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

reply to post by nh_ee


Perhaps you could show me in the NTSB report where it says that EA990 broke up after exceeding the parameters given by the OP?

The report is available here:

www.ntsb.gov...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
There doesn't seem to be any reference to the plane "breaking up" before it hit the water. There is some coverage of damage that cannot definitively be said to have happened pre- or during impact, but that's about it.

Have you read it? Because it appears not to say what you think it does. Or perhaps you're just lying.

Sonar mapping of the wreckage site depicted two distinct underwater debris fields, which were identified by recovery personnel and investigators as the western and eastern debris fields. These debris fields were about 366 meters (1,200 feet) apart from center point to center point. The western debris field, which was estimated to be 62 meters by 66 meters and was centered about 40° 20' 57" north latitude, 69° 45' 40" west longitude, contained mainly parts associated with the left engine and various other small pieces of wreckage (including portions of two wing panels, fuselage skin, horizontal stabilizer skin, and the majority of the nose landing gear assembly). The eastern debris field, which was estimated to be 83 meters by 73 meters and was centered about 40° 20' 51" north latitude, 69° 45' 24" west longitude, contained the bulk of the airplane's fuselage, wings, empennage (including the outboard tips of the right and left elevators and all recovered elevator PCAs), right engine, main landing gear, and flight recorders.

How do you think two "distinct" debris fields occurred?

Perhaps these "distinct" pieces bounced off the water?

Nope.

It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field.

Tricky, you need to study more.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Why does your diagram stop at about 420 knots? What does it look like if you go past 420 knots or is there no data for that region?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Why does your diagram stop at about 420 knots? What does it look like if you go past 420 knots or is there no data for that region?

There is data, see above EA990. It broke apart at 425 KEAS.

Also see the V-G Diagram for the P-51 (I already posted it 3 times). The Structural Failure range is defined as any airspeed above limit dive speed. Vd for the 767 is 420 knots. EA990 in flight structural failure occurred at 425 KEAS.

UA175 stayed intact, not one panel came loose, for more than 60 seconds duration flying at 85 knots more than EA990 and pulling G loads. That is, if you blindly believe in the goverment story.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

It appears it is you who cannot read the scale.

Okay. Very carefully. What speed do you think the red line is at?



It appears either to be at 420 or 426, depending on how accurate your markings are.

Red line is the limit dive speed, just as defined in the P-51 V-G diagram.

You're avoiding the issue. Earlier you posted this information as though it proved that a plane must break up over 426 knots. Now you seem less certain. Which is it?

According to EA990 NTSB reports, structural failure occured just above Limit Dive Speed for the 767. This corresponds to the red shaded area above in the V-G diagram.

You keep saying this. Please provide me with a direct quote from the report, which I have just read. I can't see any evidence of the plane "breaking up", although there may have been some structural compromise. Certainly the plane was still substantially intact when it hit the water, just as the planes at the WTC... well, you get the idea.

You're wrong, Please review airspeed definitions and the fundamentals of a V-G diagram.

Okay. Again.

You say that the diagram shows that a plane must break up after 426 knots.

I say this is incorrect.

You tell me to review the fundamentals.

I will do so. Do you think the fundamentals will bear out your opinion?

So, a "hijacker" with zero time in type knows more about the "feel" of "what is happening" on a 767-200 than Captains from American and United airlines who have thousands of hours in these aircraft and state the speeds are impossible?

Time in type? That's quite a technical-sounding phrase. Odd.

Anyway. I think your comparison is wrong. They don't have to know more than your captains. Just feel that it's not falling to bits. I imagine I could tell that and I've never flown a plane.

Furthermore, why would your handful of captains know what happens when a plane gets past the envelope? I doubt they've ever done it.

Or perhaps they are unaware of the data, have not reviewed the data thoroughly, or don't want their name listed on a website only to be continually libeled by people like you and your herd.

Or perhaps they think you're talking nonsense.

It's one of the two.

Look JREFer -- who doubles up on his anonymity because his normal User ID is already discredited -- how can a DVD be overpriced if the presentation is available for free on the web? For some reason, you and hooper above continually ignore this point. It must really rattle your cage people will buy DVD's which they can see free on the web. I highly recommend the DVD's as well, I have my own set. Excellent quality.

Wow. I must get some. And they're excellent quality you say? Do you have any garden furniture you could sell me? Or perhaps a spiral hose, or a knife set? Got a product that will help me finally say goodbye to awkward pet odours?

Logic and common sense will tell anyone that clearly these jet pilots are not in it for the money yet are offsetting their operating costs. But it is typical of those who blindly support the goverment story to avoid such facts and logic.

Yes. Although logic and common sense tells me to follow the money. What's in it for them I ask? And when the answer is "cash", I'm a bit more sceptical than you.

Perhaps I just don't share your warm, fuzzy opinion of human nature.

You'll get no argument from me on this point. Planes do break apart when they exceed their limitations set by the manufacturer. This is definitely a safety issue.

And yet you seem unable to tell me when planes do actually break apart. You've given me an example of a plane not breaking apart when it exceeds its limits, and drawn some diagrams that you yourself seem unable to interpret. What's next?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Ok, so you don't believe the governments story. What's your story? Did a Flight 175 hit the WTC? Was it going slower than 510? Are you contending that persons at the NTSB made up the radar analysis and there was no plane, it was just a big magic trick? Do you think the technical folks over at the NTSB aren't as sharp as you guys and screwed up? Or it was a plane, but not Flight 175, some other kind of aircraft that can exceed 510 without falling apart? If so, why?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay. Very carefully. What speed do you think the red line is at?

See the P-51 V-G Diagram above. Redline is at Limit Dive Speed.

It appears either to be at 420 or 426, depending on how accurate your markings are.

Did you miss the statement that I made saying I put together the diagram quickly? 420 Knots indicate the start of the Structural Failure Zone, just as it does in the P-51 diagram. If you want to get out an electron microscope because you do not understand this basic fundamental definition, and prove it doesn't exactly line up with the exact location to-the-molecule at redline, be my guest. Most others get it though.

Since you missed the part in the NTSB report where they state the aircraft came apart prior to water impact, I'm thinking you miss a lot of pertinent key words in most of your reading.

You're avoiding the issue. Earlier you posted this information as though it proved that a plane must break up over 426 knots. Now you seem less certain. Which is it?

Nice strawman, but I never claimed it proved anything. I did however provide a V-G diagram which apparently you are still trying to grasp such a concept. Along with data and concerns of experts.

However, You and your friend hooper claimed numerous times the speed is not excessive. You are wrong.

You claimed the NTSB didn't report in flight structural failure for EA990. you are wrong.

You claimed the V-G diagram 'I put together quickly' doesn't represent the speed definitions. You are wrong.

You need to study more Tricky. This information seems to be a bit tricky for you to grasp. But we'll help you along. You really should watch the presentation. It's free you know?


[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Tricky, you need to study more.

Okay, fair enough, I missed that.

But I'm not sure the situations are similar. As you say EA990 was travelling at 425 knots, but in a much steeper dive than UA11.

Indeed it apparently sustained no damage in its initial descent:

"the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent"

This was a descent that exceeded .86 mach and caused the master warning to activate.

So for your contention about the WTC planes to be correct EA990 would surely have had to break up during its first dive.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Did you miss the statement that I made saying I put together the diagram quickly?

It seems we all make mistakes when we do things quickly. The fact is that the line isn't where you thought it was - no big deal.

Since you missed the part in the NTSB report where they state the aircraft came apart prior to water impact, I'm thinking you miss a lot of pertinent key words in most of your reading.

Hmm. There was actually an error in your diagram. It's not my fault for missing your disclaimer about how quickly you did the work. I wouldn't be so quick to chuck around the admonishments if I was you.

Nice strawman, but I never claimed it proved anything. I did however provide a V-G diagram which apparently you are still trying to grasp such a concept. Along with data and concerns of experts.

However, You and your friend hooper claimed numerous times the speed is not excessive. You are wrong.

I haven't once claimed it wasn't "excessive". I have repeatedly claimed the opposite.

Fair enough, you may not have claimed that your diagram shows that the plane breaks up over 420 knots.

Then why did you post it?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Tricky, you need to study more.

Okay, fair enough, I missed that.

But I'm not sure the situations are similar. As you say EA990 was travelling (sic) at 425 knots, but in a much steeper dive than UA11.

You mean UA175?

How can you argue the information when you don't even have the basic knowledge?

Yes, EA990 was in a steeper dive, but air is air, whether in a dive, loop, upside down, whatever.

EA990 WAS in a steeper dive. How come it wasn't able to get to 510 knots as did (allegedly) UA175?

Indeed it apparently sustained no damage in its initial descent:

"the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent"

This was a descent that exceeded .86 mach and caused the master warning to activate.

So for your contention about the WTC planes to be correct EA990 would surely have had to break up during its first dive.

EA990 broke up in thicker air, as it got lower.

It reached a peak speed at higher altitude, which was 425 KEAS (meaning drag was so high it couldn't go any faster). As it descended into thicker air at this speed, it broke apart due to higher dynamic pressures.

According to the government story, UA175 was traveling 85 knots faster near sea level (exponentially much thicker air), and didn't shed so much as a rivet.

Get it now?

These people do,

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The list grows.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Ok, so you don't believe the governments story. What's your story? Did a Flight 175 hit the WTC? Was it going slower than 510? Are you contending that persons at the NTSB made up the radar analysis and there was no plane, it was just a big magic trick? Do you think the technical folks over at the NTSB aren't as sharp as you guys and screwed up? Or it was a plane, but not Flight 175, some other kind of aircraft that can exceed 510 without falling apart? If so, why?

Your questions are irrelevant sir, and it honestly seems as if they are to detract from the point. The point is that it was presented to the public that the speed was 510 knots, which is well beyond the normal speed.

We also have to take into account how many commercial airliners our expert terrorist-hijacker has flown before and how he was able to fly faster than any other pilot before him in that aircraft, and fly perfectly into the target.

[edit on 7/12/10 by Big Trouble in Little Chi]

reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi


I once witnessed a ram raid. The guy driving the car totally broke the speed limit as he roared off down the high street. Almost like he wasn't worried about safety at all.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It seems we all make mistakes when we do things quickly. The fact is that the line isn't where you thought it was - no big deal.

The redline appears to go right through the center of "420". Not bad for just eyeballing it.




Sorry you are unable to see that. Semantics. I'm not that anal. Whatever.

I haven't once claimed it wasn't "excessive". I have repeatedly claimed the opposite.

Ok, good, you may want to inform hooper you think the speeds are excessive.

Fair enough, you may not have claimed that your diagram shows that the plane breaks up over 420 knots.

Then why did you post it?

Because it is a V-G diagram. Pilots train by these diagrams. Manufacturers set these limits and develop envelopes based on testing, this includes wind tunnel testing.

Again, I didn't make the shaded Red zone describing "Structural Failure". If you don't like the way the envelope is structured or the airspeed definitions/limitations which create such an envelope, take it up with the designer and the manufacturers who set the limits.

Reply to post by boondock-saint

The problem with that is that the supposed pilots had very little experience.for them to do those maneuvers at the speeds they achieved would be very difficult and tough to keep control of the plane. These weren't even pilots...how did they pull these speeds off?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Thank you very much TiffanyinLA for this fine post.

Much excellent information is included and referenced, information generated by experts. I'll be reading through it.

After reading these pages, I just want to say that ATS continues to be a major disappointment for me in this subject matter.

The trolls are still here, still wrecking ideas, still wrecking facts and wrecking ATS' usefulness as a research tool in the process.

These people have presented not one fact for or against the OP. Only character assassination of everyone involved, even peripherally, (as if these trolls had even ONE credential among the lot of them.) and heaps of useless drivel on completely unrelated issues has been provided. They make me sick.

I had actually gotten a sense that all this would change for the betterment of all back when I read in late February this post by Skeptic Overlord.

But no... it was all, apparently hot air. That not one thing has changed since then has deeply saddened me.

Deny ignorance? When? Ever?

I think not.

Props to all the thinkers. Keep on truckin.'

Peace to them.

[edit on 7/12/2010 by PixelDuster]

reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi

Your questions are irrelevant sir, and it honestly seems as if they are to detract from the point.

They are the only point. Is the NTSB lying about the airspeed and why? Is the poster trying to propagate an opinion as a fact and if so, why? Does the poster believe that Flight 175 and by reason of extrapolation, Flight 11, crashed into the WTC towers or not? If not, what did people see flying into the towers that morning?

The point is that it was presented to the public that the speed was 510 knots, which is well beyond the normal speed.

Uh, yeah, it was beyond the normal operating speed for the safe conduct of passengers. Please tell me what the normal speed is for suicidal maniacs bent on mass murder.

We also have to take into account how many commercial airliners our expert terrorist-hijacker has flown before.....

Why?

and how he was able to fly faster than any other pilot before him in that aircraft,....

Uh, his mission was not the safe operation of the aircraft to the nearest airport in order to safely discharge his passengers. His mission was to cause as much death and destruction as was humanly possible; to and for that end I think you can maybe see why he might have "punched" it a little bit.

and fly perfectly into the target.

Please prove it was "perfect" and also note the "target" wasn't a two inch bullseye, but one of the largest man-made structures in the world.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I am speaking of your VG diagram and why it terminates at 420 kts. There does not seem to be any serious red areas at 420 kts in level flight and I wondered what the diagram might look like at speeds in excess of 420 knots. You cite UA 990 as your data but what was the wing loading immediately before impact? Did one pilot try to pull the plane out of the dive? Where was UA 990 on your diagram? Where do you think the WTC planes were on your diagram?
Interesting that you use the P51 as an example. Look at a P47 diagram. I'm sure that there must be one. As I remember, the P47 could dive faster than any prop plane in WW2. Certainly it had limits on it but one problem was diving too fast. Some reports contended that the P47 could approach 1.0 Mach in a power dive. Unfortunately, as that velocity was approached, the control surfaces would not respond and there were casualties. Pilots were warned of the problem lest they auger in, also. Certainly, the dive airspeed was far outside any manufacturer's safety recommendations but the aircraft did it without breaking apart in the air.
I am unsure of the purpose of your post. What is it that you contend? Lies about the airspeed, different planes, holograms, missiles, death rays, or some combination of the above?

Originally posted by hooper
Uh, yeah, it was beyond the normal operating speed for the safe conduct of passengers.

So, Vmo/Mmo is different if you fly boxes or are empty?

Really now....

Perhaps you should inform Boeing and every other manufacturer, as it appears they currently set limits by airframe, not whether beating hearts are on board.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

You mean UA175?

How can you argue the information when you don't even have the basic knowledge?

No, I meant UA11, because it's situation is more similar according to your data. But the other will do as well. Oh, and just FYI, travelling is spelt correctly.

EA990 broke up in thicker air, as it got lower.

It reached a peak speed at higher altitude, which was 425 KEAS (meaning drag was so high it couldn't go any faster). As it descended into thicker air at this speed, it broke apart due to higher dynamic pressures.

Exactly. So the dynamic pressures increased much more quickly and suddenly.

The list grows.

I've seen someone else on the internet use that exact phrase. Can't remember who... I'll go and search for it.

Originally posted by pteridine
I am speaking of your VG diagram and why it terminates at 420 kts.

It doesn't "terminate" at 420. 420 is Limit Dive Speed for the aircraft. Above this speed is the Structural Failure Zone.

There does not seem to be any serious red areas at 420 kts in level flight

"... any serious red areas..."?

"serious"?

Any red area is SERIOUS.

Look again. What does it say in that Red Area?



This has been explained more than 5 times already. Please review these video courses on a V-G diagram freely published by an Aerobatic Flight School.

www.apstraining.com...

I think they are around 4 mins each runtime. I didn't view them all, but from what I did see, it is in line with the basic understandings of a V-G diagram and why such envelopes exist.

and I wondered what the diagram might look like at speeds in excess of 420 knots.

Go to 420 knots on the above diagram. What does it say to the right of that line?

That's what it looks like.

You cite UA 990 as your data but what was the wing loading immediately before impact?

First, it wasn't "Ua990". Please don't confuse yourself.

It was Egypt Air 990 (some refer to it as EA990, but old timers might confuse that with Eastern Airlines, which is now defunct).

EA990 peak G loading was 2.4 G according to NTSB. This loading is within the limits of a transport category aircraft, but the speed was not.

UA175 was reported 80 knots faster and pulling G's. No one knows exactly the G loading, but just the excessive speed alone, above and beyond EA990, is cause for extreme concern.

Again, I supposed that is why this list is growing.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The OP describes the possibilities. None of which you mention in your strawman argument.