic, it is important to use some deductive logic here...THESE two DFDRs were readable, after being found. They show they type of activity one would expect from actual humans, in the cockpit --- albeit not as well-managed as a more experienced professional, but GOOD ENOUGH, and only after needing minimal instructions and studying on their parts.

Since we have those two DFDR sets, we can logically assume the other two airplanes were operated and navigated similarly.

Since they achieved their goals, unfortunately.

~~~

Fixed text within (ex) tags, for format from .pdf source. AND to enhance and emphasize.





[edit on 16 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by ipsedixit

the ability of a novice pilot to fly a plane out of Logan, heading west, into the WTC.

"No problem", he said. "Just keep the Great Lakes on your right until you see the Hudson Valley, then fly down the valley and point it at the biggest things you see at the mouth of the river."

I sputtered, "But, but, but . . . it's more complicated than that. They circled . . ."

Unfortunately he was already headed back to the bar.

I don't know if that story is for "chuckles" again but anyway....novice and experience in that scenario would have two completely different connotations. Even the most seasoned, experienced pilot in the world couldn't do that unless he/she was very familiar with the terrain. I know what you mean and you know what you mean - but think about it - if you had no familiarity with the terrain could you easily distinguish the Great Lakes from the Finger Lakes? The Hudson River Valley from the Delaware River Valley? Probably not. But it is all a moot point anyway.

The subject was broached because I suggested, quite reasonably, that a terrorist pilot, hell bent on a very public display of death and destruction, would probably punch the accelerator once he had the towers of the WTC in his windscreen. My opponent suggested that the towers are pretty much visble from anywhere on the planet earth apparently. They can be seen from Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Albany! etc. I countered that if you are talking about on the ground or even at a modest altitude this is not true due first to the curvature of the earth and also to thet fact that we do have an atmosphere which prohibits unlimited vision. That was all I was suggesting.

reply to post by weedwhacker

That's the best argument for remote controlled planes I've ever read. I think my real pilot had a better handle on how to get Hani Halfass, or whoever it was, from Logan to the WTC.

reply to post by ipsedixit

That's the best argument for remote controlled planes I've ever read.

[face/plam]

Huh? So...let's see, looks like you had total of ~20 minutes to read the NTSB report...seems you really didn't understand it, then.

OR, did you not actually read ALL 15 PAGES, and study the figures and diagrams??? :shk: Seems doubtful...