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

Originally posted by GenRadek

You know, when people say that a plane cant fly low and fast, for whatever reason, I like to watch these videos. Nearly scraping the belly on the runway going well over 300mph, or scorching the sagebrush. If they can go this fast scraping the ground, why not faster at 1,000ft?

The MAIN thing to remember is, the terrorists DID NOT GIVE A RAT'S ASS what happens to the people or the plane in their maneuvers. All they were worrying about is aiming at the building and slamming into it, as fast as possible for maximum effect. The plane was not traveling at 500mph for a long period of time. In the amount of time it took for the plane to reach that speed, it was only seconds. Had the plane been traveling at that speed for much longer time and lower, then yes, we would have seen the aircraft begin to lose pieces and structural integrity. Aircraft ALWAYS have a certain amount of ruggedness built in, because you never know just what "extraordinary" circumstances the aircraft may find itself. There have been incidents where actual passenger planes have actually broken the sound barrier in uncontrolled dives, and survived. A 747 once did, a DC-8, and a 727 as well. Yes they needed some repairs in some instances, but they held together. The whole point is that the aircraft reached its speeds in a DIVE.

These two sites also give better insite into these questions:
www.airliners.net...

boards.straightdope.com...

aviation-safety.net...
Here was an incident with the 747SP where it decended out of control from 41,000ft to 9,500ft. It also broke the sound barrier.

The maximum vertical acceleration forces recorded during the descent were 4.8Gs and 5.1Gs as the airplane descended through 30,552 feet and 19,083 feet, respectively.

[edit on 7/12/2010 by GenRadek]

Unless the pilot flying in those videos had the same amount of training as the "terrorists" did your point, like all of them have been, is moot. Next.

Originally posted by Section31
snipped

Section31 - Let me keep this simple.

The data provided by the NTSB claimed to be from the Flight Data Recorder of AA77 shows 173' Pressure Altitude at the Pentagon.

When adjusted for local pressure, the altitude is 473 feet above sea level.

The Pentagon only gets up to 110 feet above sea level.

This is not speculation, their data does not add up to the govt story.

This is just one example of a growing mountain of data that doesn't add up.

That is why 1000's of experts are raising their red flags on the govt story.

The above type of data is used in a court of law all the time, and as a matter of fact, a Pentagon Survivor is using it in her lawsuit. She crawled out of the Pentagon hole with her baby.


Google April Gallop.





[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by ghofer
Yes, I saw all of that. I mean they didn't have an explanation for how they could have accomplished (1) without anyone noticing and the reason for modifying the planes. It sounds like they don't think (2), (3), or (4) were likely.

How was the Manhattan Project kept a secret, even from those working on the project?


We can all speculate, but if you really fly jets, you can't deny the speeds reported are extremely excessive.

Do you think you can fly a 767 at 150 knots over Vmo and hit a target with a margin for error of 25' each side of wing tip?

Their best hijacker pilot (as described by the 9/11 Commission) who wasn't allowed to rent 172 because he counldn't control it, supposedly accomplished this feat. The worse pilots also did it on their first try. 3 for 3.

Clearly you are here because you feel this is something to discuss. Feel free to browse the many videos and analysis performed by experts you can relate with.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I'm not familiar with the Grand Jury system in the US but I suspect that there is more than enough evidence to get a Grand Jury to weigh evidence in matters related to 9/11. I'm not sure if they have subpoena power. I assume they do.

I don't know what is involved with seeking a Grand Jury indictment. I assume that Craig Ranke or Rob Balsamo must have taken legal advice on it. Seeking criminal indictments against members of the Nazi Regime obviously would not be taken lightly by them.

Trying to get an indictment against John Gotti was very dangerous to some witnesses. It would be no different with the 9/11 perps.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

I'm not familiar with the Grand Jury system in the US but I suspect that there is more than enough evidence to get a Grand Jury to weigh evidence in matters related to 9/11. I'm not sure if they have subpoena power. I assume they do.

I don't know what is involved with seeking a Grand Jury indictment. I assume that Craig Ranke or Rob Balsamo must have taken legal advice on it. Seeking criminal indictments against members of the Nazi Regime obviously would not be taken lightly by them.

Trying to get an indictment against John Gotti was very dangerous to some witnesses. It would be no different with the 9/11 perps.

First you have to find a Judge to accept the evidence in a prelim hearing, then it goes to the Grand Jury.

Judges are very political as I'm sure you know.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand, only those who are directly affected or harmed can file a lawsuit. This is called "just cause"? (I think)...

No members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth were directly affected, aside from some core members being friends with the Capt of AA77 and AA11 and friends with family members of the crews.

This is why the govt offered to pay off the families and survivors before they were able to bring it to court as they would have "cause". Flash lots of money in front of someone before they start to research the facts, and bingo, you have insurance. April obviously didn't take the govt payoff.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by ghofer
Yes, I saw all of that. I mean they didn't have an explanation for how they could have accomplished (1) without anyone noticing and the reason for modifying the planes. It sounds like they don't think (2), (3), or (4) were likely.

How was the Manhattan Project kept a secret, even from those working on the project?


We can all speculate, but if you really fly jets, you can't deny the speeds reported are extremely excessive.

Do you think you can fly a 767 at 150 knots over Vmo and hit a target with a margin for error of 25' each side of wing tip?

Their best hijacker pilot (as described by the 9/11 Commission) who wasn't allowed to rent 172 because he counldn't control it, supposedly accomplished this feat. The worse pilots also did it on their first try. 3 for 3.

Clearly you are here because you feel this is something to discuss. Feel free to browse the many videos and analysis performed by experts you can relate with.

Sure the speeds are fast. The planes did hit the WTC though. I think the videos showed us that. I don't think that is in dispute, is it? So if the claim is that the high speeds made hitting the WTC difficult, then that points to the speed data being incorrect or the plane being possibly computer controlled, rather than flown by untrained pilots.

I think the 9/11 tragedy is worth investigating. I just don't agree with the modified aircraft theory. That's just my opinion of course but if people are convinced planes were modified, I'd like to hear some theories on how they accomplished it without anyone noticing the mods in the videos.

reply to post by ghofer


Finally...a bit of reason.

At least you fly jets, and therefore have some familiarity (unlike the OP, apparently) so you will be familiar, and be able to recognize the truth in this:

A jet, whether a smaller bizjet, or an airliner, in the cruise configuration (clean) will accelerate very, very rapidly in descents,

The non-pilots probably have a false impression fo the pitch attitudes that would be required. (I believe some of that is likely due to some disinfo put out by at LEAST ONE "P4T" video, with some over-the-top exagerrated animation).

Some weeks ago I described at some length, to another pilot (General Aviaiton type) on ATS, so he could understand rate of descent, pitch attitude, and speed....how they are all related, and how from an EXTERIOR view it would not necessarily appear particularly extreme [steep].

One merely has to watch the NTSB animations of AAL 77 and UAL 93, and look at the Attitude Indicator (commonly called "pitch and roll" instrument...or, perhaps more familiar to non-pilots as the "artificial horizon").

You will see, on those cases, no more than about 5~7 degrees nose down pitch (although my screen resolution may not be exacting enough, I will allow for that, and suggest perhaps up to 10 degrees, max...)

In my years of actual experience flying large commercial airliners, it was extremely rare to see anything approaching 10 degrees nose down. It is decidedly uncomfortable (as it is somewhat unnatural) to jet pilots. (Exceptions would be for the Emergency -- or "Rapid" -- Descent procedure...and different than what the suicide terrorists planned, and accomplished, because of specific configurations and techniques).

Any one who cares to can use their own experiences, even as a passenger, for comparison. Recall your last flight, and know that typically the airplane you are riding on will assume a pitch attitude of between 15-20 degrees nose up, during the initial climb immediately after takeoff. We generally considered 20 degrees NU to be a normal limit (for comfort).

Compare to the descent phase, and try to recall if ever you felt as if you were "pointing" at any extreme "downhill" angle, when onboard.

I can tell you it is very, very easy to (staying clean) run right up against the VMO in a flight idle (engines at the stops) without any difficulty, or extreme nose down pitch attitude.

Adding power at that point would cause a great deal of additional acceleration, especially with gravity assisting. In fact, the suicide terrorist would NOT need to accelerate much beyond VMO (in the case of United 175) until the very last seconds...and the airplane simply would not instantly FLY APART .... the alleged B-767 V-G diagram that has been constantly spammed in this thread, of the many pages already, is deceptive --- which is possibly intentional, by the OP. (??) Will let others decide that.

***I also will question the provenance of the V-G diagram -- seems it was originally provided by Deets?? In any case, it's important to recall what the "G" means in that chart title and why SMOOTH air offers less stress on the airframe. Much "hay" is also made about G-forces in the turn, and "level off". I suggest people take a look at angles of bank, and steady-state Gs. Oh, and a very gradual level-off is NOT an excessive amount of G force, either....to arrest a descent rate, even of 3,000-4,000 fpm, does not require extreme control movements.



However, since this OP is merely a messenger, apparently...as it seems the core source that prompted this thread's creation comes from this Deets guy. Yet another "appeal to authority" fallacy that pervades this topic... remember, loons can exist in any organization...YES, even at NASA. Sad, but true.

So, the OP cannot be faulted for not being able to fully incorporate a lot of technical information that is outside his/her depth of experience.



Adding a comment on some points raised by ATS emmber "jetstream"...regarding the need for downward force applied to the eleavators, to hold altitude at higher speeds....

From the description "jetstream" provided it sounded as if there was no stabilizer trim being used....AND, based on the way the posts were written, leads me to believe the "tests" were done on a home-based desktop simulator program.

I could be wrong, though....if "jetstream" says otherwise. I have seen a "similar demonstration" posted on YouTube, at one time...and my immediate thought then was the same...it A) Was a Microsoft (or similar) simulator, and B) It looked as if it wasn't using stab trim in the "demo".

"ghofer" (and other pilots here) will know what I mean by stab trim, and its importance in accurately depicting, and "demonstrating"...

Originally posted by ghofer


Sure the speeds are fast. The planes did hit the WTC though. I think the videos showed us that. I don't think that is in dispute, is it? So if the claim is that the high speeds made hitting the WTC difficult, then that points to the speed data being incorrect or the plane being possibly computer controlled, rather than flown by untrained pilots.

I think the 9/11 tragedy is worth investigating. I just don't agree with the modified aircraft theory. That's just my opinion of course but if people are convinced planes were modified, I'd like to hear some theories on how they accomplished it without anyone noticing the mods in the videos.

None of the 4 aircraft were ever positively identified as the aircraft tail number reported via serial numbers and parts with the MX logs. This is unprecedented in any aircraft accident, crash or otherwise.

It is not disputed (and has been mentioned a few times in this thread), that aircraft hit the towers. But what aircraft can exceed it's Vmo by 150 knots and still remain controllable and intact?

Not sure if you seen this, but I'm sure you're familiar with a V-G diagram if you fly jets.

Here are the speeds of the 767.

(be sure to use the bottom horizontal scroll bar to scroll right)

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I think Gallop's suit was thrown out by the judge in the case. I don't think she got good legal advice. They tried to hang the whole 9/11 truth agenda on one lawsuit.

The judgement was featured in a thread on ATS not too long ago.

You are right about the tactic though, of buying off potential complainants.

There might be potential from someone who lost a relative in the WTC attack, though. There was one big financial services company (Cantor Fitzgerald) that got hit badly in one of towers. I think one of their big executives lost his brother that day. Those types of people can be harder to buy off if they are serious about judicial retribution.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by weedwhacker


"ghofer" (and other pilots here) will know what I mean by stab trim, and its importance in accurately depicting, and "demonstrating"...

The only relevant statement made by weedwhacker, is above.

weedwhacker, does stab trim have physical stops? Can you ever "run out of trim"?

Or can you exceed the Vmo by any speed you want and the trim will still have authority...?

Are you willing to put your name on such claims as Deets and many other 757/767 Capts from United and American Airlines have done?

After all, it appears you do spend quite a bit of time smearing them on this forum.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

I think Gallop's suit was thrown out by the judge in the case. I don't think she got good legal advice. They tried to hang the whole 9/11 truth agenda on one lawsuit.

The judgement was featured in a thread on ATS not too long ago.

It was, but it's in appeal. Normal process for most lawsuits from what I understand.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ghofer

 

Finally...a bit of reason.

At least you fly jets, and therefore have some familiarity (unlike the OP, apparently) so you will be familiar, and be able to recognize the truth in this:

A jet, whether a smaller bizjet, or an airliner, in the cruise configuration (clean) will accelerate very, very rapidly in descents,

The non-pilots probably have a false impression fo the pitch attitudes that would be required. (I believe some of that is likely due to some disinfo put out by at LEAST ONE "P4T" video, with some over-the-top exagerrated animation).

In my years of actual experience flying large commercial airliners, it was extremely rare to see anything approaching 10 degrees nose down. It is decidedly uncomfortable (as it is somewhat unnatural) to jet pilots. (Exceptions would be for the Emergency -- or "Rapid" -- Descent procedure...and different than what the suicide terrorists planned, and accomplished, because of specific configurations and techniques).

I can tell you it is very, very easy to (staying clean) run right up against the VMO in a flight idle (engines at the stops) without any difficulty, or extreme nose down pitch attitude.

***I also will question the provenance of the V-G diagram -- seems it was originally provided by Deets?? In any case, it's important to recall what the "G" means in that chart title and why SMOOTH air offers less stress on the airframe. Much "hay" is also made about G-forces in the turn, and "level off". I suggest people take a look at angles of bank, and steady-state Gs. Oh, and a very gradual level-off is NOT an excessive amount of G force, either....to arrest a descent rate, even of 3,000-4,000 fpm, does not require extreme control movements.

"ghofer" (and other pilots here) will know what I mean by stab trim, and its importance in accurately depicting, and "demonstrating"...

Good points. I have some time in the T-33 and CT-114, both jet trainers. I know the T-33 especially can really smoke along if power is on during the descent. I'm sure like an airliner, power goes to idle and you just adjust pitch to control descent speed and even then you don't have to descend very steeply to maintain a high speed. I guess those pilots were saying that 410 knots was the max dive speed but I'm sure they'd go faster under full power at any angle of descent or even when level.

As for trim, surely they wouldn't necessarily have to even use it. I'm guessing they weren't concerned about being trimmed out during their final descent. At high speeds, I'd think there would be plenty of horizontal stab travel left to just use a lot of down pressure on the stick. It's not like the control surfaces have mechanical linkages to the control stick anymore. I can see running out of pitch-up trim at low airspeeds but at high speeds I'm guessing there is lots of travel left since the control surfaces don't need to be deflected very much with all that airflow over them.

Originally posted by ghofer
I'm guessing there is lots of travel left since the control surfaces don't need to be deflected very much with all that airflow over them.

What about all that airflow also going over the wings?

What happens when airspeed increases?

The wings generate more lift. Bernoulli ring a bell?

I think the aspect ratios of the wing is a bit higher than the horizontal stab and elevator, no? (hehe)

What happens when the wings generate so much lift due to airspeed, there is no more "throw" on the elevator and trim to maintain level flight?

This is one of the many reasons why manufacturers set a Vmo.

How much time you have in jets? Any civilian jets?


[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


That's only because Pilots drive according to the Book.
I believe it is possible if they were flying at a Higher Altitude, nose
dived under full power then leveled off. This is not something a Trained
Pilot would not even think of doing. They spend their whole career making
sure that doesn't happen.

They must have been at 30,000 ft when they Jacked it.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
.
I believe it is possible if they were flyin

Google "Argument from incredulity"

Thanks.

I was in a 737-300 on a flight saying to my buddy that this jet can fly nearly 550 mph when the stewardess overheard me. She offered to ask the captain what our speed was and came back and told us we were doing 660 mph.

Though we were at altitude and probably in a jet stream, the Boeing wasn't about to break apart whatsoever. Those jets can handle more than you think.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


You are new here. Let me offer some advice.

Let it go. It will be OK.

Check out the John Titor or Prophet Yehweh threads. Especially the Prophet Yahwey - that will give you a good laugh.

Originally posted by Illustronic
I was in a 737-300 on a flight saying to my buddy that this jet can fly nearly 550 mph when the stewardess overheard me. She offered to ask the captain what our speed was and came back and told us we were doing 660 mph.

Though we were at altitude and probably in a jet stream, the Boeing wasn't about to break apart whatsoever. Those jets can handle more than you think.

It's not uncommon to have a 100-200 knot tailwind at altitude, especially in the Jetstream. This was covered in this thread.

Was it winter? Were you traveling East over the US or in the Northern Hemisphere?

Hmmm, how do you think I know this? ESP?

You also need to learn the definition of Equivalent Airspeed.

It is spelled out quite nicely in the Pilots For 9/11 Truth presentation.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

You are new here. Let me offer some advice.

Let it go. It will be OK.

Check out the John Titor or Prophet Yehweh threads. Especially the Prophet Yahwey - that will give you a good laugh.

Yeah, I did some clicking on Titor. Interesting and more appropriate... entertaining stuff. Nothing of course based on fact or data, as this thread is...

And I'm doing just fine, thanks for your concern.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Flying from Columbus Ohio to Wilmington NC for summer vacation at the beach, late June for the 4th week.