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

By the way, the approximate speeds of the AGM-86 Cruise missile and the BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise missile is 550 MPH. What was the speed of those alleged airplanes again? Surely, this is just another one of those coincidences. The guy in the video below should know all about these things.

Originally posted by JetStream
Now-beyond Mmo-max operating mach number and Vmo -max operating velocity-the aircraft acts funky to use the scientific term. Control reversal,flutter,wing bending,stall margins and buffet margins,center of pressure etc all start to change.

This is exactly what is covered in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

you don't need to prove your qualifications, you already did. Be carefull though, you will be accused of being "Rob Balsamo".

But that's not necessarily a bad thing.



.

Ok so sorry for the long worded background-the bottom line is that I do not believe that you can maintain 510Knots at sea level or 1000 feet on a 767 or 757. Its not an issue of engine performance. Its an issue of aircraft design.Aircraft are built for stability in a certain weigh cg and speed range.
When you exceed speed by almost 200 knots you are well beyond the controllability limits of that airframe.

Exactly

Thank you Jetstream.

you wouldn't happen to be a former "Jetpig" would you?

(For those unfamiliar, it's a club of those pilots who flew the Jetstream-31/32)

Typical terrorist M.O. :

Create disaster and panic , then set off "secondaries" as a multiplier effect.

www.policeone.com...


Seems to fit the bill perfectly.

reply to post by harrytuttle

Considering the OS said one plane had a ground speed of 510 knots and that the Structural Failure Zone begins at 420 knots, there would have had to have been a 90 knot tailwind (or 103mph) to bring the plane into a tolerable/realistic airspeed.

So unless there was a hurricane in New York on 9/11/01, there is no way a tailwind could account for the impossible airspeed that 767 was traveling at.

Actually, such winds are not at all uncommon at higher altitudes and after being channeled through the sky-scrapers, the wind speeds could easily exceed 103mph. Remember, wind speeds at higher altitudes are much faster than at ground level and then the extremely tall sky-scrapers would channel the winds to make them even stronger/faster. 103mph winds and even winds in access of 103mph are more than realistic.

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by harrytuttle

 

Considering the OS said one plane had a ground speed of 510 knots and that the Structural Failure Zone begins at 420 knots, there would have had to have been a 90 knot tailwind (or 103mph) to bring the plane into a tolerable/realistic airspeed.

So unless there was a hurricane in New York on 9/11/01, there is no way a tailwind could account for the impossible airspeed that 767 was traveling at.

Actually, such winds are not at all uncommon at higher altitudes and after being channeled through the sky-scrapers, the wind speeds could easily exceed 103mph. Remember, wind speeds at higher altitudes are much faster than at ground level and then the extremely tall sky-scrapers would channel the winds to make them even stronger/faster. 103mph winds and even winds in access of 103mph are more than realistic.

--airspoon

Unfortunately for those who support the government story, the south aircraft was turning into a headwind. They can't use the tailwind excuse.

Source -
pilotsfor911truth.org...

I won't even bother to get into the shear you would experience if your post were true of 103 mph wind at 1000 feet and 10 knots on the surface.

But other pilots may get a laugh out of it.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
By the way, the approximate speeds of the AGM-86 Cruise missile and the BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise missile is 550 MPH. What was the speed of those alleged airplanes again? Surely, this is just another one of those coincidences. The guy in the video below should know all about these things.

So what? Its a cruise missile. Small, light. Deisgned to deliver an explosive onto a target. So what if its speed is 550mph?

The Russian P-700 Granit has a speed of Mach 1.6-2.5
The Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn Cruise missile's speed is Mach 2

So in other words, what I'm trying to say is, Nice strawman.

[edit on 7/12/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.

This was addressed on ATS last year.

This is one of the ways that disinfo artists twist the real facts around. No, jetliners cannot take off and reach 500mph at sea level. A jetliner cannot come down from a higher altitude to sea level and maintain a speed of 500mph either. However, a jet can come down from a higher altitude and be going circa 500mph for many seconds until the speed bleeds off. That is what happened on 9/11:

As we can see in the above images, the plane was coming down from a higher altitude and only leveled out in the last couple seconds before impact. A couple seconds is not enough time to bleed off 500mph down to 300mph.

Maybe someone already noticed this..but can someone please tell me what is shooting out of the building just prior to the plane hitting the WTC and continuing out away from the towers? Am i just seeing things? It is frozen on the last frame of that animation to the left of the towers...I suppose someone will say it is a bird? And it can not be a piece of the plane as it clearly starts its trajectory before hitting the WTC. Sorry for going OT, that just really caught my eye.

And S&F to the OP, things clearly do NOT add up on that day.

nope not a jetpig.except for 6 months on turboprops I have been flying in less noisy cockpits

to the poster who commented on the strenght of aircraft and airframes. point taken.
the issue then is when these aircraft you mentioned flew and stayed together beyond the structural design loads...how controlable were they?
Could the pilot have hit say a skyscrapper?
In your examples of out of control planes-were they flying in a straighish horizontal line?or pretty much vertical?
I know of a 737 that impacted the ground at mach 1 plus. it only did that because the entire tail structure had sheared off so no pitch authority at all..and the aircraft was at max power all the way down.

The 757 vid that ppl see doing the high speed pass-Kiwi airforce if i am not mistaken-is well below Vmo for the 757.How do I know?
If it wasnt the unit commander and AirForce staff would have the pilots guts for garters.Also the pullup manuver was about 2 g.See above for why I state this.

S+F, Thanks so for this post and your effort and the links to the films at PFT especially Tiffany, the last one in particular. I didn't know they had made it available(streaming) free to watch, so it was my first time viewing it. It's really good quality too at full screen.

Very eye opening.

double post - deleted

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Hey, actually this is an excellent gif to demonstrate the aircraft didn't have tailwind, rather a headwind.



See the smoke from the North tower?

Guess which way the wind is blowing.

Thanks to whoever posted that gif originally.

reply to post by PsychoX42


Please show me the graph!
The one where the general
public is thinking at a 5th
grade level.

Originally posted by JetStream
nope not a jetpig.except for 6 months on turboprops I have been flying in less noisy cockpits

[snip]


The 757 vid that ppl see doing the high speed pass-Kiwi airforce if i am not mistaken-is well below Vmo for the 757.How do I know?
If it wasnt the unit commander and AirForce staff would have the pilots guts for garters.Also the pullup manuver was about 2 g.See above for why I state this.

Ahhh, gotcha. Yeah, you know your stuff.

you should think about joining Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Link Removed by Admin

You should also watch the presentation in full to get a really good grasp (gasp?) on all the data. You already know the fundamentals and understand the argument. But wait till you see the presentation. You'll understand it completely.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Crakeur]

Originally posted by boondock-saint
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.

One of the biggest problem of this is how the pig handles at speed. In a rapid decent the aircraft when pulling out will vary in how it handles the pullout depending on altitude, speed weather conditions and wing loading.

It would take one of the best pilots in the world to make a 757 dance like they did. He would have pulled up either top high or to low and more than likely missed the building laterally. No way did this happen the way it was explained.

this is a great topic and i think youre doing a terrific job Tiff. i love it that the one-liners are so easily and efficiently deflected. the guys that fly these machines for a living and the engineers that design them imo are the most credible sources regarding the performance/structural capabilities (not to mention the piloting skills) required to make the OS even possible.

that being said, even if doubters throw out all this other data and expert testimony, (and this may have already been covered) how does one explain the fact that a jumbo jet falls out of the sky in Shanksville PA LEAVING NO TRACE. no wreckage, no bodies. to me thats the simplest and most obvious hole in the steaming pile we all know as the OS.

thanks in advance for your thoughts gang.

reply to post by toepick


Hey toepick, that was a bird that flew by. You can see it a little clearer here, just jump to 8:55 in this video:



Also a word to the wise, very blurry grainy videos are notoreous for having things "appear" when they are not there to begin with.

reply to post by GenRadek


Thank you!

reply to post by toepick


not a problem bud!

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Look, I think we are working for the same goal here. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here but more importantly, I just want to get to the truth, whatever that truth may be.

With that being said, are you suggesting that the aircraft was flying into headwinds due to this picture?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f48cbfcda365.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see in the picture, that is the Manhattan Bridge and just behind the MB, is the Brooklyn Bridge. Judging from the direction of the building smoke, it would appear that the winds at altitude are going in the approximate direction of both the MB and BB.

Then we look at the flight path of UA175 and it would indeed seem to be flying directly into the tail winds.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b3bf0e647f55.gif[/atsimg]


--airspoon



[edit on 12-7-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by Urantia1111
this is a great topic and i think youre doing a terrific job Tiff.

Thank you.

And thank you to all of you who have shown your support. I knew when I started this thread the apologists for the government story would come out of the wood-work, so I prepared my day to beat them down with data and facts, as mostly they have demonstrated all they have in their debate "arsenal" are strawmans and attempt character assassination. They cannot debate the facts.

For those who thirst the knowledge of this topic, please take the time to read from page 1. It goes fast and well worth the time.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]