It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Novice pilots flying 767's like they supposedly did on 9/11 would be like any of us jumping in an Indy racer and making course speed records in the process.
Ain't gonna happen.
reply to post by Phage
Um.. that Vmo/Mmo limit was not at Sea Level Phage, but at 23,000 feet altitude!
The Vmo/Mmo of .86 Mach does not apply at all altitudes! Didn't you see the calc?
This is ridiculous.
You're not really this confused, i can't believe that.
What are you trying to debunk here i don't get it, you cannot move the bar arbitrarily it doesn't work that way.
Edit to add: Check the EAS and CAS for the Vmo/Mmo of the Boeing 767.
And again, the Vd structural dive speed limit for the aircraft is 420, EAS, whereby 425 is the equivalent airspeed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet altitude ie: same dynamic pressure on the airframe. In other words, 420 knots EAS (at sea level) makes perfect sense as the Vd structural limit of the Boeing 767.
This WAS covered in the OP very clearly and in fine detail. I didn't just make it up. It is what it is and it can't be twisted and re-rendered with an aim to deceive or obfuscate it's fundamental truth and reality.
The plane was recorded flying at NINETY knots past it's Vd structural limit of 420, even more beyond it's Vmo, of 360 knots EAS.
Nice thread OP.
Of the two options being proposed, if I'm understanding your OP correctly. Either...
A) These were beefed up planes able to fly at those insanely high speeds and not the planes we were led to believe they were...
B) Without the black boxes (which is odd, having found a passport in near perfect condition) the NTSB and/or RADES got the actual speed of the planes wrong, and they were travelling much slower than reported...
I'd have to go with B.
New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds
By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ
Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.
''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''
Flight "UA 175": An Incredible Journey
In August 2006 the NTSB, in response to a NSA FOI request, finally released details of the 9/11 flights.
NTSB Releases 9/11 Flight Information
When going over the report in reference to another thread it suddenly dawned on me how incredible a journey the flight of United Airlines 175 actually was. Report Here
The report includes a flight profile, a ground track, A pressure altitude graph derived from radar mode C returns, and a transcript of radio communications.
The following is a "blow by blow" of the alleged plane's astonishing flight, taken from the report:
United Airlines Flight 175 departed Boston Logan at 8:14AM
It reached 31,000 feet at 8:33AM
The final radio transmission was at 8:42AM
Beacon Codes were changed twice within one minute at 8:47AM (possible point of a "radar swap")
UA 175 started into a climbing turn to the South East at 8:51AM
It reached 33,500 feet at 8:53AM
UA 175 began its descent while continuing its turn
It turned towards North East while its descent continued
The "plane" was now headed towards WTC2 in a direction of North east (45 degrees)
at what is termed point (G)
Its altitude at this point was 25,000 feet at 8:58 AM
It was at 24,000 feet at 8:59AM
18,500 feet at 9:00AM
15,000 feet at 9:01AM
9,000 feet at 9:02AM
The "plane" is presumed to have struck its target at a height under 1000 feet at 9:02 40 AM. Mission Accomplished.
(END FLIGHT SUMMARY)
Now point (G) where UA 175 starts heading straight for WTC2 is just east of Trenton, NJ. The targeted tower is approximately sixty miles away at this point.
This is incredible target acquisitioning, but just as incredible is the fact that according to the NTSB report, which was founded on three sets of radar data ( FAA, JFK Approach and USAF) the alleged plane covered the sixty mile distance in approximately 4 minutes and 40 seconds.
That mission was to simply hit the buildings.
If they were remote would there not be some more precise and perfect hits or was that to make it 'look' like cave dwellers did this?
SAME stuff over and over and over with no hard evidence.
Air Traffic Control (TRACON) operators see all aircraft flying in their sector on a computer screen on which is displayed geographical information (boundaries, coastlines, etc) as well as all aircraft flying within that airspace. The map below displays all the control sectors in the continental US.
For example, the control sector labeled ZDC includes Virginia down to North Carolina and west to West Virginia. Washington DC is marked in red. This sector has dimensions of approximately 450 mi (N/S) by 300 mi (E/W). If one divides the N/S dimension by the number of lines on a standard computer display screen (1024), a distance of 0.43 miles or about 2200 feet.
Two aircraft having this separation will appear as two blips on the screen, but aircraft closer together than this will appear as one. Radar operators (i.e., air traffic controllers) are the only people who are aware of what aircraft are presently in the sky and where they are going. The vast majority of people are completely unaware of such details and, when an aircraft passes overhead, can usually not tell one type from another, let alone what airline or aviation company may own it. This observation, while something of a commonplace, has important implications. If an organization wishes to substitute one aircraft for another without anyone knowing it, the only people it has to deceive are the air traffic controllers.
In other words, as soon as two aircraft get within 2000 feet of one another, there would be a tendency for their respective blips to merge. With a smaller separation, the two aircraft could easily appear as one.
Of course, two aircraft that are that close together run a certain risk of collision – unless they are at different altitudes. Radar screens are two-dimensional in that they represent airspace in the same way as a map does, with the vertical dimension of altitude suppressed.
Every commercial passenger jet carries a transponder, a device that emits a special radio message whenever it senses an incoming radar wave. The signal carries the transponder code that appears on ATC screens as a “data tag,” a small four-line block of text that appears on the controller’s screen, as in the following example:
UAL 93 375 309 NWA LAX 884 FE 3
flight identifier altitude (100s of feet) & airspeed (knots) origin and destination airports other data
The purpose of the code is to make it clear to ATC operators which plane is which. Other information sent by the transponder includes the altitude at which the aircraft is flying. Transponders were implemented many years ago precisely
for the reason that radar blips are otherwise easily confused. Transponders make the controller’s job much easier. (WIKI 2008)
The pilot of an airliner can turn the transponder on or off in the cockpit. He or she can also change the code by keying in new numbers. It takes a pilot less than a minute to key in a new code — or less than a second to turn the unit off. Without a displayed altitude number, it is impossible for a radar operator to tell whether two merged blips represent a potential collision or not. The data tag is displayed if an aircraft’s transponder is turned on, otherwise, the radar operator has no idea of the altitude at which an aircraft happens to be flying.
If one aircraft happens to be within half a kilometer of another, above it, below it, or even slightly behind or ahead of it, the radar operator will see only one aircraft, as long as the two maintain a horizontal (plan view) separation that is no greater than 2000 feet.
Imagine now two aircraft, both headed for the same approximate point on the radar screen, both with their transponders turned off. One is well above the other but, as the blips merge, both planes swerve, each taking the other’s former direction. The operator would simply see the aircraft cross and would have no way of realizing that a swap had taken place. This could be called an “X-swap,” since the maneuver is intended to make a radar operator think that the two flight paths had actually crossed each other.
There are many other swapping patterns available. For example, one plane could apparently catch up and “pass” another when, in fact, it slowed after the blips merged, even as the other speeded up. Such a swap could be called an “I-swap,” since all the action takes place along a straight line.
Another method involves the replacement aircraft climbing out of a valley where it would be invisible to distant radars, even as the other aircraft descended into the valley. Again, a radar operator would see a more or less seamless flight without realizing that he or she had been momentarily seeing not one, but two aircraft on the radar screen.
Of course, if the transponders are turned on, such confusion is unlikely to occur. Even in this case, however, the deception can be complete if the aircraft switch transponder codes.
Just like Kennedy, you're never ever going to get the truth on what happened on 9/11.
The only real solution to the problem is to start over.