It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 32
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 08:43 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

which it is as far as I can tell no matter how I look at it, or time it with a stopwatch, then as an operational objective, it would only make sense that they would use radar and plane swapping, to realize the objective as there are just too many unpredictable and unknown variables in the hijacking and successful piloting to the buildings, hitting at just the right levels to "sell" that idea that the building hit second,

I can tell you from experience that supporters of the official line will counter your fine logic by supposition that the hijackers never meant to take down the towers. They were apparently very surprised after the event...

Which than in turn suggests that the entire falling of the towers is an incredible stroke of luck(for the hijackers)...for all of the three buildings in question.

of course...I find that ludicrous and statistically highly improbable.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:40 AM

reply to post by Char-Lee

Prototypes are not built until someone pays for them, and for the testing. No company is going to spend millions or more, on the off chance that someone might be interested in it. They build them after someone sends out an RFP, and finally offers a contract for a prototype, and flight testing.

Yes, prototypes are built and flown, AFTER there is interest in them and a contract is offered.

They were already in a race for a military contract and clearly if you are going to modify or the idea is to modify and existing aircraft prototypes would be built.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:27 PM


They were already in a race for a military contract and clearly if you are going to modify or the idea is to modify and existing aircraft prototypes would be built.

Yes...sooner or later...if a contract for building one is actually agreed or the company makes a demonstrator off its own bat. and if they make a demonstrator then they generally use it to DEMONSTRATE - ie to advertise.

Where is the record of any such demonstrator?

Boeing did make a demonstrator - N606TW - but they didn't buy the old airframe used until 2008!

you can find it on on this page the the list of all 767 airframes built and their serial numbers.

This page includes the Italian airforce 767 tankers

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by Char-Lee

There was no "race" at that point. The first deal was a no bid contract to lease 80 aircraft, and buy 20 from Boeing. There was no competition, and no race. Even if there was, there is no way that you could (even using a preexisting airframe) modify an aircraft and be flying it in less than 8 months. Boeing started windtunnel and airflow testing with a leased 767 in March of 2001, and they have a modified one built and, here's the real kicker, unannounced, that is flown into the World Trade Center in September, setting a multi-billion dollar deal back at least a year.

The original tanker scandal, which started around this time (but wasn't announced until March 2002) would have netted Boeing $110M over list price per aircraft for 80 aircraft, and a 10 year lease on 20 aircraft at that same price. That would have gotten Boeing record amounts of money, but they took their demonstrator aircraft, without telling anyone, and flew it into the World Trade Center.

Does that even BEGIN to make sense to someone?
edit on 12/19/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:45 PM

i] Zaphod58
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.

They climbed to 52,000 feet, where they put it (the DC-8) 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.

I've already proven it. And we'll do a comparison yet between your DC-8,16 second Mach dive at high altitude example, both in relation to it's Vd limit, and as it compares to the STP (south tower plane), as well as numerous other precedents of near Mach flight by 767's and similar aircraft, but they're all at high altitude, often much higher than 22,000 feet, which is a relatively low and conservative point comparison considering that most if not all the examples are at altitude - and what they PROVE is that such aircraft are not made to exceed the sound barrier, which carries with it it's own transonic effects still further placing any such airplane when it reaches or exceedes the Mach 1.0 threshold in grave jeapardy. Again, all those examples of near Mach 1 filght are at altitude, often exceeding 22,000 feet.

Therefore any equivalent airspeed, where the air it 2/3rd's thicker than at 30,000 feet, which represents a corresponding airspeed exceeding Mach 1.0, at altititude reveals that within the margin by which the plane exceeded this threshold, I've proven the case, because it's too great, the margin, too far beyond the established Vd or max structural speed, beyond which, by only five knots, and we're at an equivalent airspeed at the Mach .99 - 1.0 threshold, already, at 425 knots EAS at sea level.

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.

In that video, for the Airbus380 flutter test, they descended in a steady dive from 38,000 feet aiming for a Vd of Mach .96 (it's a big plane with lots of surface area) which to certify required some major modifications.

The south tower plane, according to you, would be able to exceed Mach 1.39 to Mach 1.4 when descending from the same height of 38,000 feet.. for an EAS of 510 knots, at sea level.

To put this into perspective in regards to the airspeed magnitude by which the south tower plane is/was observed exceeding the Vd limit as set by first wind tunnel then flight testing, just like with the Airbus380..

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

Here are those limitations, from Boeing...

Vd explained

At EAS (Sea Level), over test Vd - let's take a look at the range, beyond Vd for the Boeing 767, and we'll do it in full 5 knot increments, which is fair, since we're already at and beginning to exceed the threshold limit for structural failure, Vd limit, and even the smallest increments at that point can have grave effects, as the flight testers experienced with the Airbus A320 in the video contained in that link above i.

420 (Vd limit, by stress/flutter testing)
425 (which is .99 - Mach 1.0 equivalent airspeed and pressure at higher altitude of 22,000 feet - which is about the threshold from all those examples of near or just over Mach flight, while surviving, and this is very conservative, because such dives are mostly done from much higher altitudes as per your DC-8 ref cited above in which case an EAS of 425 represents an even higher Mach # up around 35,000 - 52,000 ft, well exceeding Mach 1.0 ++)

430, 435, 440, 445, 450, 455, 460, 465, 470, 475, 480, 485, 490, 495, 500, 505, 510 knots + (including windspeed, 515)

EAS is sea level airspeed. As a factoral expression of the equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe at low vs. high altitude, because the air is so much thicker at sea level, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS.

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.

EAS is defined as:

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. The Vd limit is expressed in an EAS. 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.

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, and reaching Mach 1.39 and 1.4 at about 38,000 ft. It's an absurd speed, 90 knots, NINETY, above Vd of 420 (EAS) which again represents Mach 1.9, at altitude. An unmodified 767-222 cannot do it, it's impossible unless modified, and impossible to control and maneuver at such speed, particularly for an untrained pilot with limited training, and skill level, and zero airtime in the the genuine article. It's not possible and it cannot be believed, not in light of the facts before us.

510 knots is the airspeed claimed for "UA175", by radar..
So, dearest reader, consider that those who believe a standard 767 can fly at 510 knots near sea level and remain stable/controllable, MUST also accept that the same airplane can fly in a controlled fashion, even in a dive,

- at 722 knots at 22,000 feet... or Mach 1.19, and 915 knots at 35,000 feet...or Mach 1.38 .ing for 1.39 or 1.4 at 38,000 ft. It's absurd.

And again, as an expression of EAS at altitude, 22,000 feet is a fairly reasonable altitude, considering that no one will able to produce any example of a commercial plane exceeding Mach 1.0, by anything beyond 1.01 or 1.02 etc. let alone an equivalent airspeed at that altitude, exceeding Mach 1 by .9 or 1.38 going on 1.4 at 38,000 feet. Unmodified, they just can't do it it's physically impossible. This is a statement of fact, and of reason, based solely on observation.
510 knots is NINETY knots over Vd of 420, and 85 knots over 425 which is an equivalent airspeed at 22,000 feet of .99 Mach.
85 knots past the equivalent EAS for Mach 1.0. at altitude..

There is no precident in the history of aviation which can make this seem normal or natural as if it's like "nothing to see here, nothing unusual please move along", not one.
At altitude (and they all are or or they'd plow into the ground) often exceeding 22,000 feet, they break apart at over Mach speed, by margins exceeding Mach 1.05, every time. None can go to an equivalent airspeed of Mach 1.19 - 1.3 at 22,000ft.

edit on 19-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

So according to you Mach 1 at sea level is less than 600 mph. Because that's exactly what you just said. Using EAS, any aircraft at sea level even close to the speed of 175 is breaking the sound barrier, according to you. Flight 175 never even came remotely close to the sound barrier, except using the magical moving speed of EAS that you're using.

So what's the point of having any kind of airspeed at sea level. They should just start using EAS for all their airspeed, instead of using actual speeds at the actual altitude they are at.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

equivalent airspeed. I never said anything about the speed of sound AT sea level. You're trying to twist the appropriate comparison, which is absolutely required and essential to understand the aerodynamic pressures involved.

You're tricky, sly, and wrong.

You're also trying to manipulate the reader when you say things like "equivalent airspeed is irrelevant", and now you're trying to suggest that I'm referring to supersonic flight at sea level, which I am not, and never have, it's a comparison for equivalent airspeed at altitude, which applies perfectly to all the examples given of near Mach 1 flight, usually in uncontrolled dives, because they are all at altitude.

You're not going to get away with spinning this, the reader knows better, and so should you.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 05:06 PM

reply to post by NewAgeMan

So what's the point of having any kind of airspeed at sea level. They should just start using EAS for all their airspeed, instead of using actual speeds at the actual altitude they are at.

Again, misleading.

It's largely used for the purpose of testing, to establish the lowest threshold of the highest pressure circumstances, and it is an EQUIVALENT AIRSPEED, for real.

So again, the appropriate comparison is valid in terms of the aerodynamic pressures on the airframe, from lower to higher altitude, whereby the comparison demonstrates clearly that we're into la la land in regards to observed speed of the STP simply because, at higher altitude, where the EAS scale, which btw isn't magical, but moves on a slidnig scale according to clearly defined mathematical calculations moves beyond Mach 1.0 AT ALTITUDE as an equivalent airspeed - supersonic flight by commercial aircraft is utterly impossible.

You cannot deceive the reader on this one Zaphod, sorry.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Not at all. But according to what you said, they can't possibly go faster than 500 mph at low level, because they'd be traveling over Mach 1 at higher altitude.

Notice the sheet that you're using, the A1NM, that's for the FAA airworthiness. The A1NM doesn't say that if you cross those speeds the aircraft will instantly fall apart. Something else to think about that hasn't been thrown out there yet, that also helps to throw this theory out, is that radar data is in ground speed. Ground speed and airspeed can be pretty different, in some cases by 100 knots.

But again, book speed, and actual failure speed are two completely different things. Just look at the ground testing for just about any aircraft built. They fail at much higher limits than the aircraft will ever see in reality.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 05:15 PM
To better understand "Margin Of Safety" with respect to real aviation...

This explains that graph from Boeing for the 767 very well. (NINETY knots over Vd of 420 knots - bear that in mind, where 425 EAS = .99 Mach at an altitude of 22,000 ft.)
And again, to understand Vd, and what a filght test looks like, go here

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Ninety knots ground speed. What was the actual airspeed? What was TAS and what was IAS in the cockpit?

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 05:24 PM

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Something else to think about that hasn't been thrown out there yet, that also helps to throw this theory out, is that radar data is in ground speed. Ground speed and airspeed can be pretty different, in some cases by 100 knots.

Yet again, misleading. The airspeed for groundspeed involves two vectors only with the addition of windspeed depending on it's direction. On 9/11, because of a very light North Westerly wind, the vector actually adds a little bit to the groundspeed, for an aispeed of about 515 knots, something I've already pointed out if you would but simply read what's been posted.

You appear to be intentionally misleading in grasping at the O.S. but I don't think the reader is going to buy it, not if they're a rational person capable of critical thinking and logical deduction founded on observation or a scientific outlook dedicated to truth and reality.

It's become clear that what YOU are asking everyone to believe in the face of the data is not believable.

Observable facts and phenomenon cannot be discarded in favor of a biased viewpoint which is biased by having only one possible outcome, that's not scientific inquiry.

It just doesn't pass muster, it doesn't cut it.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 05:31 PM

Observable facts and phenomenon cannot be discarded in favor of a biased viewpoint which is biased by having only one possible outcome, that's not scientific inquiry.

It just doesn't pass muster, it doesn't cut it.

Now that's funny considering that you're so locked into your theory that you wouldn't even consider that you could possibly be wrong, or that there could possibly be another explanation for it.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Physics doesn't lie and I'm approaching this backwards through the causation of events, including the evidence for CD of the twin towers in the actual occurrence of their destruction (and building 7), also according to the laws of physics including the first and third law of motion and conservation of momentum, where the plane is already suspect, and we're just examining it within the whole context and lo and behold, this is what we're looking at.

I'm not employing any manner of deception with these observations.

And according to those same immutable laws, this plane, unless a seriously beefed up and modified Boeing 767, cannot possibly be realizing controlled flight at that speed and altitude. It's elementary and based in reason and deductive logic from observation.

It's not really a theory either, once it's a proven fact.

That plane cannot have been flight 175, UA175, and therefore, is or was, a swapped in remotely piloted drone-type aircraft.

Physics doesn't lie.

Whereas you're trying to defy reason to make it all fit nicely into the O.S. That's my point. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny or according to the laws of physics, either. First there's the buildings, then when examining this plane, there again it doesn't work according to the O.S. plain and simple.

It's not funny at all, but maybe if we'er given the opportunity to see and recognize it for what it is in the light of truth and reality maybe then at some point we can have our good-willed humor restored, where the last laugh goes to the underdog, the oppressed and abused, and the victimized, because where there's authentic historical truth and justice, why then there's the possibility of true life and authenticity, with deep learning, comprehension and understanding capable of turning the Big Lie on it's . and setting the individual free as an active historical participant and causal agent of progressive change and transformation for the better.

You're deceit however, on behalf of the O.S. isn't the least bit helpful, except to the degree that it's served as a foil against which to make the truth known, which requires objection and rebuttal to make it's case, so in a way for that, I'm grateful to you and appreciative, so it's not personal, but it's very very serious, because of it's implications for modern life and modern history, and yes even for Life, Liberty, Truth, Freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and eventually God willing, Justice for all.

"It was the stone that was rejected by the builders, that became the keystone."

Same thing here with 9/11.

They did this to their own constituents, to people like you and me and our neighbor. We deserve so much more and so much better.

I'm just trying to be helpful in favor of a just and noble historical pursuit that is dedicated to the truth and the reality, except at the cost of the truth and reality itself.

I don't want for this to be true, but there's just no getting around it.

And like I said in the OP, it's not an easy thing to be involved in researching nor as a story, as a real history, to tell, it's very painful in fact in so many ways and it's been a very heavy load to take on, thus the purpose of this thread so that others might share that same load, and carry this thing across the rubicon and through the juggernaut/zeitgeist, in rendering the LIE for what it is.

This, what we're dealing with here has very grave consequences, historically. You don't seem to see it, or if you do, appear bent on covering up for the O.S. seemingly at any and all cost, even if that involves the use of deception.

edit on 19-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 06:23 PM

I would suggest that calmer .s prevail and that we keep the personal remarks out of this discussion please.


ATS Super Mod

edit on 12/19/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

I've been following this thread and it appears that there is a difference of opinion on what proof is and how one goes about proving their hypothesis.

The two competing hypothesis are:

1. The TRUTH (Reality)
Planes hijacked and flown into WTC1,2
Items supporting hypothesis (in no special order):
1. Calls from plane stating they have been hijacked and identifying the hijackers (Betty Ong I believe)
2. Radar data showing plane from take off at airport to crash into towers
3. Plane parts recovered from crash site identifying plane (United flight)
4. DNA of passengers known to be on flight
5. Possessions of passengers on flight found at crash site

2. Conspiracy theory
Modified Aircraft swapped in to replace flight
Items supporting hypothesis (in no special order):
1. Belief two planes can fly close enough to confuse radar and radar operators to which plane went where
2. Use of a "fake" V-G" Diagram from Pilot for Truth to support notion that the real plane could not hit the speeds shown on radar (or reported)
3. Illogical use of aeronautical terms to sound sciency and technically competent to support belief that the real plane would have failed/crashed if it performed the maneuvers on 9/11.
4. Inability to detail what happened to the real plane and passengers

As another poster stated earlier. There are a lot of IFs in the conspiracy version. If you want people to buy into/believe the conspiracy version a lot more facts are necessary. The TRUTH tells a complete story. The conspiracy tells a fairy tale that involves lots of magic (also know as woo) .

As a Mechanical Engineer I understand the concept of Safety Factors. Engineers would design everything to be 100% safe, however those products cannot be sold at a price anyone would pay. Therefore a Safety Factor is a balancing act between Safeness of the item and the Price of the item. At what point is it cheap to pay the lawsuits than the cost to build a better product. Exceeding a safety factor does not mean immediate failure. Context is very important in relationship to safety factors.

Aircraft are expected to have a long service life. No one wants to replace their air fleet every other year. So as long as the plane is flown normally it will last. If it flies outside of its safety envelope additional stresses are placed on the aircraft and it has to be checked for aircraft worthiness. As pointed out multiple times, many aircraft have flown outside their safety envelope and survived.

Since planes are flown by humans which fall asleep at the wheel and do other bad things, having plane immediately and catastrophically fail if the Vd is exceed is an extremely bad idea. How many test pilots, who push the planes envelope, would die? How many passengers (and pilots) would die if pilot inattention lead to a plane flying too fast? The potential downside to exceeding Vd is huge. Therefore the real Vd that would lead to catastrophic failure is much higher. It all goes back to how safe can we make something without going bankrupt because it is too expensive or the lawsuits would put us out of business.

I anticipate that my post will have zero impact on anyone's beliefs. I just wanted to get my two cents in.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by huh2142

Those sheets are not "fake" but perfectly represent the facts, found here

Just go to the "TCDS" Type Certificate Data Sheet Information PDF on the left side when you get there.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

And do you think the FAA figures the exact speed that the plane is going to fall apart and makes that the Vd or any other speed? Of course not. They pad them just like the manufacturer does to give an additional safety margin.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

The discussion of Vd is interesting but we are missing the forest for the tree. It is your belief that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that the plane that flew into the South tower was a modified plane.

Nowhere in any of your posts do you prove your CD hypothesis. Nowhere in any of your posts do you prove your plane swap hypothesis.

It is your duty as the proposer of alternate hypotheses to disprove the current (Official Story) hypotheses.

You have a lot of conjecture on potential possibilities however none are backed by fact or constitute proof.

The Official Story is a cohesive narrative that accounts for 100% of the facts. Your hypotheses have holes which leave the Official Story as the current best explanation for the events of the day.

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by huh2142

We've already covered CD in the time difference between absolute free fall in nothing but air alone, as compared to that through the path of maximal resistence, where the difference between air vs. steel, is 4-6 seconds. To then consider this in regards to the approx 95 floors of the north tower beneath the impact area, makes the case when one considers the laws of motion, in particular the first and third laws and conservation of momentum. Absent the use of explosives, or the foot of God, the O.S. is absurd and cannot be believed or accepted.

It be further proven by the presence of super-high temperatures in the debris field by far exceeding anything that could possibly be explained in the way of jet fuel and/or office fires, which includes the presence of atomized steel (think spray droplets) in the dust, but is not limited to that only when examining evidence of molten steel, along with sustained high temperatures in the debris field.

A simple and straightforward examination of the video posted, also shows that it's self evident that the twin towers were destroyed by explosives. You can SEE IT and it's as clear as day.

new topics

top topics

<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in