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

page: 6
127
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Ok I will start with this one first.

"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?"

Please show me these hundreds of thousands structural engineers that you speak of. Also there are pilots that will disagree with the gov't reports.
So what your saying is that people who don not agree with the gov't reports are all idiots that don't know what they are saying.




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
The bickering goes on....
Has anybody managed to find out if the flight maxs for other similar aircraft, better fit the performances recorded for the 767s?
I recall a bulge on the lower fuselage in one film of the crash....and the allegation it was a navy type of aircraft with NO windows???
Would this particular plane be capable of such speed and manouver?
just askin....



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


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.


I did read it. He said "(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"

I am asking you what you think, if anything, or are you just churning the topic for sales of the discs.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I did read it. He said "(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"


I feel exactly the same.

What do you feel? How much flight time you have? How many years working for NASA? Any Awards?

Willing to put your name on your claims as did Dwain Deets?


I am asking you what you think, if anything, or are you just churning the topic for sales of the discs.



Seems you missed this the first 5 times posted in this thread just like you missed the horizontal scroll bar on the bottom of the V-G diagram.

Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two, Flight Of American 77
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Flight Of United 93 Now On Google Video, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three
pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon - Official Release, Full Film Now Available to the Public on Google
pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
pilotsfor911truth.org...


If I were here to push DVD's for Pilots For 9/11 Truth, why have they put their information on the web streaming for free?

You really think Jet pilots make more money putting together the above presentations than flying Jet for a living? You really think their motivation is cash? Is that why they put their names on this analysis, only to be libeled and smeared by people like you and your herd?

Interesting theory you have.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


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.


I did read it. He said "(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"

I am asking you what you think, if anything, or are you just churning the topic for sales of the discs.


Which one do you pick and why?

1. It not being the plane that we are told it is.
2. Data was compromised
3. Analysis was erroneous
4. Flight envelope was incorrect, which by its definition is the capabilities of said aircraft.

Do we really have to pick which one to believe? I'd like to know the truth, but these questions are generally ignored when we inquire our government. The fact that it is one of them though is alarming, isn't it?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

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.


Tell that to FedEx and UPS.

They seem to exist only to fly boxes, and they have the same exact limitations as do self loading freight type aircraft (passengers).

It is because the limitations are based on airframe performance, not what type of freight you carry.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Are you people genuinely arguing over the identity of the planes becuase of the exact speed it could travel in the density of air at sea level?!?

If there was ever a textbook example of "grasping at straws" this would be it, as it's more of a sign of desperation to keep your conspiracy stories alive, than it is anything else. You might as well be arguing whether the toilet seats on the plane were up or down.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



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


Ok, now we can see where this is going.

So, ready to offer some scientific or engineering proof that the model aircraft falls apart when it reaches a given airspeed? No homemade diagrams please. Someone at Boeing must have sat down and figured it all out and all the "experts" on your ever growing list must have reviewed the data, right? That would be the best (and only) way to establish this absolute.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

I am not challenging the NASA man. I agree with him as to the possibilities. You do also. So what? So does practically everyone else. This is like saying that an expert said that the buildings fell from either fires and impacts or CD.

An official has stated four logical possibilities. From your arguments about max speed being "chiseled in paper," you seem to think that option 4 is incorrect. I asked for your theory so it must be one of the other three options. Which one and why?



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

This is what john lear has said for years



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



Tell that to FedEx and UPS.

They seem to exist only to fly boxes, and they have the same exact limitations as do self loading freight type aircraft (passengers).


Yes, because as we all know those planes are all flown only by remote control and only over uninhabited wastelands.


It is because the limitations are based on airframe performance, not what type of freight you carry.


Fine - and where are those calculations? Or are you saying that someone at Boeing just pulled a number out of hat and declared that the maximum operating speed beyond which the plane falls apart.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



oops sorry..i was too busy looking at ur avy i just skiped ur post



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


The diagram is a guide and has margins which can be occasionally crossed if needed ask any pilot and they will tell you the same.

Anyway the proof is in the pudding because a Boeing 767 did hit the towers and if your trying to dispute that then thats just ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

I am not challenging the NASA man. I agree with him as to the possibilities.


Excellent, so you agree that it is "An Aeronautical Improbability" and an "elephant in the room" as stated by "the NASA Man" in the OP.

Now what are you doing about it besides constructing strawman arguments of holograms on ATS?

@hooper

Read and learn.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

For the 10th time. The diagram is not "made up". Redline is 420 knots on the 767. EA990 broke apart in flight at 425. Allegedly UA175 exceeded such speeds, well into the structural failure range as set by the manufacturer, by more than 90 knots, while also maneuvering at more than 220 knots above it's max maneuvering speed.

Here is another good example, AA587 lost it's vertical stabilizer at departure speeds, BELOW maneuvering speed.



The above stab ripped off a transport category aircraft at perhaps 400 knots LESS than UA175 reported speed.

These are the facts based on data provided by the NTSB.

Do with it what you will.

It appears we are just going in circles now.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 



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.


Don't care what he says, only what he can prove. That should be your standard also. You're saying the entire technical staff of the NTSB can't properly analyze radar data and determine the speed of a flying object, or alternatively they are all conspirators to mass murder.


Also pilots who have flown the planes in question are not a good enough source for info on these planes and their capabilities.

Nope, don't give a hoot about thier so-called "info". They are already suspect because they signed onto with a group of conspiracy fetishist. Give me scientific or engineering proof. Don't know why that's being avoided.


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.


Don't care, again, prove it. You're actively accusing people of being complicit in mass murder. Don't know that I want to hang that on one guys opinion in an internet conspiracy video.


Think about it.


Give me something to think about.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Ok I will start with this one first.

"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?"

Please show me these hundreds of thousands structural engineers that you speak of.


Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: 1,000 members as of January 2010.

However, if we're going to play the "expertise" game...


Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?




So what your saying is that people who don not agree with the gov't reports are all idiots that don't know what they are saying.


I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself. Where did I say that people who don't agree with the OS are idiots? You shouldn't accept what the gov't says just because they're the gov't any more than you should accept what a NASA executive says just because he's a NASA executive.

That being said, a HUGE amount of experts do count for quite a bit more than a comparatively small number of similar experts.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Tiff, induced drag is a function of load factor and not speed. Parasite drag is a function of speed, actually a geometric function. If you increase lift by pulling back, you increase the load factor. Ground effect has the 'functional effect' of reducing drag by constraining the downward movement of air. To keep a max takeoff weight 767 (395,000 lbs for the -200) flying, you have to move an equivalent amount of air. That air has mass, so it takes a force to move it. Exerting a force takes work which takes energy. Increase the load factor to 2 gs and you double the mass of air needed to be moved. More force=more work. The energy available is limited to (assuming PW4000 engines) about 880 kN. So if load factor increases, speed will decrease at constant power.
As you can probably tell, I'm a Newtonian kind of guy and since this aircraft isn't made in France,we don't need Bernoulli.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
The chickens are coming home to roost.

1. You see, first an entire group of engineers came forward and were insulted that anyone would believe that two towers fell because of fire. The general public, being of about a 5th grade level in education couldn't think critically for themselves, so, they decided to believe anything that the government told them because their brains would overheat if they had to do any research themselves.

2. Then we had the situation with all of the NY firefighters who insisted that they heard bombs going up the towers before the collision. But, again, the general public is pretty low on the evolutionary scale when it comes to thinking outside of the box, so, they were happy to be spoon fed their realities.

3. Then you had all of the reporters who were at ground zero that also heard the explosions going up the towers who gave their version of the truth. But, as usual, the general public are far too slow to perceive that they are in a chess game and a war for their minds, so, they simply took whatever explanation that was more convenient for them to hear.

4. Then you had all of the reporters and announcers that were claiming in real time, and on the air, that the towers falling was reminiscent of many controlled demolitions that they had seen before. But, as it were, the general public likes being scared and needed a boogeyman to point their fingers at, so, the government gave them exactly what they wanted to hear and the public rolled over once again.

5. Then you have all of the physicists that came forward to inform the public that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to have melted the steel columns that held the world trade center in place. But, as it were, this was too preposterous of a statement to make and had entirely too much common sense for the general public to digest. Remember, the general public's attention span is short, and again, they are at a general level of a 5th grade education. They're not too bright, and need a lie to help them sleep at night.

6. Then, all sorts of videos like Zeitgeist and Loose Change came out to do the thinking for the very slow American public who again, is at about a 5th grade level of education, but, as it were, they would much rather believe the rantings of another moron named Bush because his 6th grade comprehension was superior to their 5th grade comprehension.

7. Now we have pilots coming forward to inform the world of what we've been trying to tell them for a number of years now, but alas, that 5th grade education level is hard to breach. If you try to give them math that exceeds the concept of 1+1=?, they become confused and reattach themselves to the official story which sells mathematics that don't make sense at all. But, as long as it doesn't make sense, it placates to the idea of that minuscule education level that they can readily identify themselves with.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The movie "idiocracy" should have been a documentary as opposed to a work of fiction.

Namaste and Love

[edit on 12-7-2010 by PsychoX42]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Ya know, not to mention that the 9/11 report that came out from the commision obmits some very scientific impossibilities as far as that morning actually played out. I'll bet if they released all the video they confiscated not less than an hour after the "planes" hit thier target, it may make for some intresting questions. But that'll never happen.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 

Your data doesn't really mean anything. Membership in a professional organization (that doesn't question a government report on an event that happened) means what exactly?
How about this, no one knows WHAT the members believe unless they have been polled.
What do these members believe?





top topics
 
127
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join