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

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
And for a close up of what happens when the envelope is exceeded look at
www.youtube.com...

Here are more...
(well, this one was actually below Vne)



This is how the manufacturers determine airspeed limits and V-G envelopes.

Google Video Link

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
IIRC, that graph is for a P-51 MUSTANG, right?

No, it's not,

This is the graph of the P-51.

So how do you know for a fact that this is correct for a 767?

Sigh...

Read slowly.

Because we have the V speeds for the 767. Just plug them into the chart.

Do you know how to plug numbers into a simple chart, any chart, based on the definition of the numbers/data?

The V speed definitions don't change the chart. The V speed definitions CREATE the chart and the various zones. All the V-G diagram is, is an illustration of the various V speeds. You can plot your own V-G diagram on Excel if you know the V speeds given by the manufacturer. And we do.

Please go learn the V-G diagram fundamentals at the APS Training link I have provided numerous times for you in this thread. Or not, you'll never get it anyway.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

The people with the most experience flying these aircraft say it's impossible.

Yeah, they SAY. That and $1.33 will get you a cup of coffee. With this issue (how fast a given plane can fly at a given altitude) what a few dozen people say or think is totally irrelevant. Its what you can prove.

Prove something other than your ability to post links to your favorite little website.

Originally posted by hooper
.Prove something other than your ability to post links to your favorite little website.

You need to prove the aircraft on 9/11 were the aircraft as reported. So far you have failed. The data govt agencies have provided, does not support their theory.

Give me a parachute and an old AA jet and I will duplicate the hijackers maneuvers. Then we will know. I will most likely die. Weep for me. I will die for truth. I might just live. Elephant is in a coma.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
And for a close up of what happens when the envelope is exceeded look at
www.youtube.com...

This is how the manufacturers determine airspeed limits and V-G envelopes.

Google Video Link

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

And for those that think Boeing just guesses at the numbers, there's this
787milestones.tpninteractive.com...

This test was for load limit for g loading. There is no destructive testing for design speed limits. That comes from engineering analyses and wind tunnel testing, which Boeing won't release. We tried to get it for the FEAT 737 Miao-li Taiwan litigation resulting from an in flight breakup. FEAT ceased ops 2 years ago.

Originally posted by earthdude
Give me a parachute and an old AA jet and I will duplicate the hijackers maneuvers. Then we will know. I will most likely die. Weep for me. I will die for truth. I might just live. Elephant is in a coma.

You bring up a good point.

I'd like to see one 757/767 Capt who supports the govt story, to take their aircraft to 510 knots at.... hmmm.. lets say 11,000 feet.

I bet you won't find one who will do it.

After all, those who claim to be pilots, and blindly support the govt story, won't even put their name on their claims. I don't expect one to actually have the nads to fly a 757/767 at 150 over Vmo... even at 11,000 feet.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

The data govt agencies have provided, does not support their theory.

Only if your idea of not being supported is limited to you saying "its not supported".

You keep making a statement that can be easily proven by science, not just speculation. The fact that when pressed to present such simple proof you dodge and spin proves that you even you know that your opinions don't and can't hold any water.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
[This test was for load limit for g loading. There is no destructive testing for design speed limits. That comes from engineering analyses and wind tunnel testing, which Boeing won't release.

Yeah, Pilots For 9/11 Truth have been trying to get wind tunnel data from Boeing for almost 4 years. They even have insiders who work at Boeing. Rusty Aimer is a consultant on the 787. There are others, but they remain anonymous for obvious reasons you see here. Libel and smear campaigns run rampant when one starts to question the govt story.

Boeing keeps that data very close to the chest.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by earthdude
Give me a parachute and an old AA jet and I will duplicate the hijackers maneuvers. Then we will know. I will most likely die. Weep for me. I will die for truth. I might just live. Elephant is in a coma.

You bring up a good point.

I'd like to see one 757/767 Capt who supports the govt story, to take their aircraft to 510 knots at.... hmmm.. lets say 11,000 feet.

I bet you won't find one who will do it.

After all, those who claim to be pilots, and blindly support the govt story, won't even put their name on their claims. I don't expect one to actually have the nads to fly a 757/767 at 150 over Vmo... even at 11,000 feet.

I will go 250 over VMO for $250,000 US. I need the money and the thrill would be great for my midlife crisis.

Originally posted by hooper
You keep making a statement that can be easily proven by science, not just speculation. The fact that when pressed to present such simple proof you dodge and spin proves that you even you know that your opinions don't and can't hold any water.

Sigh,

once again hooper....

EA990 broke up at 425 KEAS (this figure includes compressibility factors as well. You won't understand what this means, but others will).

Clearly you aren't familiar with the term precedent.

You keep saying we don;'t have science or data, I'll keep repeating EA990 and the airspeed limits set by the manufacturer.

You have not provided any proof the aircraft on 9/11 were as reported. When you get some proof, please let us know. It would be nice for the Govt agencies to provide data which adds up to their story. considering we're killing people all over the world because of it.

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by earthdude
Give me a parachute and an old AA jet and I will duplicate the hijackers maneuvers. Then we will know. I will most likely die. Weep for me. I will die for truth. I might just live. Elephant is in a coma.

You bring up a good point.

I'd like to see one 757/767 Capt who supports the govt story, to take their aircraft to 510 knots at.... hmmm.. lets say 11,000 feet.

I bet you won't find one who will do it.

After all, those who claim to be pilots, and blindly support the govt story, won't even put their name on their claims. I don't expect one to actually have the nads to fly a 757/767 at 150 over Vmo... even at 11,000 feet.

I will go 250 over VMO for $250,000 US. I need the money and the thrill would be great for my midlife crisis.

That reminds me of the statement that there are two sets of most common last words from pilots in crashes:
1. Oh s$$$!;
2. Hey, watch this!

Will you name me as sole beneficiary in your will and grant me the concession to sell tickets to see the big black smoking hole in the ground?

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by earthdude
Give me a parachute and an old AA jet and I will duplicate the hijackers maneuvers. Then we will know. I will most likely die. Weep for me. I will die for truth. I might just live. Elephant is in a coma.

You bring up a good point.

I'd like to see one 757/767 Capt who supports the govt story, to take their aircraft to 510 knots at.... hmmm.. lets say 11,000 feet.

I bet you won't find one who will do it.

After all, those who claim to be pilots, and blindly support the govt story, won't even put their name on their claims. I don't expect one to actually have the nads to fly a 757/767 at 150 over Vmo... even at 11,000 feet.

I will go 250 over VMO for $250,000 US. I need the money and the thrill would be great for my midlife crisis.

That reminds me of the statement that there are two sets of most common last words from pilots in crashes:
1. Oh s$$$!;
2. Hey, watch this!

Will you name me as sole beneficiary in your will and grant me the concession to sell tickets to see the big black smoking hole in the ground?

LMAO!

second line..

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by 4nsicphd

We need an investor to pay me. The spectacle will make money. Many will gamble on my fate. I'll load my flight simulator software so I can learn how to start the damm plane. If I survive, I will get more money from the rights to the movie. Boeing will back me, I am sure. Solid aircraft capable of supersonic speeds, but not safely.
#3 last words on the voice cockpit recorder is "MOMMY!"


[edit on 14-7-2010 by earthdude]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Sigh,

once again hooper....

EA990 broke up at 425 KEAS (this figure includes compressibility factors as well. You won't understand what this means, but others will).

Clearly you aren't familiar with the term precedent.

I am familiar with the term - in law. In science just because something happened before, under different conditions and under different circumstances, does not mean its going to happen again. You obviously have no concept of scientific method or really, just common sense.

You should have opened your OP with the disclaimer that you have no way of scientifically proving or testing your hypothesis, just hope all readers will rely on the faith of your experts.

Originally posted by hooper



You should have opened your OP with the disclaimer that you have no way of scientifically proving or testing your hypothesis, just hope all readers will rely on the faith of your experts.

It's not "faith", it's decades of experience and thorough knowledge of the topic, something you lack. And not only do "readers" rely on these Experts, but pure strangers pay them, to get them safely from one place to another.

This is why your hand waving and smear tactics will never work. You need to come up with something new.

Deets published 4 possibilities. These are the ONLY possibilities. This is clearly spelled out in the OP, the presentation/analysis, and other articles linked in this thread. Read it again.

Anytime you wish to prove your theory with data that adds up, let us know. Maybe you could sit right seat when you find a 757/767 Capt who will exceed Vmo by 150 knots.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by hooper

You should have opened your OP with the disclaimer that you have no way of scientifically proving or testing your hypothesis, just hope all readers will rely on the faith of your experts.

Ok hooper, why don’t you tell us what planes hit the WTC and what proof do you have that proves the government OS of said planes belong to AA, United Airlines.
You continue to ridicule everyone who pokes holes in the OS yet you do not tell us what you believe in.

Do you believe in the OS?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
The data govt agencies have provided, does not support their theory.

So continuous radar tracks don't support it......

Phone calls don't support it......

Remains don't support it......

You are a liar. All this data supports the "OS".

Originally posted by impressme

what proof do you have that proves the government OS of said planes belong to AA, United Airlines.

The above, plus the fact that the number of 767 airframes is known, and so is their location.

The only ones missing are those as reported.

You will reject this of course, since your bar of proof is set well beyond what any rational person needs.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So continuous radar tracks don't support it......

Correct. Radar tracks show the aircraft exceeding Vmo by more than 150 knots. EA990 broke up in flight at 65 knots over Vmo.

Phone calls don't support it......

Phone Calls

Remains don't support it......

Chicago Tribune

NY Times

You are a liar. All this data supports the "OS".

Wrong, try again.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]