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: 30
24
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Fair enough.

That did raise another idea though, in regards to the observed plane.

Might we be looking at a 767-300 here (which is longer from the trailing wing edge, to the tail ie: longer fuselage, as well as from the leading wing edge where it meets the fuselage, to the nose), and not, a 200? (which is rather shorter)? I do realize given the angle that it's rather hard to tell..




The 300 is also longer from the leading edge of the wing where it meets the fuselage, to the nose.




Hmph.. hard to tell, but it looks to be too long for a 200 from what I can see, especially in that frame from the video and in looking at the video itself, moreso too long looking, imho, fore of the wing where it meets the fuselage, to the nose.


edit on 17-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It looks like it could be a -300 at that angle, but I've seen a side by side with a -222 (which 175 was), and it matches up pretty well. It appears that the lighting and the unusual angle cause it to appear to be longer.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


After everything we've been through and covered here, you don't STILL think that plane is flight 175, N612UA, do you?



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I haven't seen anything that proves it wasn't. You haven't proven anything. Your premise is that they used raw engine power, which they didn't. There is no reason that the plane couldn't have dove down, under control, at that speed and impacted the building. What you call "fighter type moves" are nothing that any commercial plane couldn't do quite easily, and would have put almost no stress on the airframe.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I haven't seen anything that proves it wasn't.

You haven't proven anything.

There is no reason that the plane couldn't have dove down, under control, at that speed, and impacted the building.

What you call "fighter type moves" are nothing that any commercial plane couldn't do quite easily, and would have put almost no stress on the airframe.


My God, you're kidding me, right? I guess not.. whoa, this is crazy! I'll have to create a summary highlight to make it perfectly clear. And I thought you might have changed your avatar on account of what you'd learned or discovered, from this thread's exchange, I guess I was wrong about you.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You haven't provided a shred of proof that it was a "monster plane", it was remote controlled, there were no passengers on board, or anything else. Prove those, and you might be able to brag, but until you do, you're still at square one.

And my avatar has nothing to do with anything but my particular mood at the point when I change it.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


All I have to prove, is that it was not and could not have been flight 175, a regular, unmodified commercial airliner, to prove the case that it was a modified, remotely piloted aircraft. Simple as that, and I have, or thought it did, but will again.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You have to prove that it couldn't have dove down and reached that speed. Which you haven't, and can't. If a plane can dive down, and remain under perfect control and reach Mach 1, there is absolutely no reason why 175 couldn't have done it.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Leave it with me - you've offered your best examples, got any more of commercial Boeing 767's or similar type aircraft exceeding Mach 1 in a controlled fashion, while demonstrating maneuvering capability..?!@*#



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


United 175 didn't do anything as far as maneuvering goes. It leveled off and banked. That's hardly anything that's going to put huge amounts of stress onto an airframe, even at high speed. That bank MIGHT have put half a G on the airframe at best and I seriously doubt even close to that much. The level out was probably right around half a G or very slightly higher.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You didn't answer the question - beyond the one example you cited earlier, when at a steady, controlled dive, from 45,000 ft - 30,000 ft, Mach 1.01 was reached without incurring structural damage, can you come up with any examples of a 767 or similar aircraft exceeding an airspeed of Mach 1, without suffering damage or breakup, and, while retaining flight control?

I'll do some searching on the web for precedents myself and see if I can find any, including those cases where the plane broke apart and lost structural integrity, to see what kind of Mach # they might have been pushing when that took place, and whether they were in control or not when it happened.

I didn't realize that you'd be comfortable going to Mach 1 without seeing any problem, at all, either in terms of structural integrity, or flight control. From what I've learned 425 knots EAS is at about the threshold of .99-1.0 Mach equivalent airspeed at higher altitude. It's important to note here, that the Vd dive speed limit set by Boeing, based on wind tunnel and flight stress/flutter testing, is 420 knots (EAS equivalent) as already cited earlier.

Will keep researching..

Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 17-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


There are no other examples. That DC-8 was the only one that reached Mach 1. This aircraft didn't reach Mach 1 either, so Mach 1 is an irrelevant speed. Equivalent Airspeed doesn't mean anything. The airspeed that was recorded is the airspeed the aircraft was flying at, at the time of impact. THAT is what matters, not what airspeed it might have been flying at 40,000 feet.

You have yet to prove that the radar data that tracked the aircraft for the entire flight is either wrong or faked, and actually shows the aircraft landing somewhere, or disappearing. The flights were tracked postmortem for their entire flights from take off to impact.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I heard that flight 11 was lost on radar for a time... and that flight 175 was notified and told to stay clear of it without being notified that it was suspected to have been hijacked. Then again, I don't have access to all the research data that you seem to have.. I suppose we'll need to look at those aspects, which requires some deep research (forgive me if I don't trust everything the "debunkers" have to offer) but first I think it's important to wrap up this line of inquiry as to whether the observed plane could even possibly be flying as it was recorded, if it was the unmodified, regular flight 175, as you claim.

Also, in terms of aerodynamic pressure and airspeed, equivalent airspeed does matter. In fact it's what they use as the baseline when conducting stress/flutter tests whereby the Boeing 767 is set at a max of 420 knots.

I'll do up a little presentation on the meaning and importance of EAS in this regard, to prove that it IS meaningful and significant, particularly in this case.

Also, you've cited cases you've found where the plane survived and did not break up, but I'm curious about those instances where structural failure did occur and at what Mach #, airspeed and altitude, and whether the flight was in control or not at the time although one can hardly imagine any instances when the pilot would take such an aircraft past it's Vd limit, beyond which as I understand it, structure failure is imminent, where again, an EAS of 425 is equal to the threshold of .99 - Mach 1.0 at 22,000 feet.

You're starting to remind me of certain regular debunkers over in the 9/11 forum, and elsewhere, who will to go to ANY length to try to uphold and guard the O.S. no matter how far it might stretch the bounds of what's credible or believable. We'll see..

This is a good testing ground though for a future presentation in the appropriate forum.

So thanks for pushing the envelope which you sure are doing a good job of as it relates to the speed and flight control of "flight 175"..


edit on 17-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


All the flights were seen on radar data for their entire flights. Some were lost by one or two ATC stations, but the radar data clearly shows them all, for their entire flights.

The maximums set by Boeing are also below the absolute maximum that the aircraft can handle. They always build a safety feature into the aircraft. Just because it's set to 420 knots, that doesn't mean that the aircraft will hit 421 knots and suddenly fly apart. It's like the wing stress test. The wings are designed to fail at 150% of the maximum possible load. That means that it can fall straight down, while in level flight, and sustain over twice the maximum load and not fail.

It's the same with speeds. There is always a safety factor built in, where the aircraft can exceed what is in the books and not come apart. In some cases Vmo/Vd is limited by things like windscreen speeds. The 757 is limited because the windscreen isn't rated for impacts above 313 knots or so. Sometimes it can exceed the books by quite a bit and survive, as has been shown. The DC-8 has a Vmo of 352 knots, which puts the Vd at between 382 and 412 knots (roughly). Yet they were able to dive at Mach 1 and pull out just fine. So tell me again why a 767 can't exceed Vd without flying apart.
edit on 12/17/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


They made a small model and put it in a wind tunnel, and took a commercial stock 767 and flew an F-18 Hornet off the wingtips, and behind the tail, where the drogue units will be located to make sure that there were no problems caused by airflow off the 767 that would prevent it being used as a tanker.


Just to clarify, it did also say this



Boeing started working on the concept of using a Boeing 767 as a tanker in 1999 when it assembled a team to undertake preliminary design development. The following year, wind-tunnel testing and proximity trials took place from NAS Patuxent River, Md, using a civilian 767-300ER and a Boeing F/A-18 Hornet which acted as a small category receiver and a Lockheed S-3B Viking as a medium-sized one. The aim of these tests was to check the viability of the 767 as a platform for aerial refuelling by ensuring receivers could fly smoothly in the aircraft’s wake, crucial for the precise close formation manoeuvring required of receiver aircraft. In June 2002 a USAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III was also flown behind a -200ER to assess the effect on a large aircraft as well as one with a T-tail. The 767 received a good Cooper-Harper rating, the accepted industry scale for this subject. Indeed, Boeing claims that it performed better than any other aircraft in service today as a tanker. As a result, Boeing officially launched the programme in March 2001.
www.aviation-news.co.uk...

Which does show that the programme was launched and in progress prior to September 11th, 2001, which I think speaks to your original rebuttal, that there was nothing of the sort under way for the Tanker Transport until well after 9/11. Just something I thought might be worth pointing out. It's not out of the realm of conceivable therefore that a prototype of that aircraft might have been built in time.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Also, you've cited cases you've found where the plane survived and did not break up, but I'm curious about those instances where structural failure did occur and at what Mach #, airspeed and altitude, and whether the flight was in control or not at the time although one can hardly imagine any instances when the pilot would take such an aircraft past it's Vd limit, beyond which as I understand it, structure failure is imminent, where again, an EAS of 425 is equal to the threshold of .99 - Mach 1.0 at 22,000 feet.


How about a China Airlines that experienced sustained 5g forces, lot a bit of the tailplane but survived?

Or an Evergreen International 747 that got to Mach 0.98 without breaking up?

Or a TWA 727 that exceeded the airframe mach limit and was only bought back under control by extending the landing gear (way in excess of the speed for doing so (VLE/VLO) - without it being damaged!!) - it lost 1 leading edge slat.

Here' a general discussion of modern airliners going supersonic on the aviation tech-ops forum where real aviation people discuss REALITY - you won't like it.


You're starting to remind me of certain regular debunkers over in the 9/11 forum, and elsewhere, who will to go to ANY length to try to uphold and guard the O.S. no matter how far it might stretch the bounds of what's credible or believable. We'll see..


There is nothing incredible about the speeds that these a/c achieved except in your mind.

I guess now that every other nutty "truther physics" theory has been debunked it was tiem to invent a new one - or else you might have to admit being wrong, nd you can't have that!!


edit on 17-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: change link text for china airlines



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I didn't say there wasn't a PROGRAM underway, I said there wasn't a prototype built by 9/11. There is no way that they build a prototype between March and September of the same year. You don't build planes that fast. The KC-46, which is the US 767 tanker is finally underway, and it's going to take them over a year to build the first test article. They started the design process late last year, and as of a few days ago, they finally joined the body to the wings.

It takes 8-10 months minimum for the design to be finalized, and the Critical Design Review takes two to three of that. You can't even start building the plane until those are done. There is no way that a prototype was built in under 7 months.

All that had been done to that point were windtunnel tests, and vortex tests using a stock aircraft to determine if the aircraft could even be turned into a tanker in the first place.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Did China 006 go supersonic? I wasn't sure if it had, and couldn't find any official speeds for it. I knew they were vertical and far exceeded the safety margins for the 747, but I wasn't sure they actually broke Mach.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You're right - I think I must have been confounding it with some text from the airline tech ops forum - I've reworded to mention the g forces instead.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Also, you've cited cases you've found where the plane survived and did not break up, but I'm curious about those instances where structural failure did occur and at what Mach #, airspeed and altitude, and whether the flight was in control or not at the time although one can hardly imagine any instances when the pilot would take such an aircraft past it's Vd limit, beyond which as I understand it, structure failure is imminent, where again, an EAS of 425 is equal to the threshold of .99 - Mach 1.0 at 22,000 feet.


How about a China Airlines that broke the sound barrier, lot a bit of the tailplane but survived?

Or an Evergreen International 747 that got to Mach 0.98 without breaking up?

Or a TWA 727 that exceeded the airframe mach limit and was only bought back under control by extending the landing gear (way in excess of the speed for doing so (VLE/VLO) - without it being damaged!!) - it lost 1 leading edge slat.

Here' a general discussion of modern airliners going supersonic on the aviation tech-ops forum where real aviation people discuss REALITY - you won't like it.


Actually I do like it, that was very helpful, thanks. I was looking for something like that, as I would to compiled the best and most far out examples of commercial airliners flirting with Mach level airspeeds. Thanks again.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join