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

page: 5
127
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by hooper
Uh, yeah, it was beyond the normal operating speed for the safe conduct of passengers.


So, Vmo/Mmo is different if you fly boxes or are empty?

Really now....

Perhaps you should inform Boeing and every other manufacturer, as it appears they currently set limits by airframe, not whether beating hearts are on board.


I think you may be forgetting the reason the plane exists in the first place. Hint: it has to do with those beating hearts.

So, are you ever going to offer any real proof that all Boeing 767's will disentegrate when they reach 426 knots or are you just going to keep refering to the graph you made up?




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

The redline appears to go right through the center of "420". Not bad for just eyeballing it.


Earlier on you seemd to think it was at 438. No big deal.





Ok, good, you may want to inform hooper you think the speeds are excessive.


The problem is that I know what excessive means, whereas you appear not to.

I think that the pilots of the planes were "exceeding" safe speeds. that's all. And that's all your diagrams prove.




Because it is a V-G diagram. Pilots train by these diagrams. Manufacturers set these limits and develop envelopes based on testing, this includes wind tunnel testing.

Again, I didn't make the shaded Red zone describing "Structural Failure". If you don't like the way the envelope is structured or the airspeed definitions/limitations which create such an envelope, take it up with the designer and the manufacturers who set the limits.


So EA990 didn't break up during a lengthy phase in the red zone, AFTER its warning had sounded. Do you think that just maybe the red zone is placed as low as possible in order to provide a decent buffer for safety purposes?

You yourself admit that you don't actually know at what point a plane ACTUALLY might start to break up. you just have the safety model as a guide.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
According to Boeing, the 767 has a typical cruise speed of 460 knots. According to Airliners.net, it has a maximum cruise speed of 493 knots. I have to say that 510 knots doesn't seem to be too much in excess of the 493 knot figure.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

You mean UA175?

How can you argue the information when you don't even have the basic knowledge?


No, I meant UA11, because it's situation is more similar according to your data. But the other will do as well. Oh, and just FYI, travelling is spelt correctly.



UA11? I tried to search for a UA11 accident or crash, couldn't find one.

I think you may be confusing yourself once again?

UA175 is reported to have hit the south tower. American 11 was reported to have hit the North Tower.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth feel AA11 speed is plausible, bot not UA175.

pilotsfor911truth.org...



Exactly. So the dynamic pressures increased much more quickly and suddenly.


Oh, so this is why you feel UA175 can travel 80 knots faster than the speed which failed EA990? Because UA175 accelerated more slowly and didn't dive as fast??

Got any data for that claim?

Unfortunately, V-G diagrams do not take acceleration time into consideration, nor dive angle. Care to guess why?






I've seen someone else on the internet use that exact phrase. Can't remember who... I'll go and search for it.


Balsamo says it all the time. So do many other members at Pilots For 9/11 Truth. It works.

Yes, we know, we are all Rob Balsamo and since you cannot debate the facts, you are trying to focus on me as a possible sock and attempt character assassination and libel. Yeah, we get it already.

You should spend less time obsessed with Rob Balsamo, and more time studying what you argue. You have been proven wrong perhaps 5 times on the last 3 pages alone.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Just another peice of evidence - a guy with his reputation would not be putting it on the line on a whim.

He must be convinced there is a problem with the os.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Amagnon]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
According to Boeing, the 767 has a typical cruise speed of 460 knots. According to Airliners.net, it has a maximum cruise speed of 493 knots. I have to say that 510 knots doesn't seem to be too much in excess of the 493 knot figure.



Boeing aircraft do not cruise at nor near sea level. This is why Vmo is established at 360 knots for low altitude operations.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



This has been explained more than 5 times already.....


No, thats the problem it hasn't been "explained" it simply has been repeated. I know for many in the so-called "truth" movement if something is repeated enough times it automatically becomes a fact. You post a diagram that you made up and installed a line and said, "at this point the plane falls apart" and want that accepted as fact. Please offer some proof, a not just some reference to one other plane crash wherein they speculate that the plane may have been subject to some in flight damage prior to impact.

Also, I can't help but think that there wouldn't always be such a bright line. What about factors such as the age of the aircraft, flight cycles, hours of operation, etc.?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

The redline appears to go right through the center of "420". Not bad for just eyeballing it.


Earlier on you seemd to think it was at 438. No big deal.


438 knots is Redline for the P-51.

You are confusing yourself and the diagrams.




I think that the pilots of the planes were "exceeding" safe speeds. that's all. And that's all your diagrams prove.


The diagrams "prove" that not only did the aircraft exceed its maneuvering speed by more than 220 knots, it exceed the caution range by 150 knots, and plowed well into the Structural Failure zone by more than 90 knots.

This is what the diagrams show.

This is why so many experts have voiced their concerns.

How much flight time do you have Tricky?

You willing to put your name on the claim that the speed reported for UA175 is probable?



So EA990 didn't break up during a lengthy phase in the red zone, AFTER its warning had sounded. Do you think that just maybe the red zone is placed as low as possible in order to provide a decent buffer for safety purposes?


The "buffer zone" is the caution zone. See the yellow area in the diagram.



Study the diagram Tricky. It's really not that tricky.


.... you just have the safety model as a guide.


It's not a "safety model". It is a V-G Envelope based on design specification set by the manufacturer derived from flight and wind tunnel testing.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Real quick here. Are you saying that a man who has worked at NASA and has been in the field of aeronautics and has more knowledge than most doesn't know what he is saying. Also pilots who have flown the planes in question are not a good enough source for info on these planes and their capabilities. If a pilot says the planes are near impossible to manuever at these speeds doesn't have a clue what they are saying yet a hijacker that could barely fly a small plane is going to be able to do what experienced pilots aren't able to do. Think about it.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Perhaps your diagram doesn't show properly but I cannot see anything to the right of 420 knots. You did not address what you think actually happened other than to state that the manufacturer thinks structural failure might occur. As I pointed out with the P47 example, there are manufacturers red lines and there are actual red lines.
Of course, even "Tiffany" knows that aircraft manufacturer's engineers are not at all conservative in their estimates and never design in "safety factors." She does seem to have a great deal of experience with P51 aircraft, so she might be much older than her photo.

This is just, once again, a thread pointing out a purported inconsistency for no purpose. It is noteworthy that "Tiffany" would just happen to join recently and be advertising for a something-for-truth website that wants to sell stuff to the gullible folks. I'd say that this is really transparent, "Tiffany", and stirring a pot to drum up business may be a violation of T&C.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Please offer some proof,


Please offer some proof the aircraft which reportedly hit the south tower was N612UA and a standard 767-200.

So far, you, nor US Government agencies have not been able to provide any positive ID for any of the 4 aircraft reportedly used on Sept 11, 2001. The data that has been provided, does not support their story.

That is why these lists grow...

patriotsquestion911.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Perhaps your diagram doesn't show properly but I cannot see anything to the right of 420 knots.


Scroll the horizontal bar to the right, or just click here.

i25.tinypic.com...

What does it say to the right of 420 knots at 1 G?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Also, I can't help but think that there wouldn't always be such a bright line. What about factors such as the age of the aircraft, flight cycles, hours of operation, etc.?



Capt Rusty Aimer talks about this in the interview in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

He has actual command time in N612UA.

He says the speeds are impossible.

You should really watch it.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.


This was addressed on ATS last year.


This is one of the ways that disinfo artists twist the real facts around. No, jetliners cannot take off and reach 500mph at sea level. A jetliner cannot come down from a higher altitude to sea level and maintain a speed of 500mph either. However, a jet can come down from a higher altitude and be going circa 500mph for many seconds until the speed bleeds off. That is what happened on 9/11:



As we can see in the above images, the plane was coming down from a higher altitude and only leveled out in the last couple seconds before impact. A couple seconds is not enough time to bleed off 500mph down to 300mph.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta


and only leveled out in the last couple seconds before impact. A couple seconds is not enough time to bleed off 500mph down to 300mph.



Wrong.




Those who make excuse for the govt story love to claim, "The aircraft was only at this speed for a few seconds and then crashed. It can sustain this speed for a few seconds you idiot!"

Of course they offer zero proof for their claim. Not to mention the fact they are wrong.

I cut some scenes from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" due to the fact it was technical enough. I have calculated the speeds based on radar data for the last minute, a full 60 seconds.

The average speed over this straight line path is 501 knots. The average speed over the last 2 radar sweeps (24 seconds) is 509 knots. Remember, this is groundspeed. True airspeed will be a few knots higher due to a turn into a headwind. This is also straight line distance measurement over time. Actual speed will also be a few knots higher as the path is curved (the aircraft was changing direction), covering more distance (again, I don't want to get too technical when the simple measurements will serve its purpose. K.I.S.S.)

During this time, the aircraft is changing direction and pulling out of a dive, ie. Pulling G loads.

As pointed out in the presentation, please familiarize yourself with a Vg diagram.


Source -
pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


This is a great job of doing research and you have earned your S&F from me. I think it os funny that these people who keep telling you that you are wrong just cans not seem to show any evidence to contradict your evidence.The way I see it they have nothing to base their argument on. Maybe they should spend more time researching this and less time trying to tell you that your wrong they may finally comprehend and understand the evidence you have shown.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by hooper
 


Real quick here. Are you saying that a man who has worked at NASA and has been in the field of aeronautics and has more knowledge than most doesn't know what he is saying. Also pilots who have flown the planes in question are not a good enough source for info on these planes and their capabilities. If a pilot says the planes are near impossible to manuever at these speeds doesn't have a clue what they are saying yet a hijacker that could barely fly a small plane is going to be able to do what experienced pilots aren't able to do. Think about it.


Logical fallacy alert: Argument from Authority.

But, since you're willing to accept his conclusions based on his experience, you don't dismiss the hundreds of thousands of structural engineers and pilots who accept the Official Story, do you?

And besides...how many experienced pilots have tried to bring a jumbo jet up to maximum speed and crash it into a building?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Thank you for the link. I see that you claim structural failure should have occurred and didn't. Merely pointing out a supposed inconsistency doesn't do much without an explanation of some sort, NASA experts notwithstanding.

To what do you ascribe this?

Safety factors, incorrect speed estimates or a different airframe?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Thank you for the link. I see that you claim structural failure should have occurred and didn't.


I'm not claiming anything. I'm showing you the limits as set and defined by the manufacturer through flight and wind tunnel testing. Do with it what you will.


Merely pointing out a supposed inconsistency doesn't do much without an explanation of some sort, NASA experts notwithstanding.

To what do you ascribe this?

Safety factors, incorrect speed estimates or a different airframe?



It was pointed out by a NASA Scientist in the OP.

Read it.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
But, since you're willing to accept his conclusions based on his experience, you don't dismiss the hundreds of thousands of structural engineers and pilots who accept the Official Story, do you?


Certainly you can lists these "hundreds of thousands"?

Because the only lists I see are listed here.

patriotsquestion911.com...

They seem to grow.

You seem to be the one offering logical fallacies. Especially if you are unable to list your "hundreds of thousands".





new topics
top topics
 
127
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join