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

reply to post by NightGypsy

No apology necessary. I was just trying to give you a heads up not to expect a response.
Nice avatar by the way. Love the spiritual.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

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."

Actually, that's what's kept the government's version from falling apart faster than it has. They've managed to create this illusion that you have to have the knowledge of a physicist or an engineer to be able to evaluate the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion. People are starting to see through that a nonsense as well.

Originally posted 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?

My problem with this idea that the NIST has all these engineers backing the official story is that;
1) The NIST was CAUGHT lying about the speed at which WTC 7 fell.
2) A few people in charge of the NIST can compartmentalize an investigation. You can have pages and pages of models and data of bolts and screws and they can all be legitimate -- but you get lots of data about the strength of sheetrock, that doesn't mean the conclusion or computer model wasn't rigged. IT looks more like they went with the "It fell because the floors collapsed and got hit by a plane" and just worked backwards -- ignoring whatever didn't fit the assumption.



>> This is like relying on a Goldman Sacks accountant to tell you what caused the economic collapse -- you've really got people who got a track record of dubious integrity. So you can stop right there on the "NIST and 38,000 engineers acknowledge." It's better translated as two Bush flunkies at the NIST said; "X, Y and Z."

first time posting here but I have been lurking here for years.

I didn't realize that there were still people out there that think 9/11 really happened? Don't you do any research?

This goes way way back to the significance of two towers. (goes back to Babylonian times)

It's impossible for a Plane the size of a 747 traveling at (there made up speed) to hit an object like the towers and knock it down).

It's impossible for a Planes Jet fuel to generate enough heat to even melt a structure like that.

It's impossible for any object (mass/speed) to knock down another object with the mass of the Towers to be knocked down. do the math.

Those facts alone should have sent alarm bells going off after this happened.

There probably wasn't even any aircraft period. The data never matched up, the flight patterns never matched up.

The so called Terrorists were known to fast (how did they know that)

Terror that was created by the goverment, just like this war on oil, war on oil since people are sort of falling out of the terror psychology. See the connection? Terror constantly brought up from the goverment, no War on oil constantly brought up by the goverment....Psychological Connection staring you in the face.

If someone has flown aircraft most of there life tells you that a plane can't do this you better listen.

NASA(don't you mean Nazis? That's what those scientists are there from after WW2. would you believe them?

Nothing about 9/11 ever added up and never will add up. I did a lot of research on this on my own and was amazed to keep finding more and more clues. These clues happened years before the two Towers went down.

9/11 is what made me start studying the bloodlines, Where Vaticans came from, secret societies , worshipping of Saturn, and a whole host of things that just connect like some giant Crazy puzzle.

Back to lurking.

A lot of disinfo agents on this sight you stick out like a soar thumb.

reply to post by LieBuster

The ground effect of a plane being forced down close to the ground at high speed would pull tarmac from a road

I'm fairly certain you've got it backwards there.

If I remember my Principles of Flight correctly, aircraft 'hover' in ground effect, meaning it is a repulsive pressure between the aircraft and ground, up force on aircraft, down force on ground. The only way an aircraft can rip up a tarmac is to land with its gear up.

If anything, the grass should be flattened by the ground effect.

Remember, operational maximums, are not maximums, the 767-200 has a max cruise of 493 kts, that's cruise, not max speed. 'Operational' can be influenced by things like organisational requirements such as fuel use, noise limits etc. So 510kts would be plausible, especially coming out of a dive.
Does anyone know what altitude they dove from?

reply to post by Stewie

No apology necessary. I was just trying to give you a heads up not to expect a response. Nice avatar by the way. Love the spiritual.

Thanks...

I figured there'd be no response. We all know what conclusions to draw from that. If nothing else, people will see it and take note of what is going on. These tactics have become ridiculously predictable these days.

reply to post by ItIsMe

first time posting here but I have been lurking here for years.

Glad to see you stopped lurking. Hope to hear more from you. Hang on, it can get a little brutal around here.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

Actually, that's what's kept the government's version from falling apart faster than it has. They've managed to create this illusion that you have to have the knowledge of a physicist or an engineer to be able to evaluate the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion. People are starting to see through that a nonsense as well.

Riddle me this -- Can someone design a sky scrapper without any knowledge of math, physics, engineering, and structural design?

(FIXED:: I replaced the word 'build' with 'design'.)

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Section31]

reply to post by Section31

Riddle me this -- Can someone build a sky scrapper without any knowledge of math, physics, and structural design?

Does one have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2 = 4?

reply to post by NightGypsy


So, what you are saying is that you do not need to know math, physics, engineering, and structural design to develop a sky scrapper?

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Section31]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Very nice and clear presentations of facts, Tiffany. Congratulations and thank you.


Again, the data you graphed:



And the usual 3 or 4 resident zombies are saying nothing is off about nailing the buildings dead on at 510 knots, a straight shot taken from a large distance away as if the plane had been precision guided. I guess the neurons aren't connecting between the parts of their brain that comprehend that this is an extreme speed, known to cause structural damage and failures as even the manufacturers detail, that you can't just turn on a dime in the last couple seconds to make it fit in there, or anything remotely similar to such a fudging of the impact trajectory, and the alleged pilots were amateurs at best anyway. And experienced pilots (experts) are saying ALL of these things.


The same high school kids troll these forums looking for arguments, and they always have to get the last word in, nevermind about whether or not what they're saying actually makes any sense. If you just ignore them they'll eventually have to find somewhere else to stir the pot, because that's the only reason they post here at all, for attention.

David Rockefeller had the idea to build the Twin Towers now do research on the Rockefeller's.

The best Engineers were hired to Build the Towers by Minoru Yamasaki Designs.
Yea you probably needed to know some math*rolls eyes*

just had to bring that up because maybe some people didn't know that?

reply to post by Section31

So, what you are saying is that you do not need to know math, physics, engineering, and structural design to develop a sky scrapper?

Certainly not, if that's what I meant, that's what I would have said. What I'm saying is there is plenty of evidence within the events surrounding 9/11 with which to draw an informed opinion without having to know the specifics of architecture, physics, and engineering.

Frankly, I take it as an insult to my intelligence that our government and it's butt buddy, the NIST, think the general population is unable tell when a building over 100 stories high is being collapsed in a controlled demolition.

Sorry, I guess I'm just stubborn and opinionated that way. Unfortunately for our government, the era of naive Americans is coming to an end.

Just for the record, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also conducted video analysis and provided varying groundspeeds aside from the 510 Knot rada data.


NTSB Video Data Impact Speed Study UA 175

Summary
Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)

911depository.info...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by cams]