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

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Newbomb Turk
I could make a Frigate go from 20 knots to 750 kts.

So, basically what you're saying is that you can fabricate radar data as a military man. Thanks for sharing...

What else type of radar data can you fabricate? Perhaps phantom returns?

Care to put your name on any of this?

With that said...

Have you ever worked an ASR radar with 5, 6, 10 flights in trail on approach squeezed in between two other major hubs within a 10 mile radius, and perhaps numerous hubs of the most busiest Executive Airports within 3 to 10 miles of the above mentioned?

Do you feel NY TRACON and the NTSB could be in error of more than 100 knots in a terminal area covered by multiple ASR radar and Mode C returns?

Cause that is what is needed for the government story to be plausible.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Umm I am not sure how to answer that as I was sincere in my post but perhaps others here got you a little fired up? I won't get into any specifics of what I do or don't know in a public forum. I simply offered to take a look at some radar data that I had not seen posted till now. And before you attack me as a "military man" know that I was wounded Oct, 2001 outside Kandahar while assigned to JSOC for 7 years. So before you run off attacking every poster that chooses to post in a thread that YOU STARTED...maybe you should take a step back from the keyboard for a minute.

In addition to being a radar operator yes I was also a tactical air controller of FA-18's/CH-46's/MH-53's etc... I did both close positive and loose advisory control, have over 100 ELVA's under my belt, and directed CAP fighter aircraft to engage various targets in Desert Storm, Somalia (which was Operation Restore Hope and both recent middle east conflicts)...so again if you are attacking me...then you can bug off...good luck in finding anyone to listen ;-)

Or rather if you would like to engage in some serious discussion...which I WILL determine whether I wanted to "go on record" or not...then we can conduct that in private. Have a nice day.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Newbomb Turk]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Newbomb Turk
I could make a Frigate go from 20 knots to 750 kts.

So, basically what you're saying is that you can fabricate radar data as a military man. Thanks for sharing...

What else type of radar data can you fabricate? Perhaps phantom returns?



[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Something tells me that you don't know a whole lot about radar? Did I use the words "FABRICATE"? No those were your words. Man girl you are a loose cannon that think everyone is a part of the powers that be lol. You do need to take a break from what seems to be something that you are very passionate about ;-

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Newbomb Turk]

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.

The writer may be making an asumption by questioning a "measured speed" in excess of 150% of the stated maximum speed.

You are making a much greater assumption of yourself believing a manufacturer would place an engine in a plane with enough horsepower to shread it to pieces, Boondock.

There is a difference between the torque required for liftoff and the horsepower required for maximum speed during level flight near sea level.

I have no aircraft experience. I have never flown even a model airplane on a string.

Give me a breakN Boondock Saint. Help me imagine a commercial passenger plane with an engine powerful enough to rip the wings off.

reply to post by Newbomb Turk


Were you a combat controller? I was part of ********, ******* in **** and ******* a **** ****** after you. I certainly look forward to hearing your input. I started to have my doubts shortly after arriving *********, due to the way things were being handled.

--airspoon

Edited for anonymity.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by airspoon]

You can calculate the speeds rather closely by the following method:

1. Measure the width of the Twin Tower.

2. Use that measurement to measure the distance from the tower for one of the planes.

3. Measure the time spend for the plane to hit the tower from that distance.

4. Divide the distance traveled by time spent.

VOILA! You have the speed.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


If you bother to read, you will find that "improbable" is not the same as "impossible." I asked what your theory was and you refused to answer. My theory is that the speed was as stated and the aircraft did not have time to break up before impact. People have been posting asking you if that is possible and you don't want to say that it is possible. You like to use the common ploy of raising questions without postulating answers because you have no answers. Typical.

As to the Elephant comment, I believe that NASA man is being a bit overdramatic but his possibilities are all reasonable, especially #4.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Newbomb Turk

 

Were you a combat controller? I was part of XXXXX, deployed in Sep '01 and wounded a couple of months after you. I certainly look forward to hearing your input.
--airspoon

No I wasn't ACC but I worked right alongside them. Can't specify which TF per se (but it was a codeword that dealt with a weapon lol...you will know ;-) My team was made up of (with mostly guys outta MacDill AB) AFACC, Rangers, Force Recon and us Navy EOD/MOCC squids. I worked in the field with....well I best leave it at that. Yea man feel free to hit me up whenever, would love to hear another brothers experience (in how he has dealt with certain demons also meaning that I have come a long way and can offer some help/hope if you ever needed it. I won't ask again, just know that the offer is there. I think you know by now if we don't support ourselves no one else will).

I arrived via C-141 outta Masirah, Oman late Sep. 2001 as one of the many 1st responders of 9/11. Flew into Bagram AB and began setting up a base of operations there....remember when it was officially named Operation: Infinite Justice but we had to change the name 2 weeks into it cuz it pissed off Muslims lol) anyways...yea as you know man we were shelled EVERY FREAKING DAY and it was hit or miss and well....lol I got hit. Will talk more in private if you want. Take care and be safe brother ;-)

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Newbomb Turk]

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Newbomb Turk]

Originally posted by Jim Scott
You can calculate the speeds rather closely by the following method:

1. Measure the width of the Twin Tower.

2. Use that measurement to measure the distance from the tower for one of the planes.

3. Measure the time spend for the plane to hit the tower from that distance.

4. Divide the distance traveled by time spent.

VOILA! You have the speed.

There would be a lot more than that involved, but I did post a link to someone who was up for it, so I post it again, all I ask is that if for someone to read it, Amen!
web.mit.edu...

reply to post by Mobius1974

Hey Mobius! 1974 was when I graduated from high school!
You don't know Shiite about me.
People are waking up to your crap, can you feel it?
Probably not, but that's okay. You can't have ANY sensitivity at all to be spouting the OS line. OR, any HUMAN traits.
(Note to Mods. Moby asked for it.)

reply to post by Jim Scott


Speed for UAL 175 is easier to calculate do to the numerous video of its
approach

AA11 is much harder as there are only 3 video (and one is a slow speed)

Most use the Naudet footage

Originally posted by pteridine
If you bother to read, you will find that "improbable" is not the same as "impossible."

If you bothered to read, you would find "improbable" is less than probable, and if you bothered to watch the presentation which has been linked for you ad nauseam, you would find "impossible" from those who have actual time in the aircraft.

For some reason, you continue to ignore this point.

However, if you would like to learn the exact "improbability" as defined by Dwain Deets, he claims 3% "probability", when considering all of the information.

I just posted this message to 911Blogger thread on this topic:

Levels of Improbability,

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

Assume such things as, a vanilla 767-200 series aircraft did impact the tower, the radar data were correct, and NTSB did the math correctly.

One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.

Dwain

Source -

pilotsfor911truth.org...

How much flight time do you have pteridine. Any experience working for NASA? Any awards while working for NASA?

Care o put your name to your claims as Dwain Deets has done?

Originally posted by thedman


Speed for UAL 175 is easier to calculate do to the numerous video of its
approach

The NTSB and ASR radar disagrees with you. Otherwise the NTSB would reference youtube and not ASR radar.

Care to put your name to your claims?

Those who used to push video fakery said the same thing. Attempting to determine fact from youtube.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Newbomb Turk

 

Were you a combat controller? I was part of TF187, deployed in Sep '01 and wounded a couple of months after you. I certainly look forward to hearing your input. I started to have my doubts shortly after arriving in country back in '01, due to the way things were being handled.

--airspoon

Sent you a message ;-)

2nd line

Originally posted by Newbomb Turk
Something tells me that you don't know a whole lot about radar? Did I use the words "FABRICATE"? No those were your words.

You claim you can make a 20 knot frigate appear to be traveling at 750 knots.

How can that be if not fabricated?

Are you telling me the 20 knot frigate was actually traveling at 750 knots?

Your evasion of the rest of the questions regarding your experience in a terminal area using ASR radar, noted.

In other words, it is noted, you have none.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Double post.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by NightGypsy]

reply to post by mothershipzeta

However, if we're going to play the "expertise" game...

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report. Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?

If the above post was your attempt at playing the "expertise game," it was a failure.

Your link doesn't show any list of these 120,000 members of ASME, or 370,000 members of IEEE, or any members of these other organizations who allegedly believe the NIST report. The links within your link don't either. All they lead to is the Wikipedia page for each organization and, oddly enough, none of them mention the number of members who believe the NIST report. I think the source of your above information thinks just throwing out some high numbers will be enough to convince people there are more "experts" who believe the NIST report.

Maybe you have something better to offer in this game?

reply to post by NightGypsy

Yeah, I brought up the same point TWICE, and was ignored both times.
People can see through their games.

reply to post by Stewie

Yeah, I brought up the same point TWICE, and was ignored both times. People can see through their games.

My apologies, Stewie. I stopped reading the posts after I got to our guy playing the "expert game"....

Good post OP.

I find it interesting that so many people here, require that you be an aerospace engineer in order to say; "wow, this revelation seems to throw a few wrinkles in the government's theory."

>> It may not be known what the failure speed is for a 767.

What we DO KNOW from this, I can think of a few possibilities;

1) The hijackers were much better pilots than the ones we heard of getting training in Jupiter Florida.

2) Gawd must be on their side.

3) The data we got from the FAA was incorrect.

4) The airplane was modified or remotely controlled.

5) Some other craft resembling a 767 hit the WTC.



>> I really don't know what to think of this data. It could just be an error of calculation. I'm much more willing to think that someone at the FAA was covering their rear, and fudged the data -- because it was bogus, and they had to cover for destroying evidence. This is like getting election results from Diebold where there are more voters in an area than are registered to vote.

I do think that remote controlled airplanes are highly likely -- we've had this capability for some time and it's pretty much built into the plane -- it just would require SOME OTHER GROUP doing it, not the alleged Arab hijackers.

I don't think it was a guided missile -- at least for the WTC, the craft looked like a commercial airline.

However, that videotape of the plane hitting the Pentagon, did NOT look like a large commercial aircraft.




>> My proposal; Waterboard George Bush and Dick Cheney until they tell us the truth.

Well, if there's nothing else to be gleaned from this thread, we've sure seen who's likely to be getting paid to be an ATS member.