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

reply to post by Insolubrious

It also appears to me the plane cut through the facade like a hot knife through butter, there was no give in the plane. It only exploded once inside, just like you would expect from the likes of a bunker buster. The military have spent ages perfecting this technique with specially designed missiles, yet on 9/11 we get that same effect they've been working on for ages out of a regular passenger plane.

Been through this before

The exterior walls of the WTC were NOT SOLID ! They were made of lattice work of beams bolted togather in 30 ft sections

The aircraft on impact sheared the bolts holding the sections in place

The plane pushed the broken sections out of the way. Once past the
exterior wall the plane would have impacted the floor slabs/interior columns. The fuel tanks were ruptured and the jet fuel ignited in massive fire ball.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I have no experience as a pilot. Long before you were a wet spot, I did my best to shoot planes out of the sky, but those were not US commercial craft. What does this have to do with PFFT's failed logic?
As you are an aircraft expert, perhaps you can describe how these aircraft would be modified, who would do it, and when, so that a seamless transition from the standard aircraft to a souped up version would not be noticed by maintenence crews, refueling crews, schedulers, etc. Who flew the aircraft immediately before the final crew? Did they notice any difference?
If you can't show this, then we are down to three possibilities for you to discuss.

Originally posted by ghofer
What airline would let a pilot over-speed their 767?

None. Because Airlines understand that limits are set for a reason. Exceeding such limits breaks the airplane.

But that doesn't prevent a pilot from doing it. What airline has their Chief pilot in the jumpseat, 100% of the time on 100% of the flights?

Ok, let me re-phrase the question,

If you owned a 767, or own any type aircraft, would you be willing to take that aircraft 150 knots over it's Vmo

Are you willing to put your name on that claim?

I think the claim was that plane managed to survive a short time at that speed without falling apart and failure was probably imminent.

"Probably"?

"A short time"?

A few posts ago, you thought it was only a "few seconds".

EA990 broke apart in flight at 425 KEAS. EA990 is a 767.

How "probable" do you think it is an aircraft of the same type can hold together at 85 knots over the point where EA990 suffered structural failure?

Are you willing to put your name on such a claim as Deets has done in the OP?

Why do you avoid my questions?

Originally posted by pteridine
I have no experience as a pilot.

Yes, we know that.

Long before you were a wet spot,

You lost the argument with your insults.

Forgive me if I now ignore you as I'm tired of repeating myself and being attacked by you.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

If you owned a 767, or own any type aircraft, would you be willing to take that aircraft 150 knots over it's Vmo

If I was a pilot acting for the responsible safe passage of my charges, no. If I was a suicidal terrorist hell bent on death, destruction and publicity? There would be no limits.

Sorry - opinions, claims, insight, hindsight, guesstimates are wholly and completely useless in this context. Where are the calcs that prove the point? Nonexistant.

Originally posted by hooper
If I was a pilot acting for the responsible safe passage of my charges, no.

What if you were empty (no passengers)?

You seem to think an aircraft can be precisely maneuvered at 150 knots over it's Vmo for more than a few minutes as were the aircraft observed to impact the WTC.

Now you don't want to try it, even if empty with no building in front of you? Why?

Would you be willing to do it straight and level? You don't even have to maneuver it nor hold it at that speed. You can decelerate as soon as you peg 150 over Vmo.

You still wouldn't be willing to do it?

Wise choice.

If I was a suicidal terrorist hell bent on death, destruction and publicity? There would be no limits.

So, you would fly a Gulfstream full of explosives at 900 knots on the way to your target? How does that achieve your objective?

Would you try to fly it at Mach 2?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Like the rest of your posts, you spin words into your bias.

What does that even mean?

The exact words used were "impossible" and "improbable".

So something that's improbable isn't possible? Not sure you're right there.

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

The people with many years aeronautical engineering design experience on Flight Control Systems at NASA and designing high performance prototypes say it's improbable.

Yes. So... very slowly... they disagree. One set says it's not possible. the other says it is, albeit it's unlikely.

Deets leaves a 3% probability (not "possibility")

You do realise that a 3 per cent possibility is the same as a 3 per cent probability?

Clearly you don't understand why limits are set, nor have any expertise in the field to draw any conclusion except for your bias to blindly support anything the govt tells you.

Your English is absolutely opaque. My experience in the field is my bias? What do you mean?

Furthermore I do understand why the limits are set. And my expertise is neither here nor there. What expertise do you have?

Those that have flown the airplane 1000's of hours, including the exact aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, leave a 0% probability.

Why do they disagree with Deets?

Where they all agree is that the speeds reported need to be investigated thoroughly as it is the "Elephant In The Room". It appears you are not familiar with this phrase and instead spend your days and nights trying to get people to look the other way. It's not working.

We don't expect you to understand. But good luck trying!

You think I don't know what the phrase "elephant in the room" means?

I do. And ironically you're using it incorrectly.

Never mind. The fact that you don't have a theory and dribble out the usual truther nonsense about something not adding up, needing an investigation, just asking questions, we may not agree but we do know something's wrong, buy a hat, or a DVD.... blah blah, says a lot about your level of seriousness. And your motives.

Follow the money.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
would you be willing to take that aircraft 150 knots over it's Vmo

For the love of god, can anyone really be this blind to something so overwhelmingly obvious?

I can't believe I even have to point this out, but it's no use suggesting that normal people would be unwilling to take a plane up to that speed because they would be worried about their own safety, and that therefore the hijackers would be equally unwilling to do it.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

What if you were empty (no passengers)?

Same thing applies, I was acting responsibly and rationally I would not risk injury to myself or persons on the ground.

You seem to think an aircraft can be precisely maneuvered at 150 knots over it's Vmo for more than a few minutes as were the aircraft observed to impact the WTC.

Didn't have to. Terrorist didn't care if he hit the building dead center or even just clipped a wing as long the result was a very public display of death and destruction/

Now you don't want to try it, even if empty with no building in front of you? Why?

Uh, why do you think? I don't want to die! And, just as importantly, I don't want to kill anyone else, on the ground or in the air.

Would you be willing to do it straight and level? You don't even have to maneuver it nor hold it at that speed. You can decelerate as soon as you peg 150 over Vmo.

You still wouldn't be willing to do it?

Wise choice.

Ah, yeah, I know - wise choice - because there is a great deal of risk involved. But here is the difference -

I AM NOT A SUICIDAL MANIAC BENT ON THE PUBLIC DEATH AND DESTRUCTION OF OTHERS.

Pointing a gun is a very reasonable thing to do, however pointing a gun at an armed police officer is often suicidal, yet people do it every day. Some do it just to commit suicide without needing to pull the trigger themselves.

So tell me, when are you going to post those failure analysis calcs that prove the plane disintegrates as soon as it passes a certain speed at a certain altitude. Any minute now right? Or are we just going to hear a few more opinions?

So, you would fly a Gulfstream full of explosives at 900 knots on the way to your target? How does that achieve your objective?

Would you try to fly it at Mach 2?

Once the target was in sight, of course I would punch it. Mach 8 if it will do it. Imagine travelling hundreds of miles with a plane full of explosives and you have the target right in front of you and you get shot out of the sky because you were trying to take it easy and not tax the functional limits of the plane? I think you are having some problems wrapping your head around this suicide thing. If you are going to kill yourself you don't follow the dosage instructions on the pill bottle.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I guess that means that those suicide carbombers also obey all the laws, dont speed, let the little ol lady cross the street, right before they reach their target, and blow themselves up in the middle of a market place. I mean why ruin a perfectly good suicide run by getting a speeding ticket right?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What does that even mean?

You're grasping at straws. That's what it means.

The exact words used were "impossible" and "improbable".

So something that's improbable isn't possible? Not sure you're right there.

Did I say that?

Please try to limit your strawmans to one per page. More than 2 and people will think you have an agenda.

The people with the most experience flying these aircraft say it's impossible. The people with many years aeronautical engineering design experience on Flight Control Systems at NASA and designing high performance prototypes say it's improbable.

Yes. So... very slowly... they disagree. One set says it's not possible. the other says it is, albeit it's unlikely.

Clearly you are not familiar with the concept of being conservative with your words if you don't have exact experience on type of equipment.

Your mental gymnastics won't fool anyone. But keep trying. )

my expertise is neither here nor there.

Clearly

What expertise do you have?

Once again (since it appears you don't remember the last time I answered this question)

More than you, less than Rusty Aimer and Dwain Deets.


Tricky, are willing to fly an aircraft 150 over it's Vmo? Are you willing to put your name to your claims as Deets has done?


Why do you avoid the question?

Originally posted by hooper
Once the target was in sight, of course I would punch it.

On a day like Sept 11, the WTC Center is visible from Albany, Montauk, Philly and near Harrisburg.

Good to know you would compromise your aircraft before achieving your objective. It shows you haven't a clue why limits are set.


hooper, you seem to think an aircraft can fly at any speed over it's limitations without penalty.

You're wrong.

By the way, the China Airlines 747 that you all love to quote, which lost half its tail and no longer had pitch authority except thrust, exceeded it's limits by only 50 knots TAS.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


It would be best if you ignore me so that you don't have to address things you can't answer. This is a common tactic for those that have no basis for their arguments.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by ghofer
What airline would let a pilot over-speed their 767?

None. Because Airlines understand that limits are set for a reason. Exceeding such limits breaks the airplane.

But that doesn't prevent a pilot from doing it.

Are you insane? Why would anyone risk their life, their job, and the lives of everyone else on the plane to see whether a plane would break apart at high speed? I think the airline might be a little peeved if you came back with their 767 after a flight and it had been damaged beyond repair. So who would possibly accept your challenge? As I said, I don't think anyone disputes flying at 510 knots at sea level in a 767 is dangerous. The question is when does the plane start breaking apart.

My cousin's husband is an engineer for Boeing. He develops mainly the safety systems. I asked him about this several years ago, because someone brought it up on here. He said it was *SNIP*. He said not only was it possible for a Boeing Jetline to be flown at that speed and altitude, but that it was below the total threshold that the aircraft can endure, in terms of speed and maneuvers. He said that a plane SHOULDN'T under any circumstance fly like that, because you increase the chances signifigantly of some major systems failure. Naturally, no pilot working for an airline, unless he had a serious death wish and wanted to take a bunch of people with him, would fly like that, because it is, to say the least, UNSAFE.

But somehow, I doubt safety was a big concern to the hijackers who were flying those jets, since they had no intention of a safe and happy end to their flights. Thus, they had no qualms about what might happen as a result of their reckless and suicidal flying; that was, infact, the intended outcome. Death and destruction.

So I am going to take his word on the matter, since he rpety much helps to design and work with these craft, over some site full of people I have no way of vouching for.

Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Thu Jul 15 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by ghofer
Are you insane? Why would anyone risk their life, their job, and the lives of everyone else on the plane to see whether a plane would break apart at high speed? I think the airline might be a little peeved if you came back with their 767 after a flight and it had been damaged beyond repair. So who would possibly accept your challenge? As I said, I don't think anyone disputes flying at 510 knots at sea level in a 767 is dangerous.

Good for you... now you're getting it.

The question is when does the plane start breaking apart.

According to EA990, 425 KEAS.

Did you miss it the first 30 times posted on this thread?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
My cousin's husband

My friend of a friend who is a cousin of their Uncle is Dwain Deets, a Flight Director in charge of Flight Control Design at NASA.

My other friend of a friend who is the husband of another friends cousin is Capt Rusty Aimer, consultant on the 787 at Boeing and has thousands of hours in the 767 at United Airlines, including the one which reportedly hit the south tower.

They disagree with your "cousins husband".

Got a name?

Why do debunkers often act as if they were experts in the thought processes of terrorists? Something to ponder.

Has it occurred to anyone that while a terrorist might have a reckless disregard for safety, he might still be concerned about reaching his objective and be careful to fly within an aircraft's performance limits in order to be sure to reach his objective.

If I were a CIA operative I would tell my MKUltra dupe to fly to specs until he was ten feet in front of the WTC and then, if he felt like it, have a ball and gun it.

It's really terrible when a truther has to tell a debunker how to run a black ops caper properly. I think it's the education system nowadays. People are dopey.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Follow the money.

You should follow your own advice.

Cui Bono?

So tell me Tricky, do Jetblue, American, United, Delta, Continental Airlines et al, Jet pilots make more money selling videos online that they stream for free only to be smeared by you and your herd?


How much do you think P4T actually makes off their DVD's? 20K per year? 50? 100? 150? 200k? 1 million?

Do you know what Jet pilots make?

Do you understand offsetting expense to continue operations?

Do you feel P4T should just pay for all their work out of pocket?

Of course you do. I bet you hope they go bankrupt, don't you.

It will never happen.

Do you really think Jet pilots are in this for the money?


[edit on 15-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]