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

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by hooper

 

Does she mean from an airplane?

That would be my interpretation of what she said. Are you saying not even from an airplane?

Even from an airplane. Been there also. Maybe if you remove the atmosphere in between and cruise at about 50,000 feet. But it doesn't matter. The point was and is that the terrorist pilot of Flight 175 that day had the towers of the World Trade Center in his windscreen and flew as fast as possible because he was not in the least bit concerned about the safe operating limits of the craft he was piloting, he was only concerned about causing the greatest amount of death and destruction that he could.

reply to post by hooper

I'm not really that familiar with American geography. Can Albany be spotted in the backround over this fellow's left shoulder? Surely from Albany on a sunny morning, the glare from the sunrise would make the WTC seem like two huge pillars of fire visible to the south.

Surely there is folklore in the area, old wives tales, frightened children, etc., deriving from this arresting phenomenon?

I'm afraid I am out of my depth here. America is an exotic, enigmatic mystery to me. I watch American programming as many others would watch a newscast from China or Togoland.

I obviously defer to your judgement on this.

View of Albany from the WTC

www.pinkbike.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6e303b3f5c9.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by impressme

What evidences do they have to support anything regarding the OS, nothing they have absolutely nothing...

Yeah, you are right. There is absolutely no body of evidence at all...in the least....anywhere...of any aircraft exceeding its speed restrictions or published structural integrity limitations. None.

Aircraft are not flight tested beyond their never-exceed speed. Never. Ever. There is no evidence of that, anywhere.

Aircraft have never, ever flown faster than there design speed, their max speed or their never-exceed speed at any altitude.

Aircraft have never continued to fly after losing a significant portion of their structure from a mid-air or from some other structural failure.

Because we know, from "Tiffany" and "her" friend, the space and aeronautical expert Mr. Deets that aircraft cannot do that. The Concorde SST did not exceed its max operating speed by a significant margin during its flight test program. A 707 cannot exceed the VMO by 100 knots and continue flying, a year later. A widebody L1011 cannot be flown up to .98 mach, well beyond its "design speed", even though it happened.

Yes, there is no evidence for those things happening.

Why does someone have to be a "debunker" or an agent if they do not agree with a proposed theory or belief??

I can talk until I am blue in the face, none of you will believe me either way. Up until this thread, I have never posted on a 911 forum on this site or any other site for that matter. I simply to not care.. I think the truthers story makes to many assumptions and stretches the facts. I will say this, I think you truthers are a bad group of people. You have made it very clear through out this thread that questioning anything that you put forward as facts, is an insult to you.

I simply liked the Op's title and read what she wrote. I offered my own experience from that morning, that was met with accusations and just plain arrogance. I guess I was ignorant to the climate that surrounded this subject on the forums.

I didn't share my morning for anything other than, simply sharing my experience. I Have never heard there was a conflict of stories on what flight path the plane took... All I know is this... To say a rocket hit the pentagon is stupid,without basis, irresponsible and just plain wrong. I lived in that area and know of SEVERAL close personal friends and co-workers that witnessed what I saw from different distances and vantage points.

Yes, there has been some bickering between the OP and myself since then. She feels, I need to go on the record.. She also states that the flight path I witnessed, has been reported by others, and is a "fatal" blow to the official story. She says, she asked me to watch a video... But if you look back through the thread, you will see I was told to watch it. Implying that the video will somehow enlighten me. That video enlightened me about as much as watching a Alex Jones video. All that video did for me , was solidify my belief that the truthers have now become no better than the MSM on this issue.

The official story and the different flavors of stories layed out in this thread have an equal amount of holes... But the holes are not the same beast.. The MSM is lies and deception.. The truthers are unfounded assumptions. Now, before you truthers jump all over me.. I am not calling them all assumptions. As I have stated previously...I feel that we are being lied to.... I just dont know , to what extent. I do know, that I am not willing to throw critical thinking to the way side, because there have been lies discovered.

Maybe I am a bad person, because I dont give 2 flips what the official story is/was or will be. I was enlightened early on in this thread to the name "truthers". That name in its self is an arrogant, self richeous misleading name to be calling yourselves. For a group of people that, by name, imply that your are the truthful ones, you sure do not employ an open mind.

Simply by questioning or disagreeing with these folks, you are automaticly thrown into the catagories of "Govt. disinfo agents" or "Trolls" or "sheep" that will believe anything.

There has to be a catagory of people that just like yourselves, are seeking the truth. Why do these people have to agree with every aspect of your version of the truth?

Tiffany was asked very specific questions through out this thread, by myself and a few others. My observation is she has a few points of knowledge on this subject... And if you go do some research on her posts, you will find that she is simply regurgitating information from the "truthers" web sites. She has been asked very specific questions, that she has dodged and dodged and dodged... I feel that she is dodging them because there is not a thread detailing the questions specifically. Therefore she has no answer, because the only thoughts she has are put forward by someone else.

What I find disturbing is, when she asks a question or orders someone to do something, if they do not do it or reply, she resorts to name calling and or mocking.

Truthers have thrown critical thinking to the way side. A graph or a pilots opinion is not scrutinized or even questioned. The veterans of these "truther" sites have become TPTB to these people. Any opinion or theory put forward is swallowed and washed down, without any fact checking or common sense. Now I understand that there has been allot of research on this. I also understand that it is a proven fact, that the Govt. is lying to us.

If someone wants to add any credibility to this thread, go back and read mine and others questions, and attempt to answer mine and others questions. You will notice that the questions were asked a minimum of 3 times each. Why did Tiffany not answer them??? IMO- She is yet to find the thread in the truthers forum, that will answer the questions for her. This is how, I feel, any and all questions she was asked, have been answered.

How about we stop the name calling and the accusations, of being some sort of agent.

reply to post by trebor451

Everyone knows that odd events can occur. However, if these mechanical feats were routine the manufacturers specs would reflect that.

Just because some guy can eat 59 hot dogs in 12 minutes doesn't mean that any random one of us could do it.

www.foxnews.com...

"He's unbelievable — he just keeps on going," said Ryan Nerz, who works for Major League Eating, which he describes as "a world governing board for all stomach-centric sports."

"These guys' numbers have just been going up at a tremendous clip," Nerz said. "I always thought there was a limit — a limit to the human stomach and a limit to human willpower — but I guess not."

You sound like Mr. Nerz. His perceptions have been altered by his profession. He thinks that there is no limit to how much a human stomach can consume. Extrapolating from one superstar to the rest of humanity has to be some kind of logical fallacy. Same thing with these oddball planes.




[edit on 16-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by trebor451

 

Everyone knows that odd events can occur. However, if these mechanical feats were routine the manufacturers specs would reflect that.

Just because some guy can eat 59 hot dogs in 12 minutes doesn't mean that any random one of us could do it.

www.foxnews.com...

"He's unbelievable — he just keeps on going," said Ryan Nerz, who works for Major League Eating, which he describes as "a world governing board for all stomach-centric sports."

"These guys' numbers have just been going up at a tremendous clip," Nerz said. "I always thought there was a limit — a limit to the human stomach and a limit to human willpower — but I guess not."

You sound like Mr. Nerz. His perceptions have been altered by his profession. He thinks that there is no limit to how much a human stomach can consume. Extrapolating from one superstar to the rest of humanity has to be some kind of logical fallacy. Same thing with these oddball planes.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

I stand corrected. I apologize to this fora. Never could I equate a hot dog eatign contest with how fast a 767 can go at 1,000 feet. I realize how deficient I am in this topic. I hang my head in shame.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA



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]

I know what jet pilots make. They think it's a lot, because they're often not the cleverest, so if they weren't driving the equivalent of an aerial bus they'd be in the forces, probably. And second to doctors they're pretty much the most arrogant profession around. But it's not enough to make knocking off a few sweatshirts and DVDs not worthwhile.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
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]

Sorry, but this shows you don't have familiarity with the material. Look at the data in the OP about the descent towards the Towers. See how long the planes dived for and how long the aircraft were under stress. It's a matter of seconds, not minutes.

Unfortunately you've unwittingly shown how Tiffany and her ilk operate. She's duped you into thinking that these planes were screaming along at 40 per cent over their operating capacity for ages, simply by leaving stuff out of her presentation.

Originally posted by benoni
LA Woman as you can no doubt see, the spooks are out in full force now....
which confirms that what you allude to is hurting them...


I have no interest in Needlepoint...

I steer clear of Needlepoint forums...

This is a standard human trait...


It has always stuck me as very suspicious when hordes of people seem to hover, on almost 24 hour standby, around the 9/11 conspiracy threads, insulting and mocking others whilst patronisingly advising that there is NO conspiracy...

If you will notice... Each and every one of us that disagree with this "elephant" in the room, have stated that we KNOW we are being lied to about 911. (ok maybe not "all", but a good majority).Did you even take the time to read through any of the posts before insulting anyone that doesn't agree with the op's theory? I believe that 9/11 is a day full of lies and discrepancies. But, I am not willing to swallow every last theory regurgitated by "credible" truthers!

If they don't believe that a 9/11 conspiracy exists, it seems laughable that they seem to spend sooooo much time here, arguing theres nothing to argue about.....

There is nothing to argue about?? That paragraph defines you as a person.
Show me one line or sentence that says "There is no conspiracy". Please don't brush this request off.... Show me one person on this thread that has said that. Unlike your post, everyone that I have seen debate this, has stuck specifically to the topic.

Clearly they know( as the majority of posts here confirm) that something is undeniably wrong with the events on that day when 3,000 people were murdered.....thats not even open to debate in my mind(and many others...),let alone the nasty baiting that can be seen repeatedly in this thread...

Baiting? So now, asking legitimate questions is baiting? This seems to be the theme of your little group. There are some trolls here.... But the majority of people that disagree with the OP, have asked very specific questions, that are yet to be answered.

If this subject wasn't open for debate... Why even post it?

Keep your cool up LA Woman.....their tactics are clear.....and they are well trained, hunting in packs, trying to provoke you ....you have won the Moral Battle here....now to win the War...

Keep your cool? Was this before or after she referenced her chest... In a pathetic attempt to rally "support" punn intended.. for her theory?
Or was this before she started answering questions by telling people to go and watch a video or read a web site that is by no means objective?

I hope to see many more of your well thought out and presented threads soon here on ATS....

You will see more from Tiffany as soon as, more people on the truther sites start posting them.

Before you give kudo's , you should copy a section of some of her "fact" based posts and input it in google. I think you will be suprised at what you find.

Originally posted by ghofer

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.

Define "start breaking apart."
The first elonngation of a rivet hole???
Spoiler actuator damage from blowdown?? (That's unfair isn't it. You have no clue what that would be, do you?
Loss of static discharge wicks???
Variable inlet guide vane damage???
Delamination of composite components???

And in what configuration is the aircraft with respect to flaps, spoilers, wariable wing geometry, pitch trim?

And in what weather? Temp? humidity? convection activity, lifting index, orogra[phic factors, etc.

And with the JT9D or CF6???

Give the answers to those questions, the millions of dollars Boeing spent on certification and the years spent in certification and you can get an answer. Or you can listen to Boeing who answered those questions, and spent the dollars and time and came up with a design limit.

Unlike, I assume, other posters in this thread, I have flown an aircraft that suffered an inflight bnreakup. It was not caused by overspeed but rather by a Lavochin SA-2 over Borikhamsay province. Thank you Messrs Martin and Baker. I don't want to do that again so I'm not overly worried about my bosses at the airline or being fired. I mean, what can they do? Send me back to Udorn?
Since there is already an elephant (or two) in the room, I might as well stick my camel's nose under the tent. Can a Pratt powered -200 at near takeoff weight even do 510 knots in almost straight and level flight at sea level? Without Boeing's flight test and wind tunnel data, I couldn't tell. But my experience tells me that it probably wouldn't. Without going into burner, an F-4 hits the wall at about 440 and the Boeings are non-afterburning fans with non-area rule geometry. Not that the F-4 wasn't a pig at low altitude and high weight. But it had 2 big black smoke makin' J-79s shoving it through the tropical (sometimes) air.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I didnt see that she had posted that.. I must have had her "ignored" at that stage...

Now I am starting to believe that the info she is presenting is comming directly off that site for a reason. (I found that nearly verbatim, her posts are riddled on that site and others)

She is the "agent".... Wow all of this was a promotion for P4T...

Way to go Tiffany.. Create an account.... use a profile pic that will attract people.... Then post a thread that is a reply hot plate....

Good work..

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
She's duped you into thinking that these planes were screaming along at 40 per cent over their operating capacity for ages, simply by leaving stuff out of her presentation.

40 percent over capacity is a lot. If you have a weight lifter lifting at capacity and then add 40 percent more to his load, how many seconds is it going to take for him to collapse?

He might be able to stand a small percentage over capacity for a while but 40%?

Sometimes analogies are needed when discussng technical matter. I realize that there are dangers inherent in analogies though.

reply to post by ipsedixit


A daycare has a fire safty capacity of 10 kids... If you were to add 4 kids,(40%) would the daycare hold them.. Of course!!! But is it reccomended?? Of course not...

See that could work both ways ..

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

A daycare has a fire safty capacity of 10 kids... If you were to add 4 kids,(40%) would the daycare hold them.. Of course!!! But is it reccomended?? Of course not...

See that could work both ways ..

I'm glad you mentioned this because it is an example of a poor analogy.

If you had said a telephone booth has a carrying capacity of 10 kids and then added 4 more kids and asked would the telephone booth hold them, your analogy would be more correct.

If you used Japanese subway platform "pushers" you might be able to exceed the booth's holding capacity by 40% but children would likely die.

That would make the OP's point.

Imagine 40% more kids in this booth.

blogs.suntimes.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9b0c8beade0f.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 16-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

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

Huh? Really? You do know, of course, that the earth is round and curves, right?

This statement tells me that basically you are full of it. I live there and the WTC is not visible from Albany unless you are in low earth orbit. You are clueless. Same goes for Philadelphia, Harrisburg, et al.

Instead of idiotic invective, why not look at facts. Investigate line of sight calculations. From FL390 (39,000 feet above sea level at 29.92 inches of mercury pressure) you can see 279 miles. I'll make it easy for you (no math) Look at www.qsl.net...
Harrisburg, PA is 162 miles (true course 75 degrees) from lower manhatten. Albany is only 136 miles from NYC.
Maybe you shouldn't have skipped that trig class to read the Ayn Rand book.
Since you probably don't trust the above link that calculates line of sight for various altitudes since it came from an airline pilot, here's the math:
mathforum.org...

So do you want to pull an Emily Latella now? You know, "Never mind."

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Instead of idiotic invective, why not look at facts. Investigate line of sight calculations. From FL390 (39,000 feet above sea level at 29.92 inches of mercury pressure) you can see 279 miles. I'll make it easy for you (no math) Look at www.qsl.net...
Harrisburg, PA is 162 miles (true course 75 degrees) from lower manhatten. Albany is only 136 miles from NYC.
Maybe you shouldn't have skipped that trig class to read the Ayn Rand book.
Since you probably don't trust the above link that calculates line of sight for various altitudes since it came from an airline pilot, here's the math:
mathforum.org...

So do you want to pull an Emily Latella now? You know, "Never mind."

Thanks 4nsicphd.

You can see the WTC from those locations on a clear day in the low 20's.

d= sqrt 1.5h

h = height
d = distance

feet

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Instead of idiotic invective, why not look at facts. Investigate line of sight calculations. From FL390 (39,000 feet above sea level at 29.92 inches of mercury pressure) you can see 279 miles. I'll make it easy for you (no math) Look at www.qsl.net...
Harrisburg, PA is 162 miles (true course 75 degrees) from lower manhatten. Albany is only 136 miles from NYC.
Maybe you shouldn't have skipped that trig class to read the Ayn Rand book.
Since you probably don't trust the above link that calculates line of sight for various altitudes since it came from an airline pilot, here's the math:
mathforum.org...

So do you want to pull an Emily Latella now? You know, "Never mind."

Thanks 4nsicphd.

You can see the WTC from those locations on a clear day in the low 20's.

d= sqrt 1.5h

h = height
d = distance

feet

Yeah, the Pawling Two Arrival Albany Tansition into JFK goes right over ALB but I can never get Center to keep us up high enough to go visual there. They, and approach, always want you to cross ALB at 3000'/250 knots burning ALL the fuel.

And for those not familiar with the language, do you mind if I mention that by "low twenties" , you probably mean altitude in thousands of feet, and not temperature.
And your formula works really well as an approximation but neglects to account for curvature. For that you need to describe a radius from earth center and construct a line tangent to that radius.

Originally posted by trebor451
n 1965, a 707 collided with a Constellation at 11,000, lost 35’ of wing. – a/c landed safely and the Connie, which lost a good portion of its tail, made a crash landing - only 2 passengers and the pilot, who had returned to the burning aircraft to rescue a passenger, died.

Bunches of military aircraft have had parts of their aircraft ripped off from midairs and from high-speed runs and still flown back to a base.

None of which had a pilot at the controls who couldn't control a 172, nor zero time in type.

Then there was the 737 in January 2009 on a customer demonstration flight profile, entered into a 21,000 fmp dive at observed speed of above 440 indicated. A/C recovered (Vmo was exceeded by 100 knots). Oh yeah...that aircraft is still flying, as of Dec 2009 (www.airframes.org... )

100 knots over Vmo is less than 150. A 737 is not a 767. Did not have a pilot at the controls who couldn't control a 172.

Don't forget that the Concord had an MMO of 2.04, but the certification aircraft went up to M 2.23. It was one of the reasons the two certification aircraft (201 and 202) never went into service in the end. It was extremely difficult to assess how much of the aircraft's "life" (in terms of fatigue cycles) had been used up by the certification flights to the edges of the envelope.

Concorde Speed Envelope.



Vmo = 404 knots until 30,000 feet.

Vmo = roughly 300 knots near Sea Level.

The L1011 was flown well in excess of Vmo during flight test, and indeed, considering Mmo, which for the TriStar is M.90, flight test was performed...at M.98.

.98 is roughly 40-50 knots over .90. Not 150 knots.

The point being is these aircraft can indeed exceed, sometimes to a large degree,

None of the above were to a "large degree" as was the speed reported for the alleged UA175.



[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
And your formula works really well as an approximation but neglects to account for curvature. For that you need to describe a radius from earth center and construct a line tangent to that radius.

Yeah, I hear ya.

It's the formula recommended by Wiki since height is less than the radius of the earth.

en.wikipedia.org...

These formulas may be used when h is much smaller than the radius of the Earth (6371 km), including all views from any mountaintops, aeroplanes, or high-altitude balloons. With the constants as given, both the metric and imperial formulas are precise to within 1 pc (see next section for how to derive formulas of greater precision).

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

The point being is these aircraft can indeed exceed, sometimes to a large degree,

None of the above were to a "large degree" as was the speed reported for the alleged UA175.

Well, considering that you had claimed that the plane would break up at Vmo, 50 knots over is a large degree. Considering the 737 was not damaged and is still flying, one has to wonder, how much faster can it fly before it falls apart. A 737 may not be a 767 but the design principals, tolerance limits are similar.