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.

 

Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

page: 24
24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
It's in the hoax bin now. Argument over.




posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I'll have to get back to you on the numbers in terms of how many knots at sea level it exceeded outer limit performance specs for a regular Boeing 767-200.

This is a dual issue though (oh sneaky one)


NewAgeMan

It's about the effects on the aircraft at such low altitude, and speed, both as it relates to airframe integrity as well as controlled flight.



edit on 9-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


And again, you have to prove that plane can't dive down, exceed those specs, while remaining in controlled flight, and remain intact without being some super "monster plane". Then you'll have to go back and tell all those pilots that have done it over the years that they're actually dead, and their planes disintegrated on them as soon as they exceeded the limits.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


It's based on EAS or Equivalent Airspeed (at sea level), and is using the structural failure of Egypt Air 990 @ 22,000 feet as the benchmark.

WATCH => World Trade Center Attack


NewAgeMan

Egypt Air 990

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.


edit on 9-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So your argument is that since Egypt Air broke apart trying to recover from a dive, no airplane can exceed its limits? That's interesting because I know of several that have, including high speed maneuvers much worse than what 175 did on 9/11, and came through intact (or almost completely intact).

Your argument is that the plane couldn't have accelerated to that speed at sea level without coming apart. The problem is that they didn't accelerate to that speed under engine power alone. They dove to that speed, which just about any commercial plane could do. They made a gentle leveling maneuver, and everything that was done at that speed was gentle and could be done with the plane remaining intact.

You keep acting like the operating limits are brick walls that they can't go past, when that's far from the case. There is a huge safety margin built into all aircraft.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yes, and if it managed to hold together, somehow (See EA990 benchmark), it could not have maintained controlled flight at that speed and altitude, especially not with a pilot at the helm no better than Hani Hanjour.

Also, the commercial airliners are not built for super-sonic speeds (or their equivalent EAS, @ sea level).

(alleged) Flight 175 was travelling at 85 knots (EAS equivalent) in excess of the point at which EA990 experienced structural failure when travelling at a speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet.
Mach 1 at 35,000 feet, is 663.5 mph = 576.5 knots
(still need to calculate EAS @ Sea Level, for Mach 1..).

In terms of structural failure, there is no "nearly intact" because it means that the wings begin to oscillate and then, break off.

South tower plane was clocked at approx 500 knots or 575mph (+) at about 700 feet altitude.

EAS equivalent airspeed will be supersonic (greater than Mach 1) - will figure it out, somehow, and come back with the EAS for the south tower plane @ 500 knots, at Sea Level (700 feet altitude).


edit on 9-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Hani Hanjour wasn't on 175. And you have proven this right? Because other flights have far exceeded their flight safety parameters and come through in one piece just fine, and landed safely.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yes, and if it managed to hold together, somehow (See EA990 benchmark), it could not have maintained controlled flight at that speed and altitude, especially not with a pilot at the helm no better than Hani Hanjour.


why not?

this is jut another example of how truthers say stuff they have no actual knowledge of.

EA990's breakup occurred only in the final moments of the flight - the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage were found 1200 feet away from eth main wreckage field -


The results of the Safety Board’s examination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane
maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information were not
consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight
controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet
mean sea level (msl). It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage
separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located
in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field. Although no
radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the
basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent
that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent. Further, it is
apparent that while the recorders were operating, both elevator surfaces were intact,
attached to the airplane, and placed in the positions recorded by the FDR data and that the
elevator movements were driving the airplane pitch motion, and all associated recorded
parameters changed accordingly.
NTSB report page 53 (59/160)


Also, the commercial airliners are not built for super-sonic speeds (or their equivalent EAS, @ sea level).

(alleged) Flight 175 was travelling at 85 knots (EAS equivalent) in excess of the point at which EA990 experienced structural failure when travelling at a speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet.


lol - except of course EA990 did not experience structural failure there at all.

that speed of mach .99 is recorded at 0150:23, and AFTER THAT there are still data inputs being recorded on the FDR that could not have ben if the a/c had broken up, plus the radar returns show the aircraft intact and include the climb to 25,000 feet:

eg


During the elevator split, the larger movements of the left and right elevators
individually corresponded with changes in the load factor (see figure 4). For
example, between 0150:30 and 0150:36, the recorded movements of the right
elevator (lower graph) are reflected in the load factor profile (upper graph).


and


• No secondary radar returns were received from the accident airplane after the
last data were recorded by the FDR at 0150:36.64.
• Performance calculations based on primary radar returns indicated that the
airplane’s rapid descent stopped at an altitude of about 16,000 feet msl. The
primary radar returns indicated that the airplane then began to climb, reaching
about 25,000 feet msl about 0151:15. During this climb, the airplane’s heading
changed from about 80º to about 140º.
• After 0151:15, the data indicated that the airplane began a second rapid descent
that continued until it impacted the ocean.


-NTSB report, page 39/160

Plus the wreckage field of the aircraft indicates that apart from the left engine and minor wreckage it struck the water otherwise intact!

Duh!!


edit on 9-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: tags



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


So at what speed and altitude did it fail? Can that be determined?



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes
 


Because it was the easiest way to hit the building. Diving straight down is guaranteed to miss, and all the other sides of the building were blocked. By flying over and visually acquiring the building then turning and dropping he made sure he would hit.


He does not need to dive. He was already lined up from the west. Could he not from a great distance out have used auto pilot without the 330 turn to hit the building just like landing on a runway?
edit on 9-12-2013 by leostokes because: clarify

edit on 9-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)
He might have needed a steeper vector to clear objects near the target.
edit on 9-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


By going over the building though, it allows him to make the turn while keeping visual contact with the building. If you dive in at it like that, you may not find it visually until very late, and you risk missing.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes
 


By going over the building though, it allows him to make the turn while keeping visual contact with the building. If you dive in at it like that, you may not find it visually until very late, and you risk missing.


The 330 turn and the 7,000 foot drop and the excessive speed is risky because he may loose control and miss the target.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


It was vital that he hit the budget office area, where, again, the prior upgrade/renno took place.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by leostokes
 


It was vital that he hit the budget office area, where, again, the prior upgrade/renno took place.


He was already coming from the west lined up on the budget office. No need to circle.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


No matter how he did it there was a chance that they'd miss. There was always a risk in it. But by circling and dropping down, they had the best chance of hitting.

As for "they had to be certain to hit the budget office" that side that they hit was the only open side of the building, so of course they were going to hit that side.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


What do you mean, from the other side it's all clear to/from Reagan Int'l Airport, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


They would have had to drop down along the hill across the river, come across the river, all the while having to dodge any air traffic coming down into Reagan at the time.

This side made the most sense to hit. There were the fewest obstacles.
edit on 12/9/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes
 


No matter how he did it there was a chance that they'd miss. There was always a risk in it. But by circling and dropping down, they had the best chance of hitting.

As for "they had to be certain to hit the budget office" that side that they hit was the only open side of the building, so of course they were going to hit that side.


How did the Saudi's know where the budget office was?
Who told them to hit the smaller budget office target.
Why not target Rumsfeld office?



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


They weren't targeting the budget office. They were targeting the Pentagon. You don't target one small office with a plane that size.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes
 


They weren't targeting the budget office. They were targeting the Pentagon. You don't target one small office with a plane that size.


Well they sure picked a difficult target. Why not just pick something easy like the roof. It is one of the largest buildings in the world.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join