NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

Originally posted by Faiol
there are a lot of trolls in this thread

I just find amazing that the mods didnt do anything

there is actually no discussion about the subject ...


people say there are paid people on this board to destroy all the good discussion on the threads, its hard to deny it ...

I find it pretty amazing that people require "discussion" about the subject to be nodding agreement, or otherwise they're apparently trolling. Even when the subject is clearly rubbish.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
NASA Flight Director...

Mr. Deets should take his Truther and terrorist-apologist credentials and return to NASA to help them out with their new mandate - make nice with the Muslims. It is clear he lacks the analytical rigor and intellectual capacity necessary to opine with credibility on this issue.

It is common knowledge - well, common for everyone but the PfT and CIT "experts", it seems - that transportation-type aircraft are engineered to exceed their design specs by at least 2.5 times the FAA required limits for this type aircraft. Safety is the over-arching reason for this. When you are accelerating a pressurized aluminum tube containing a couple hundred human souls to speeds up close to the speed of sound, you want the safety factor to be as high as you can get it.

Head PfT "expert" Balsamo and his sock Tiffany seems to believe that as soon as something reaches its "design limit", it breaks:

Again, it's not so much duration rather that when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

which will come as quite a surprise to many, many engineers who have seen their aircraft or other structural designs meet or exceed the "design limits" by significant factors all throughout history. Accounts of transportation aircraft going close to or exceeding mach, which they are not designed to do, are all throughout the accident and mishap journals. The FAA requires one set of high limits that must be met - Boeing sets an even higher set of design limits. The video that has been shown ad nauseum of the Boeing 777 wing snapping at 150% the design strength is evidence of this – that is 150 times the pressure it needs to withstand. And Cap’t Tiffany Balsamo would have you believe that as soon as an aircraft hits its “design limits”, it breaks.

Balsamo, Deets, Cimino and the rest of these clowns are stuck on this ridiculous idea that the hijackers should have worried about operating their hijacked aircraft within its "design limits”, which is as absurd as it is simplistic. Kamikaze pilots in WW2 did not care about exceeding their aircraft “design limits” when they were on the terminal phase of their suicide mission. Flying to the target? Sure! Just as the 9/11 hijackers flew their enroute legs of their killer missions at normal, cruising speeds. It was only at the terminal, bull’s eye phase of their attacks when any significant speeds would have been reached.

The only limitation to how fast something can go is the size of the engines. Those BIG Pratt and Whitney 4062 engines would have no problem pushing that 767 airframe to the speeds in question. Those hydraulically-augmented flight controls would have no problem making the small controls necessary to line up a beast like a 767 on an easy target like the WTC, especially when you can see the buildings from a hundred miles away at altitude. The airframe would have no problem whatsoever surviving that flight regime. Would panels be pulled off? Probably. Skin delamination? Could be. Stress fractures? Very likey. Structural damage? Possibly. Total and complete structural failure at that speed? No. But wouldn’t high-subsonic flight, even in the low-altitude air density, cause these aircraft to break up?? No. Don’t let these fools tell you they would. Boeing aircraft are robust things, and they could very easily remain flyable into a tower impact that day given the flight parameters we know.

But, if you enjoy your pablum laced with snake oil and garbage analysis, go buy some from Cap’t Tiffany. Buy some of her/his videos! Buy a hat! Support the man/girl till it hurts! Since he/she can't fly anymore, he/she needs something other than a real job to sustain him/her and keep him/her from sleeping on a couch the rest of his/her life.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by trebor451]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You know Kolstad? That's weird. I thought you were just some bit of fluff from LA who had happened upon the wonderful p4t. I imagined you were just spreading their "Truth" because you agreed with it...

Wrong again Tricky. Who knows, maybe.... I AM Ralph Kolstad! Maybe his daughter? Maybe his girlfriend!?!

tee hee...

How many times have you been wrong in this thread? Is this your personal record?

Mind you, you do use a very similar writing style to Rob. - a bit like Rob.

Whatever floats your boat. Stick with your Rob obsession as it's clear you cannot debate the facts.

And you pick me up on elements of syntax and spelling that you clearly don't understand yourself

My spell checker picked up your "travelling". I'm using Firefox, it gives you a red line under misspelled words. Right click on it, and it will give you the correct spelling.

So blame Firefox.

And actually, I rarely see Rob correct spelling mistakes of others, he doesn't appear to be that anal (such as your 426 knots with a redline that intersects the "2" in "420"). But again, whatever floats your boat.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Do you know what happens when you maneuver an aircraft above it's maneuvering speed?

The rudder does not fall off. Most pilots I know have gone over the limits. I have doubled some limits.

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Do you know what happens when you maneuver an aircraft above it's maneuvering speed?

The rudder does not fall off. Most pilots I know have gone over the limits. I have doubled some limits.

Actually, the rudder fell off below Va on AA587.

Do you know the definition of Maneuvering speed and why one is established for an aircraft?

This issue was discussed in detail in 2007 here on ATS, in anyone is interested. This is the thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by trebor451
The airframe would have no problem whatsoever surviving that flight regime. Would panels be pulled off? Probably. Skin delamination? Could be. Stress fractures? Very likey. Structural damage? Possibly. Total and complete structural failure at that speed? No. But wouldn’t high-subsonic flight, even in the low-altitude air density, cause these aircraft to break up?? No. Don’t let these fools tell you they would. Boeing aircraft are robust things, and they could very easily remain flyable into a tower impact that day given the flight parameters we know.

trebor, how much time do you have flying a Boeing? A Boeing 767? N612UA?

Any experience working for NASA? Any awards while working for NASA?

Are you willing to put your name to your above claims as did Deets, Aimer and Kolstad?

It appears it is you trebor, who is trying to sell snake-oil.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No it didn't. It ultimately broke up, but before then it had already entered the red zone during its initial dive. It didn't break up then. Why not?

It entered the red zone and stayed there hovering just 5 knots above redline, hence the term "Peak Speed" used during its dive in the NTSB. It didn't exceed that speed because drag was too high. It didn't break up, because the air was too thin.

It pulled up from that dive, slowed a bit, then started another descent, it broke up at the same speed in the second dive, in thicker air. This is indicated by loss of electrical power to the FDR, CVR, at altitude.

This is all explained in the analysis. Why haven't you watched it yet? Do you like being wrong on every post?

If you read me in full, I obviously mean a further buffer, beyond the yellow - ie that the red zone is pitched at the point where structural failure MAY occur.

Oh, so there is a Caution range above the Structural Failure Zone as well? Why isn't that depicted on any V-G Diagram?

You would know why if you viewed the video course I linked for you at APS Training. An Aerobatic flight school.

Do planes automatically break up after the red line?

Does it say "Structural Failure" at red line? Again, don't blame me, blame those who designed the diagram, the airspeed definitions, and tested the airframes to develop the V-G envelope.

If not, when? If there's no further margin of error ("buffer") built in then I guess you do believe that planes breakup at exactly your red line.

EA990 broke up at 425 KEAS.

AA587 broke up at departure speeds, below maneuvering speed.

You make excuses for the excessive speeds, yet you say you agree with Deets that they are an "Aeronautical Improbability".

Make up your mind.

Interesting that he calls them an "improbability". Not an impossibility.

I'm interested in your take Tiffany. Are they impossible?

I already told you I agree with Deets. Please try to pay attention.

Capt Rusty Aimer and Capt Ralph Kolstad, with flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, claim the speeds Impossible. Watch the presentation.

Anytime you wish to tell us how much flight time you have, we're waiting.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

I saw someone state that commercial aircraft cant not fly low due to wing size or something early in the thread so I figured I would put this video of a French C-135FR flying low and fast. More or less a 707 with smaller body and the newer F-108(CFM56) engine. I cant say the speed but it is very low. You can see it buzz what look like jeeps or land rovers.

C-135FR Low fly by
4x22000 or 88000 lbf on the C-135FR.

2x45800-56000 or 91600-11200 lbf on the 767-200 depending on engine (I do not know which engine was on the jet)

2x36600-43,500 or 73200 to 87000 lbf again i am not sure on the type of engine used.

Sadly the only data I can get about speed is just cruise speed which tells nothing of the low altitude coming out of a dive speeds.

The only real difference between the plan that hit the pentagon and the towers was weight. Extra weight that would translate into huge amounts of potential energy.

Lastly, since I am talking engines, aircraft engines have many many limits for nearly everything in them as have been said before. On the F-108s I work around everyday, they have a maximum temp. they can reach before they are required to be shut down. That temp is the "Safe Range" cap. Does going over this cap mean the engine explodes... No. The engine gets put back in service and watched for more out of "Safe Range" readings until (insert some number deemed to many by the manufacture). I should just stop at that limits are for SAFETY not for Terrorist that are not worried about the oh no my aircraft is over the safety limit and now unable fly until inspected and deemed airworthy after landing.

Critical thinking and some basic knowledge go along way.

Originally posted by Pyle
That temp is the "Safe Range" cap. Does going over this cap mean the engine explodes... No. The engine gets put back in service and watched for more out of "Safe Range" readings until (insert some number deemed to many by the manufacture).

Really, you don't have to borescope the engine if a hot start occurred?

Make sure nothing was cooked on the turbine blades before RTS?

Care to put your name on that?



[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by hooper

 

How about you come up with some evidence to back up some of your assertions?

Oh, yes, and perhaps you could tell us what your professional qualifications are - which aspect of aviation are you qualified in?

If I am to take your posts seriously, I need to know this.

Uh, what "assertions"? All I have done is ask for engineering proof for the failure statements. Don't know how that's an assertion on my part. As to any criticism of the signatories of the petition, etc. that's just an appeal to authority which doesn't mean a thing when you are talking about absolutes.

Originally posted by hooper

Uh, what "assertions"? All I have done is ask for engineering proof for the failure statements.

Posted for the 6th time.

www.apstraining.com...

Click it this time, will ya hooper?

I frankly find it amazing how "the official story" continues to fall apart as more and more logic is applied to the evidence.

I know there are "safe operating limits" in place for these craft. That does not mean these limits can't be exceeded, it simply means not many sane people would push beyond them.

However, just what are the operating limits of a human beings while preforming some of the manuevers done that day. Even trained pilots have trouble with "G" forces within the range which these planes experienced.

I can't figure out how a person can fly a plane while their eyeballs bounce around in their heads or after they black out.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Well, of course I can not speak for my "Tricky" friend but I can say, again, thanks for your opinion!

By the way, if I tell them I know you can I get a little discount on the evidence that the United States government conspired to commit 3000 acts of first degree murder of its own citizens? $15.95 is a little steep for a DVD!

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Well, of course I can not speak for my "Tricky" friend but I can say, again, thanks for your opinion!

By the way, if I tell them I know you can I get a little discount on the evidence that the United States government conspired to commit 3000 acts of first degree murder of its own citizens? $15.95 is a little steep for a DVD!

Is that a failed attempt at humor or did you just prove beyond any doubt that you have nothing worth hearing to say on this thread?

so if it's not a rocket, it's thermite

if it's not thermite

it's a hologram


if it's not a hologram
it's a radio controlled airplane

if it's not that, then we call into question the speed of the aircraft?

You people never give up, do you?

No matter how many times you're proven wrong...you just keep on going.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by hooper

Uh, what "assertions"? All I have done is ask for engineering proof for the failure statements.

Posted for the 6th time.

www.apstraining.com...

Click it this time, will ya hooper?

And exactly how does that answer my question about what assertions I have made?

Oh, and by the way, on the little homemade diagram you posted the redzone is labeled "structural failure" and on the little diagrams you just linked to the redzones are labeled "structural damage or failure". Care to comment on that edit?

Originally posted by hdutton
However, just what are the operating limits of a human beings while preforming some of the manuevers done that day. Even trained pilots have trouble with "G" forces within the range which these planes experienced.

I can't figure out how a person can fly a plane while their eyeballs bounce around in their heads or after they black out.

Good point.

The G Loading for EA990 reached a peak Load of a little over 2 G according to NTSB reports. The aircraft which was observed to strike the south tower reached more than 3 G pulling out of its dive and due to bank angle in a short radius based on the data provided.... This would have ripped the wings off if it were a stock 767, as demonstrated in the above film.... not to mention onset of A-LOC (Grayout, channelized attention...etc) for the pilot1.. unless of course your opponents wish to not only posit the hijackers were cracker-jack pilots, but also wearing G suits?


[snip]

1. "At approximately 2-3 g’s, blood supply to the head decreases and degrades vision. The eyes first lose peripheral vision, creating a tunnel vision
effect until complete vision loss/blackout." F-22A, T/N 91-4008, 25 March 2009, Page 18.

Source -
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Originally posted by mothershipzeta


*Which is why theories should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

I agree, and this applies equally to the official theory put forward by the Government. Many experts are saying it does not stand up to professional and scientific scrutiny. If they have nothing to fear they will not be afraid to have their evidence and their conclusions scrutinised by informed experts.

*And, when proof is provided, some say it's disinformation or find ways to debunk that evidence as well. Don't pretend that one side is the paragon of thought and logic and the other is just "in on it."

Yes, indeed. That is true. But wherever did you get the idea that I was saying what you suggest? What I actually said, and this can easliy be verified by READING THE THREAD, is that those who were challenging Tiffany's statements which she supported with evidence, were f at times demanding more evidence from her, yet they were not providing any evidence themselves to back up their own statements. Check out the thread.



*And some are very selective about what experts they choose to believe. They'd take the 1 geologist who says Earth is 6,000 years old over the horde that say 6 billion.

Mm, yes, well, this could apply equally to both the 9/11 Truthers and the 9/11 Debunkers - and with all respect, it could even apply to you too, so what's your point?

*That's certainly what I've seen from people who dismiss anything that doesn't reinforce what they already believe.

Yes, indeed, I have seen that too. It's like those people who put forward spurious, ill thought out comparisons in the belief it proves their point. To paraphrase the quotation which you took the trouble to write out for me:


*When you're cornered, dismiss the questioner as a disinfo agent. Then, you're exactly like the people you deride.

Please explain to me how you come to the conclusion I was cornered, since that was my first post in this thread. How on earth was I cornered?

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I am a truther myself and don't believe the OS.
However, this report has a fundamental flaw.
That flaw being that it is assumed by the writer
that these aircraft cannot exceed certain limitations
in design when in actuality all kinds of vehicles
including submarines have safe operating limits.
But when under stress can exceed those numbers.
And if they can exceed those numbers then for proper
testing would require a test flight to fly said model
as fast as it could go until it actually broke up and
splintered in mid-air. To my knowledge, these tests
have never been done. So to prove this report to
have merit he would have to prove at what speed
these models actually broke apart.

Exactly. Many flight limitations are not so much limitations of the craft, but limitations of the pilot/passengers. I recall watching a documentary of the development of the Boeing 777. They had the wings secured to test rigs and they hydraulically bent the wingtips upward to their breaking point. They bent 26 FEET before shattering. Tell me how many Gs you'd have to pull in a 777 to get the wingtips to bend 26 feet...