It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 34
24
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 02:37 AM
Wrong Plane Proof

"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 self propulsion at level flight on final approach) and impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.

510 knots is the airspeed claimed for "UA175", by radar.. (as an airspeed, because the wind was light heading N/W, it would be about 515 knots)
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 heading 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 .19 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 at 22,000ft, ever. It's not possible, unless the plane were seriously modified both in terms of structure as well as engine performance, since it accellerated at the end of it's dive to retain a sea level airspeed of 510 knots, while maneuvering on final approach to impact, even pulling G force, causing the right wing to bend upwards.

edit on 29-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:34 PM

NewAgeMan
Wrong Plane Proof

510 knots is the airspeed claimed for "UA175", by radar.. (as an airspeed, because the wind was light heading N/W, it would be about 515 knots)
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,

No problem - they do it every day....

- at 722 knots at 22,000 feet... or Mach 1.19, and 915 knots at 35,000 feet...or Mach 1.38 heading for 1.39 or 1.4 at 38,000 ft.

No - actually we don't - your simplistic logic has already been shown wrong, and anyone with any ACTUAL knowledge has no time for your histrionics.

It's absurd.

It surely is

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:22 PM
[I can't post in 911 forum but I'm fine asking here in the Hoax bin.]

I keep seeing people referring to the plane that hit the South Tower as coming down out of a dive. But in all the videos I recall, it is flying nearly level as far away as it can be seen. I think there may be a slight drop over the river before it pulls up but not a dive. And if the flight data recorder wasn't recovered, how would anyone know the altitude farther away before it was seen?
edit on 8-1-2014 by toidiem because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:46 PM

toidiem
[I can't post in 911 forum but I'm fine asking here in the Hoax bin.]

I keep seeing people referring to the plane that hit the South Tower as coming down out of a dive. But in all the videos I recall, it is flying nearly level as far away as it can be seen. I think there may be a slight drop over the river before it pulls up but not a dive. And if the flight data recorder wasn't recovered, how would anyone know the altitude farther away before it was seen?

Recordings of the air traffic control radar and surveillance tapes.

Here is the NTSB flight path study for Flight 175
edit on 8-1-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: correct url added

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 07:13 PM
Nope. Radar doesn't give altitude when transponder is off. And you can't be serious, citing GOV as a reliable source? If we trust them no need for this site to exist.

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 07:23 PM

The transponder wasn't turned off!

And you got a better source?

You didn't ask how trustworthy the Govt is - you asked how the flight path is determined - I told you.

Apart from all that, radar can determine altitude in many circumstances - but not as accurately as transponders, which of course use the aircraft's own data rather than relying upon triangulation.
edit on 8-1-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:03 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

OK I checked. According to the official story, the hijackers in this plane just changed the code (twice) but didn't turn it off, but they did turn it off in Flight 11 (and I think 1 or both of the others but I didn't recheck those yet). I find that odd but possible. Changing the code could also be when a plane swap took place. The controller after that said twice that the plane did things they never saw commercial flights do, first a steep climb, then a 10000ft/min dive. So was that the same plane after the code change?

Anyway, despite not trusting it, I did look at the NTSB report. They used Radar Mode C for the altitude data. Since I don't know anything about that, I will not question that. But following their own story, would a hijacker aiming for a specific small target, especially a minimally skilled "pilot", risk an unnecessary steep dive like that hoping he could control it in time? Makes less sense to me now after looking at their data. Like all the rest of the whole OS, it just doesn't add up IMO.

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:39 PM

They were not "minimally skilled" - they were not as well trained as a regular airline pilot, but they had commercial licences and had spent considerable time training to fly large jets including commercial simulator time.

_I_ would be minimally skilled - I've had a few hours of informal lessons with friends who fly - but even then I reckon I could manipulate the controls and throttles. could I hit a skyscraper?? I have no idea - I'm not about to try - but these guys were not untrained!

Here's the wiki article on transponder modes.

top topics

24