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: 27
24
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Controlled flight is relevant to 9/11. The relevant portion of these two incidents is that they exceeded their parameters, by a large margin (there's no way in hell a 747 was stressed for 5G flight) and they remained intact and landed safely.

The 727 dropped 34,000 feet in barely over 1 minute. They momentarily broke Mach 1 it was later determined by examining the FDR. No normal commercial aircraft (Concorde is anything but normal) is stressed to break Mach, yet this 727 did it, recovered, and landed.

The vertical speed for the 747 doesn't matter, it's the G load in that case. A normal 747 flight would see probably 1.5 Gs maximum in its life. This aircraft took loads that should have broken the fuselage and the wings, recovered, and landed safely.

Both of these aircraft far exceeded what they should have been able to, and both landed safely, with no fatalities on board.




posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


But do you really think that a regular, unmodified Boeing, could achieve an equivalent airspeed exceeding Mach 1 while retaining flight control, by a "pilot" not any better than Hani Hanjour (as the most trained and skilled of all the hijackers according to the 9/11 Commission)?

Do you really think that's even in the realm of possible?

Isn't it you who's stretching the bounds of credulity now?


edit on 11-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


A "regular commercial plane" did it in 1979 when it broke Mach in a dive. Why couldn't a 767 dive down, and reach the speeds you claim are impossible, before leveling off and hitting the building? There is no reason whatsoever that a plane in a shallow dive couldn't remain under control, reach those speeds, level off, and impact the building.

I would agree with your point if the aircraft was in level flight, and using engine power to reach those speeds. It wasn't, and it didn't, so your point is wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it, or how you rephrase it.

But here, try this one on for size.

August 21, 1961, a "stock" DC-8-43 (N9604Z) departed Edwards AFB, California. They climbed to 52,000 feet, where they put it into a half G pushover (a dive no steeper than 175 performed, and possible not as steep), at 45,000 feet, while in perfect control, the aircraft reached Mach 1.01 for 16 seconds. They were able to recover at 35,000 feet, with no damage to the aircraft.

www.airspacemag.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Zaphod58
They climbed to 52,000 feet, where they put it into a half G pushover (a dive no steeper than 175 performed, and possible not as steep), at 45,000 feet, while in perfect control, the aircraft reached Mach 1.01 for 16 seconds. They were able to recover at 35,000 feet, with no damage to the aircraft.


Bearing in mind the much higher altitude, airspeed is what matters here, in terms of surface pressures and dynamics, that's the main point that I'm making. Dives, and pulling out of a dive at much lower altitude must factor in equivalent airspeed, meaning the amount of air and pressure that the plane experiences from a much higher to a much much lower altitude. EA990 lost it's engine and broke up it turns out at a lower altitude. At higher altitudes, in a continual dive, and I'm glad you've referred to one that you feel is no steeper than the south tower plane, what you've shown is the very farthest reaches of a plane's ability to retain structural integrity or survive, at higher altitudes, around Mach 1, in that case, your best, Mach 1.01 or just barely managing to break the sound barrier, without breaking apart.

As to controlled flight, that can't be just assumed at such a speed and altitude (510 knots at Sea Level) that it's like a piece of cake, which is the very farthest thing from the truth. The forces and pressures and the dynamics of controlled flight involved at lower altitude are entirely different, as any experienced "heavy" aircraft pilot will acknowledge.


So, let's take another look at what type of Mach speed the south tower plane was clocked at when factoring in EAS or equivalent airspeed at low altitude (think amount of air the plane is flying through and it's "thickness"). Planes fly through air, that's the dynamic we need to consider to get an idea for the forces involved at that speed and altitude.


Equivalent Airspeed of south tower plane:

510 knots (9/11 Commission Report, 500+ confirmed by radar) = 575-600mph, observation for ground speed calculations using building distances = 586mph.



= 1.38 Mach @ 35,000 feet or 915 knots

= 1.19 Mach @ 22,000 feet or 722 knots



Egypt Air 990 broke up in flight (lost an engine) at 425 knots, EAS. This is 5 knots over Vd. (dive speed limit)

Vd is 420 knots for the 767

"UA175" exceed that speed by 90 more knots or 103.5mph, at sea level.

More on EAS and Vd to follow in future presentation..

For now:

The dive speed (Vd) is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.

theflyingengineer.com...

Again, a standard (unmodified) Boeing 767-200 has a Vd of 420 knots.


THIS IS NOT A HOAX, and I'm not attempting to mislead anyone here or employ any sort of deception aimed to mislead.

NAM


edit on 11-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You're also comparing a plane that was attempting to pull up, probably near 6Gs or maybe even more, and had already pulled up once at a high G load, with a plane that was in a shallow dive, and leveled off. There's no comparing the two. Egypt Air didn't just go over their operating limits and suddenly break apart because of it. They dove in a near vertical dive, pulled a high G load, climbed back to 25,000 feet, dove again, and while one pilot pushed forward on the controls, and the other pulled back, the aircraft broke apart.

Show me where 175 had ANY kind of stress on it like that, and we can compare the two.
edit on 12/11/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I was primarily using the example you provided and just threw in the EA900 as an afterthought, and you may be right that it was on a final pull up that it lost it's engine (found 1200 feet away from the main wreckage) at lower altitude when it was at 5 knots over Vd, at the lower altitude, whereby it's maximum dive speed at the higher altitude, as per the flight recorder data, was .99 Mach, or, at Sea Level, an EAS (equivalent airspeed) of 420 knots, which nevertheless is still 90 knots less than "flight 175" was clocked at. And again, Vd (maximum dive speed) is 420 knots for the 767, which = .99 Mach at 22,000 feet.

And even still, of all the examples you've employed, they've only served to further demonstrate the type of actual aerodynamic conditions under which the south tower plane was.. doing what it was doing, yet in a controlled fashion, even tight control when we look at it's final finger-touch control maneuvering at 510knots and 700 feet altitude, right after coming out of a major dive by which such extreme speed was reached and then maintained, according to you (ie: not by it's own propulsion), for the short leveling off period (which was longer than the 2 seconds you cited earlier in the thread), on final approach to target impact with the south tower, as observed.



Equivalent Airspeed of south tower plane:

510 knots (9/11 Commission Report, 500+ confirmed by radar) = 575-600mph, observation for ground speed calculations using building distances = 586mph - at Sea Level.



= 1.38 Mach @ 35,000 feet or 915 knots

= 1.19 Mach @ 22,000 feet or 722 knots



With regards to flight control - watch/listen just from 24.58 - 32.22 (just over 7 minutes) in the following video

Pilots, real pilots, with 1000's of hours of flight time experience, flying heavy aircraft, could not even hit the target (south tower) in the UA flight simulator, unless they slowed the plane down to near landing speed, in trying to do it over and over again, and failing, at the higher speed.


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



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   

wmd_2008
reply to post by leostokes
 


Don't want a reply DON'T post anyone can reply to anything Judy Wood
just


You said this


leostokes

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

1. The plane (in motion) hitting the tower (sitting still) is the same as the moving tower hitting the still plane. Like swatting a fly. The plane would be squashed. We do not see this in the videos. Something is wrong.

2. The tower hitting the ground is like the ground hitting the tower. That would cause the ground to shake. We do not see the ground shaking in the seismic record. Something is wrong.






1) The aircraft can ONLY interact with the parts of the building it touches
, the ENERGY the aircraft has can only be absorbed by the areas of the building it touches, that's WHY column trees broke at the joints.
The whole mass of the building has NO repeat NO influence on the impact damage.

This image shows it well

Plane Damage

The column trees are coloured to show the staggered joint system.




2) The Tower collapse was like an avalanche it wasn't like the Kingdome were one 25,000 ton section could impact the ground at once.





As for seismographs


WTC Impacts & Collapse



anyone can reply to anything Judy Wood says


1) The aircraft can ONLY interact with the parts of the building it touches, the ENERGY the aircraft has can only be absorbed by the areas of the building it touches, that's WHY column trees broke at the joints.



Anyone can reply to what Judy Wood says? Is this your agenda? To attack her evidence? A remarkable confession. Her Phd is in structural materials. What is yours in?



1) The aircraft can ONLY interact with the parts of the building it touches


Wow. You are a champion of the obvious.

Let me help you out here. What you mean is that the only part of the building that reacts is the part that the plane touches.

That is of course if you ignore the shock waves throughout the building that registered on the seismograph.

The plane damaged the building. Did the building damage the plane? Of course it did. We see the damage to the building. It is a big hole. I wonder why we do not see the plane crumple up?




2) The Tower collapse was like an avalanche


Thanks for this insight of yours. A controlled demolition produced an avalanche.




the Kingdome were one 25,000 ton section could impact the ground at once.


Yes we know there was no avalanche at the Kingdome. Because the impact in Seattle produced a 2.3 seismic event. Did you know that? I have told you several times now.




As for seismographs


Thanks for the link. I checked it out. It is a seismic wave image. But it is only one. What can we compare it to?

By the way, tell me. Is it a Primary wave, a Secondary wave or a Surface wave?

The graph is not labeled.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

NewAgeMan

Pilots, real pilots, with 1000's of hours of flight time experience, flying heavy aircraft, could not even hit the target (south tower) in the UA flight simulator, unless they slowed the plane down to near landing speed, in trying to do it over and over again, and failing, at the higher speed.


Ah, but ask yourself what agenda those Pilots have when starring in that portion of the video?

Ask yourself why other Pilots expressed their opinion that the demonstration was bogus and designed to fail.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Boeing 767 Pilot Weedwhacker used to post on ATS and sums it up very nicely.



Isn't it very telling that there are JUST a handful of those sorts?? Out of tens of THOUSANDS of real pilots --- who vehemently disagree with, and (in my case) are disgusted by their antics??


www.abovetopsecret.com...

As Weedwhacker doesn't post on here anymore why not try contacting him and getting him to run through in-depth why that video isn't accurate?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


Hmph, didn't see much there other than an angry debunker, PF911T hater and staunch atheist (God hater).

Regardless, you can't debunk the recorded speed of the south tower plane (verified by radar and observation) and what it really means in terms of equivalent airspeed, Vd (dive speed limit) which is 420 knots for the 767, or flight control for such an aircraft at such an equivalent airspeed (exceeding Mach 1) and altitude (700 ft or Sea Level). Also the pilot talking in that video, who tried it in the sim with his pilots, he has recorded flight time on the actual alleged aircraft itself, as did Russ Wittenburg cited earlier in this thread. Furthermore - "My pilots vs. your pilots" cannot alter the physical truth and the reality, which is as follows:


Equivalent Airspeed of south tower plane:

510 knots (9/11 Commission Report, 500+ confirmed by radar) = 575-600mph, observation for ground speed calculations using building distances = 586mph - at Sea Level.



= 1.38 Mach @ 35,000 feet or 915 knots

= 1.19 Mach @ 22,000 feet or 722 knots

Here. You can verify the calcs yourself

www.luizmonteiro.com...


Because of your participation, we'll have to start examining, more closely, the actual margin we're really looking at here between the EAS and the Vd (dive speed limit) stress test of 420 knots for the 767, so that there can be no misunderstanding.

For examples of outer performance envelope flying, approaching over-Mach speed or Mach 1.0 +, I will refer the examples offered by Zaphod58, in demonstrating the very outer limits of what a plane can do, and still survive (without breaking apart) while reminding you and the reader that in those cases, except one (at high altitude) there was no flight control, whatsoever.

I don't think you really grasp or understand what we're talking about here, or, what's really at stake.

But I thank you anyway for your participation, and for propelling the thread on to a more detailed examination, to make even more clear, if it isn't already, the physical properties involved in a plane diving (presumably to an even higher speed), then leveling off and maintaining controlled flight at NINETY KNOTS beyond the Vd limit of 420 knots for the Boeing 767, at SEA LEVEL.

Go get your commercial airline pilots. It would be nice to get their input and see what they have to say about all this.


Best Regards,

NAM

Edit to add:

Vd is 420 knots for the 767 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing.

Here are those limitations, from Boeing...

(pfd) rgl.faa.gov...$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf



And here is what typically happens when Vd is exceeded by such a LARGE margin (a phenomenon called "flutter")

Vd explained (including Airbus A380 Flutter Test video)

theflyingengineer.com...


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



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



in this case a purely factual one based on observation alone


Hello again NAM.

In your original post you have a video (architects and engineers for 911 truth) showing the destruction in motion.

Lets carefully observe what we see in this cloud of destruction.


We see steel girders falling in arcs. I have circled one in the center of the picture. This one appears to fall straight down. In your video this object falls out of the frame.

I have found another video that is larger. It is in slow motion. High Definition. And the circled object stays in the frame much longer.


Based on observation alone what do we see? Wash your mind clear of preconceived notions. Forget conventional technology. What do you see?

Do you want to know what some others say they see? The steel turns to dust.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 



Ah, but ask yourself what agenda those Pilots have when starring in that portion of the video?

Ask yourself why other Pilots expressed their opinion that the demonstration was bogus and designed to fail.


I ask myself the questions.

However, unlike you, I do not speculate on their agenda. How could I possibly know their agenda. I am not a mind reader. And neither are you.

What we have here is evidence. Presented by two groups. That do not agree.

In these cases (and there are many) we make (a purely personal) choice of which group to believe. If we are closed minded the choice is easy. We choose the group we agree with. And attack the other group with some negative suggestion, like they have a special agenda. Every one does. Both groups do.

If you have an open mind you consider both groups presentations. You may change your mind. Learn something new. Enlarge your world.


edit on 12-12-2013 by leostokes because: change the other to both

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



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Thanks leo, it's all good. (please check your inbox as I sent you a PM).

For the purpose of this thread, the aim was to show a real conspiracy, both in terms of the CD of the twin towers, and then working back in examining the plane(s), since it would seem that the plane impacts were a "hoax" of sorts (to sell CD as a plausible consequence employing a type of hijacking of Occam's Razor, as an event which people are not inclined not to believe, after all "we were attacked!"), even though it really did happen (planes hitting the buildings).

If you want to do a DEW evidence presentation, please by all means start a new thread on it, and I don't mean to sound rude or harsh or anything, because as I pointed out before I appreciate the work that everyone is doing to bring about the inevitable tipping point that will make Mr. Zelikow, PhD., crap his pants in terror, because he's a Professor or Doctor of historical tipping points, and one of the authors (as well as the author of its cover-up) of the originating policy which led to this monstrosity and resulting historical nightmare, including the deaths of well over a million people, all toll.

And all for what? It bled the treasury, and resulted in a loss of civil liberty and the rise of domestic spying and to a degree the militarization of the bureaucracy, and a sense that something terrible was done to the American people, from within, that Barack Obama hasn't adequately atoned for, nor learned from, in his continuity of Bush/Cheney policy ie: as a power grab. That and a Big Fat Lie which still sits, to this very day like the "forgotten" elephant in the room.

There's a saying in sales that once it's sold or in this case, proven, you don't need to "buy it back", or in any way end up, even unwittingly, distorting the nature of the evidence, in this case that it's self evident that Twin Tower CD = modified, remotely piloted military drone aircraft on 9/11.

Even slowing that "North Tower Exploding" video down like that can serve to create a false impression capable of lending credulity to the idea that what we're looking at is a "natural" "collapse" sequence, but again, I realize you're well intentioned, but I have to declare, for the purposes of this thread, it's title, and it's line of investigative inquiry, and evidentiary burden of proof, that it not include any theories or hypothesis as to DEW and most certainly nothing in the area or way of um, ah hem, "no plane" or "NRPT" (no real plane theory - cough!). Even if there was something other than military grade thermite and other exotic explosives, it's not necessary to go there and might even contaminate, through no fault of your own, the credibility and credulity of the evidence at hand. I'm sure you understand. So thanks for your participation so far, as it helped forward the thread, but unless you want to explore other things, like Hani Hanjour piloting skills, or, say, for example, the indestructible passport (we never did figure out the wind speed and direction on 9/11 relative to where that thing was found in relation to the North Tower), I have to ask you to take any such evidence which you feel points to DEW, to another thread, and I encourage you to start one, and if you're lucky it won't even end up getting relegated to the "[HOAX!] bin".

Outside of that kind of line of inquiry, you are more than welcome to continue to participate.

Thank you for your understanding.


Best Regards,

NAM


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



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Thanks for your reply.

I did start a new thread before. It got closed. The boss said it was because of name calling. I think the importance of the issue overrides name calling. The boss is more concerned with the reputation of his forum than the importance of the issues.

But I admire where you say "facts based on observation". And you put the very video in your original post that shows evidence of dustification.

Yes my reply is off the topic stated in your title. But my reply is in the spirit of the evidence of your OP regardless of the title.

The vehemence with which "dustification" has been attacked is a clue to its validity. Somebody is annoyed.

The boss even moved your thread to the "hoax" category.

I apologize to you sir if I have overstepped the bounds of your thread. Regards,



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


No need to apologize. There's still lots to talk about ie: Hani Hanjour's "piloting" of "flight 77" for one, we still haven't gone there, or the war games operations, we haven't really touched on that yet either, and then there's that passport, the missing black boxes, high temps in the pile.. (oh, never mind because I know where you'd like to run with that). Provided you can keep DEW and NPT out of the thread, then you're more than welcome to participate Mr. Stokes.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
The numbers being quoted for the speed of sound are way off. Even before checking, from my childhood school days I could remember it was up around 700mph, which is why I looked it up. It's around 660 knots or 750-760 mph at sea level. Down to 573 knots at 20,000 ft per wikipoo, then increases again at even higher altitude. Since the impacts are all at sea level, it would simplify the discussion just to refer to that speed of sound if it is even necessary to bring it up. But none of the planes are claimed to have been going supersonic as they approached the targets as far as I'm aware, so why even focus on that so much. The speed of the planes doesn't seem to be all that big of an issue to me (other than the A-rabs probably couldn't control them, but we don't even know those guys were in the planes). There are lots of other details to focus on.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by toidiem
 


Planes fly through air.

EAS is a sea level airspeed. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS. 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.

In short, EAS is the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as a True Airspeed at higher altitudes. It is used for determining aircraft performance, structural integrity.. .etc.

In other words, to be more specific, 510 knots at sea level (EAS) would produce the same dynamic pressure as 722 knots True Airspeed (TAS) at 22,000 feet.

The air is thinner at higher altitudes so the aircraft will need to go faster to match the amount of air hitting the airframe at low altitudes, in thick air.

Thus an EAS of 510 knots = 722 knots or Mach 1.19, at 22,000 feet, and at still higher altitude, 915 knots or 1.38 Mach, at 35,000 feet.

The Vd or dive speed limit set by Boeing for the regular commercial 767-200, used for testing (see the graphics in the above post) is 420 knots, which is the equivalent of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet.

here is a good explanation of Vd (dive speed).
theflyingengineer.com...

from Boeing
rgl.faa.gov...$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf

[also, see Vd graph in above post]

An unmodified, Boeing 767, cannot under any circumstances exceed anything beyond around 425 knots EAS in a dive, let alone retain controlled flight either in or coming out of such a dive.

In other words, even in a controlled dive, from a much much higher altitude where the air is much thinner, such planes were not built for and cannot exceed Mach 1, let alone anything even approaching Mach 1.1 or 1.2, whereby the fastest controlled dive by a similar aircraft, as presented by Zaphod, at very high altitude, without the plane breaking up, was Mach 1.01.

Again, an EAS of 510 knots at SEA LEVEL, is the equivalent of 1.19 Mach, at 22,000 feet, and 1.38 Mach, at 35,000 feet.

It is simply impossible for an unmodified Boeing 767 to exceed the Vd speed limitation of 420 knots (EAS) by NINETY knots, let alone remain in control at that airspeed and altitude.

The speed factor is critical and it proves this case beyond any doubt.

Verification of Speed of South Tower Plane:

According to the NTSB Radar Impact Speed Study for the South Tower Plane,


"During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6,000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's descent to 1000 feet, it accelerated (there goes Zaphod58's hypothesis about the speed at level flight on final approach) and impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.

Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175 (pdf)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
An unmodified, Boeing 767, cannot under any circumstances exceed anything beyond around 425 knots EAS in a dive, let alone retain controlled flight either in or coming out of such a dive.


Your source for that silly statement is what exactly?


It is simply impossible for an unmodified Boeing 767 to exceed the Vd speed limitation of 420 knots (EAS) by NINETY knots, let alone remain in control at that airspeed and altitude.


Your source for that silly statement is what exactly?


The speed factor is critical and it proves this case beyond any doubt.


Wrong again, what it proves beyond doubt is you have no clue at all about aircraft and their design/construction!

Which is why this thread is in the hoax bin, where it belongs!

edit on 13-12-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by leostokes
 


No need to apologize. There's still lots to talk about ie: Hani Hanjour's "piloting" of "flight 77" for one, we still haven't gone there, or the war games operations, we haven't really touched on that yet either, and then there's that passport, the missing black boxes, high temps in the pile.. (oh, never mind because I know where you'd like to run with that). Provided you can keep DEW and NPT out of the thread, then you're more than welcome to participate Mr. Stokes.




You state your purpose very well and I support your endeavor.

I will look more into the issues in your title to see what I can contribute.

Actually I am not interested in DEW as this is an unknown technology. I will not go there in your thread.

I have no reason to doubt the use of thermite.

What is NPT?



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


If you say so hellobruce, it must be so, eh?

I refer you to every one of Zaphod58's examples of over-limit flying, and Egypt Air 990 which broke apart at 425 EAS, although as Zaphod pointed out, an effort to pull up was taking place thus further stressing the aircraft, which is why I said about 425 EAS is the limit.

Boeing's own testing and Vd limit proves it, not me. [see graphs in above post]

As to Vd or dive speed limitation, the limit for a 767, as depicted, is 420 knots.

To give you a better idea re: dive speeds and stress testing - check out the "Flutter Testing" for the Airbus A320

theflyingengineer.com...



Sorry Bruce but hand waving and making declarations does't pass muster.

Also, this is new evidence that's been discovered in the process of investigation and inquiry, and is not the reason this thread ended up here, which was because of the second post's use of a blurry image to make a supposition as to the identity of the aircraft in question.

As I requested of the other poster "the Gaul", civility and decorum is required here, so save the ridicule and contempt it doesn't wash here and just makes you look bad.


Regards,

NAM



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

leostokes

What is NPT?

No plane theory aka NRPT (no real plane theory), ah hem, COUGH!

Please do not reply to this post as that topic is out of bounds in this thread, thanks again for your understanding, and no I'm not suggesting that you hold to that um "theory" which is utterly absurd in light of all physical evidence and observation from many many angles and perspectives, since all cameras were trained on the WTC by the time the second plane came onto the scene to impact and penetrate the building, resulting in that absolutely gargantuan fireball.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join