9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by 4nsicphd



To suggest that an engine could fall and and the horizontal stab skin could flutter down from 16000 ft and land side by side is kind of far fetched.


-

Unless of course, if a pylon attach point failed with the engine under power and the engine went over the wing and took the stab, or part of it with it.Also, To say that they were found together doesn't necessarily mean they hit together. The report gives no info as to currents, FDs, etc

I think the problem lies in you and others demand an exact speed and when they say something it is written in stone and becomes a big conspiracy or "white elephant" when the reality is they hit at a very high rate of speed. I say this in a general sense because there are a lot of different speeds given by different agencies using different methods. One thing in common among all these speeds is they say the planes were 500+ MPH when they flew their final approach and hit.

From a older New York Times article NY Times

The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.

I can't say this would be an exact science so we basically get a big picture view and not your exactness you demand and what you base your conspericy on.

Further it stated..

But a researcher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by closely studying videos of the attack, has estimated the planes' speeds. The Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with the National Transportation Safety Board, has come up with its own estimates, based on radar and video.

The M.I.T. analysis, by Eduardo Kausel, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, found that the United plane was traveling an estimated 537 m.p.h., while the American plane, the first to hit, was traveling 429 m.p.h.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation said the government's analysis put the speeds at 586 m.p.h. for the United flight and 494 m.p.h. for the American one.

Extra caluations using FWIW - RADES 84 data on 175 immediately prior to impact.




Time = 11.005 seconds
Distance = 8528.6 ft.

Miles traveled in 11.005 seconds = 1.6152651515151515151515151515152

60 seconds / 11.005 = 5.4520672421626533393911858246252

Miles per minute = 8.8065342199826525133203915575565

Miles per hour = 528.39205319895915079922349345339


So as I said many different methods and many different speeds, so one can only get a general sense of what happened, and that the second plane most likely was flying faster than the first.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Actually, Boeing was called. There is a recording floating around somewhere. A representative said it was impossible and that the speed analysis done by the NTSB is wrong.

Well Boeing has said things that are actually in print.

In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.

''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''

Two Boeing officials’ statements in the same NY Times article, so I guess you can finally put your diagram away because Liz has said ''It's off the chart.''

They all think the speeds are impossible to improbable and is the "Elephant In the Room".

You still haven't even viewed the data.

So after almost 10 years what we see is a focus of all conspiracies down to a main one that with those still left cling to it with desperation. We started with many, like John Lears’ no airplane/alien technology one to what we have today with different airplanes/pilots and control dets. A big part of this conspiracy is the need to diminish the kinetic energy that a 500 MPH plane would have on the towers so that control dets would be needed, and to say the terrorist performed an impossible feat, but as I said after 10 years we have this same small hand full of people pushing these claims with nothing but WAGs as they cling to their theories.

As I have stated before anything can be prove or disproved with the slightest changes in the data and so far many people have gone out of their way to change data (many times in not so slight ways) in favor of their theory. Weedwacker has shown us examples within this discussion and a quick search on the net you can see many more. You can also put 10 engineers/scientists in a room and all ten will argue a point to death, that is how things work.

I guess my point here is you need a true smoking gun to further your theory…a true smoking gun, and once you get that I’ll be on your side. Lastly if all of this is to prove the government was behind it all, they could still be the puppet masters with the official report too, and what is more plausible to me for them to do it that way in the first place, so to argue about the mechanics really doesn’t get a person one inch closer to those who pulled the stings in either case.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Extra caluations using FWIW - RADES 84 data on 175 immediately prior to impact.

Wrong - that's not UA175. That's AA11.

The time (12:45) should have been the first thing to clue you in. The second clue for you being no Mode C. (The south tower aircraft was squawking Mode C)

From Pilots For 9/11 Truth - (since I know you haven't read it)

Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Source - pilotsfor911truth.org...

Time = 11.005 seconds

Wrong - try 11.995 seconds.

Distance = 8528.6 ft.

Miles traveled in 11.005 seconds = 1.6152651515151515151515151515152

60 seconds / 11.005 = 5.4520672421626533393911858246252

Miles per minute = 8.8065342199826525133203915575565

Miles per hour = 528.39205319895915079922349345339

All wrong based on your Garbage in = Garbage out.

So as I said many different methods and many different speeds, so one can only get a general sense of what happened, and that the second plane most likely was flying faster than the first.

The second plane was flying 80 knots faster than the first based on Radar.

Again, if you feel radar could have such large margins for error, you should think twice about flying your next approach IMC, 4 miles in trail, --that is-- if you actually fly airplanes.

Well Boeing has said things that are actually in print.

In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.

''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''

Two Boeing officials’ statements in the same NY Times article, so I guess you can finally put your diagram away because Liz has said ''It's off the chart.''

Yes, we know it's "off the chart". This is what we've been trying to tell you for 28+ pages.

Capt Dan Govatos


Capt Russ Wittenberg


Capt Ralph Kolstad Interview (mp3)

Capt Rusty Aimer and Capt Ralph Kolstad Interviewed (vimeo video)


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


Credentials of the above -

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)


Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career


You can also hear Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

(scroll forward to 2:57)

I guess my point here is you need a true smoking gun to further your theory…

What exactly is my "theory"? Your strawman arguments are growing stale and tiresome.

The only one with a theory here is you and your cohorts who blindly support anything the govt tells you.. When will you get some evidence for your theory?

Again - the score remains after FOURTY+ pages -


Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8, all suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits.
Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...)



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Again -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."

Finally, let us know how you make out when you find the actual data for the south tower aircraft, and correct your math.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Evidence for my argument -

And exactly what is your "argument"? Is it that the NTSB is lying when the reported the terminal speed of Flight 175? Or are they telling the truth and you think the plane involved in Flight 175 was specially modified by person or persons unknown for some reason so that it could go faster than a "normal" 767?

When are you going to take your arguments over the the pilots forum and get their input? That would be interesting.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Just once it'd be nice to see some NEW info, instead of the repeated spamming.

ATS is very patient, but eventually spammers should be called out, and told to cease this activity.

I think the stafff here have been very accomodating, so far.

AS TO the same, ad nauseum repeat perfomances, of the same YouTube vids?? I have repeatedly addressed them, and their flaws. It is already on record, and unlike some others, I see no need to repeat MY stuff, again, ad nauseum. The posts aleready exist, and are available for viewing in the ATS database.




Mod Note: ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION
MOD NOTE: PLEASE READ

Originally posted by hooper
And exactly what is your "argument"?

My argument is the same that is made by the numerous verified experts above. Why haven't you reviewed them?

When are you going to take your arguments over the the pilots forum and get their input? That would be interesting.

As noted for you in numerous past pages, it's already been done.

www.pprune.org...


When you are going to get one verified pilot to support your claims that a flunky with less experience than an alleged pilot who couldn't control a 172, could control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220, pull G's, zero time in type, and hit a target with a 25' margin for error?

Why have you refused to go over to pprune and ask for support for your above claim?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just once it'd be nice to see some NEW info, instead of the repeated spamming.

Supply some evidence for your claims and you will see new info.

You haven't been able to provide any evidence in 40+ pages except for "Because the govt told me so..."

AS TO the same, ad nauseum repeat perfomances[sic], of the same YouTube vids?? I have repeatedly addressed them, and their flaws. It is already on record, and unlike some others, I see no need to repeat MY stuff, again, ad nauseum. The posts aleready[sic] exist, and are available for viewing in the ATS database.

You haven't addressed anything. Matter of fact, all your arguments were strawmen.

Did you figure out that a V-G can be plotted if the V-Speeds are known?

If you still think it's impossible, when are you going to inform the pilots at pprune?

www.pprune.org...

The rest of your post was mostly insults, so I won't address them.

reply to post by hooper


Wow, I have read through your posts and i must say you speak like a true lawyer defending the 9/11 OS. All those counter questions....amazing.

reply to post by nagabonar


What is the "OS"? I know what it stands for, the two letters, so that's not the question.

The question is: That derisive two-word term is bandied about as if it's magical, somehow, and completely describes the "9/11 inside jobby-job" believers' so-called "theories". * (* - Really just a bunch of unrelated suppositons and speculations, mostly devoid of science, technolgy and aviation knowledge).

What "OS" needs is to be properly, COMPLETELY described point-by-point, by those already mentioned "believers" (we'll call them "CT"s for short...."conspiracy theorists").

Because, searching everywhere for one, comprehensive and complete "Official Story" from any source, and there isn't one, so far..........

"Wow, I have read through your posts and i must say you speak like a true lawyer defending the 9/11 OS."

How dare you insult the legal profession in such a manner? I think an apology is in order.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Did you figure out that a V-G can be plotted if the V-Speeds are known?

That is not the point. As you should be aware, by now (I've hinted it repeatedly, hoping you'd figure it out...guess I have to tell you now) the lines on the graphs related to STALL speeds vary greatly according to GW. In the small airplanes that you might fly, general aviation types, the range for gross weight is rather narrow, for the average small airplane operator.

Large jets have a much wider envelope, of operating weights, for any given flight.

BUT, none of that is relative, anyway.

Basically, for the benefit of the non-pilots, the V-g diagram is NOT relevant in this instance (UAL 175) since the airplane's maneuvering AS OBSERVED do not indicate that any sort of excessive g-forces were involved, nor were imposed upon the airframe.

UNLIKE the totally other irrelevant comparison to the events of Egypt Air 990, where, due to the actions and control manipulations OF the two pilots (working at odds against each other, as has been noted) that airplane suffered higher g-loads, and possibly other tortional forces (yawing, rolling, etc) that likely resulted it at least the possible shearing of one engine, from its mount, prior to impact with the water.

The mounting pins on the pylons are frangible, and are designed to shear (for land impacts, to prevent the "tearing" open of the wing sturcture, and the sudden huge gush of any fuel inside).

_______
Witness the tragic event of American 191, in Chicago, 1979. Of course, that engine came away due to fatigue cracks that went undetected, but they were AT the locations where the engine is mounted to the pylon. AA's mainentance procedure "short-cut" (not authorized by McDonnel Douglas) contributed to the failure.

The failure occured at the worst possible time, just after V1. Of course, g-loads were NOT a factor: It was the forces involved from all of that thrust from the engine, "pulling" on the weakened attachment points.

Anyway....THAT ALONE, under most circumstances, would not result in the tragic crash that followed. (Really, losing the engine -- physically --- or, "losing" the engine --- just the thrust output --- isn't much different, from the airplane's and pilot's perspective. IN FACT, with the engine completely gone, performance from the remaining engine(s) is enhanced, due to the lesser weight and drag, now that it's gone!!)

No, with AAL 191, it was the unfortunate (but proper at the time) training the crew had received, combined with some also unfortunate facts of the airplane's systems designs. For "engine-out" procedures and performance, an airspeed of "V2" is used (calculated based on take-off weight). Preferably, we 'aim' for V2+10 knots. However, if climb performance is satisfactory, and airspeed is ABOVE V2 + 10, then THAT speed is maintained.

(Old pilot adage: "Speed is Life").

What the crew of AAL 191 did NOT know (because of the damage inflicted as the engine left the airframe) was that critical warnings were disabled --- specifically, the "SLAT DISAGREE" warning, AND the STALL warning ---- "stick shakers". They did NOT know that the slats on the damaged side had RETRACTED, due to the loss of hydraulic system pressure, as lines were torn away with the eingine separation. DC-10s at the time did not have a mechanical 'locking' system, then, for the slats, to keep them in place when extended. Engineers designed them to rely on system pressure to hold them, AND the "disagree" warning system to alert the pilots of an assymetrical condition, should one occur.

Result was, after slats retracted (and with no way for the pilots to know this) the lifting ability of the affected wing was diminished...so that it stalled. And, when one wing is stalled, and one isn't, a rolling tendency results. Roll that could not be countered with available aileron authority, at that airspeed. HAD they known of the slat situation, they could have lowered the nose, increased speed, and prevented the crash, in all probablity.
_______________

I gave that (rather long) background on AAL 191 because it is misunderstood so often, and used as "proof" (by some) that, "If engine fall off, airplane crash". Which is nonsense in most cases. (Single-engine airplanes, nose-mounted engine? Different story, usually. CG change might be too great, then, to control the airplane afterwards).

So...for the made-up V-g diagram (which, no one disputes...it is "made" simply by plugging in known V-speeds into a generic graph. Even "Ralph-the-Mouth" who posted at pprune said so. I happened to see that, a few days back, so it's not news to me. AND, it only proves more that the V-g diagram is irrelevant, and pointless. BTW....guessing that might be Ralph Kolstad, at pprune??? Just sayin'.....)

SO....UAL 175's excessive airspeed? AND, given its flight conditions, it experienced AT MOST about 1.5 gs (and that's generous). Anyone can plot that, at the 1.5 g line. The ONLY factor, then, fromteh V-g diagram (which is meant to simply daze and confuse laypeople) is the "red line" .... that is, the aispeed issue.

We've (I and others) already shown, through posts and sources, that merely exceeding the "maximum safe" speed for a few seconds isn't going to result in "INSTANT" structural failure, with devastating results and airplanes dropping from the sky immediately. NOT unless accompanied by excessive (and I mean well more than normal, 'one-g') g-loads.

There are numeraous examples of airplanes exceeding their "printed" max speeds, both in qualified flight tests (Airbus A380 --- there's a nice video about it) and in certain in-flight 'upsets' (TWA 741 comes to mind) and still being recoverable and intact enough to land safely, albeit with possible damage. BUT, not damage that renders the airplane unflyable later, after proper inspections and repairs.













If you still think it's impossible, when are you going to inform the pilots at pprune?

reply to post by Xtrozero


The info in you post could be incomplete or misleading, depending upon the sophistication of the analysis.
First the distance calculation using the RADES data is a little fuzzy. Was the distance computed using the lat/long/altitude figures or the subtended azimuth angle and range. Whichever, there appears to be a problem. The initial lat/long puts the aircraft over 47th st. at 3rd avenue, while the second position is over the East Village at about 13th. That's some distance from the impact. If you use the azimuth transit for the distance, you get 1.143 degrees at 59.375 miles for a distance, disregarding the arc and descent factors, of 6,250 feet. Going back to the lat/long method, it makes a difference whether the Haversine formula or the spherical law of cosines, or the ellipsoidal Vincenty formula is used. See www.movable-type.co.uk... Which was it?
And the height. Was it the Mode C readout from the transponder and was it corrected for lag? Or was it actually a reflectivity determined figure. Normally, a surveillance type radar would not give height. That usually takes Precision Approach Radar. Whichever, it shows a rate of 400 feet in 11 seconds, or about 2200 feet/minute. At the speeds in the official report,and to level out from that rate of descent, the g load/velocity stresses would be huge.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That is not the point. As you should be aware, by now (I've hinted it repeatedly, hoping you'd figure it out...guess I have to tell you now) the lines on the graphs related to STALL speeds vary greatly according to GW.

Large jets have a much wider envelope, of operating weights, for any given flight.

And as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, click here to see what happens to the V-G with weight changes. It is a video tutorial from an aerobatic flight school.

www.apstraining.com...

Again - The conclusion is not in your favor. You should really check it out. It only takes about 20 mins to view.

I'm surprised you haven't viewed it yet given the amount of times I've posted the link for you.

Basically, for the benefit of the non-pilots, the V-g diagram is NOT relevant in this instance (UAL 175) since the airplane's maneuvering AS OBSERVED do not indicate that any sort of excessive g-forces were involved, nor were imposed upon the airframe.

Wrong. View the presentation links I posted numerous times for you. Need them again?

UNLIKE the totally other irrelevant comparison to the events of Egypt Air 990, where, due to the actions and control manipulations OF the two pilots (working at odds against each other, as has been noted) that airplane suffered higher g-loads,

Wrong. View the presentation links I posted numerous times for you. Need them again?

and possibly other tortional forces

Pure speculation.

(yawing, rolling, etc) that likely resulted it at least the possible shearing of one engine, from its mount, prior to impact with the water.

Again, pure speculation on your part. But the engine did depart the aircraft prior to water impact. So did horizontal tail skin and wing PANELS. This all happened at 5 knots into the red "Structural Failure" zone below -

The mounting pins on the pylons are frangible, and are designed to shear (for land impacts, to prevent the "tearing" open of the wing sturcture[sic], and the sudden huge gush of any fuel inside).

Wow, weedwhacker, you got something right!

So how come these "frangible" mounting pins didn't release an engine from the south tower aircraft traveling at Vmo+150 and pulling G's?

Are we to believe these "frangible" mounting pins were rated for Vmo+150 and able to pull G's?

Not according to Boeing and EA990.

That is why you see so many verified pilots (and a Boeing spokesperson) speaking out above calling the speeds, "Impossible" and "The Elephant in the room!".

______
Witness the tragic event of American 191, in Chicago, 1979. Of course, that engine came away due to fatigue cracks that went undetected, but they were AT the locations where the engine is mounted to the pylon. AA's mainentance[sic] procedure "short-cut" (not authorized by McDonnel[sic] Douglas) contributed to the failure.

The failure occured[sic] at the worst possible time, just after V1. Of course, g-loads were NOT a factor: It was the forces involved from all of that thrust from the engine, "pulling" on the weakened attachment points.

Irrelevant

(Really, losing the engine -- physically --- or, "losing" the engine --- just the thrust output --- isn't much different, from the airplane's and pilot's perspective.

So, a big Pratt and Whitney creates no drag? You ever physically lost an engine from the bottom of a wing?

Do I need to remind you of the four forces of flight?

What happens when a pilot with zero time in type, with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172, loses the balance of drag on one side, and has full thrust on the other? Combine that with an extreme aft CL due to extreme speeds over Vmo, and you will not be able to keep that aircraft straight. Perhaps you disagree.

IN FACT, with the engine completely gone, performance from the remaining engine(s) is enhanced, due to the lesser weight and drag, now that it's gone!!)

Wow, just... wow.

... pilots of an assymetrical[sic]

... and prevented the crash, in all probablity.[sic]

Irrelevant
_______________

I gave that (rather long) background on AAL 191 because it is misunderstood so often, and used as "proof" (by some) that, "If engine fall off, airplane crash".

Yet AA 191 and EA990, crashed.

(Single-engine airplanes, nose-mounted engine? Different story, usually. CG change might be too great, then, to control the airplane afterwards).

Are you saying if you lose 6000+ lbs at a given station forward of your %MAC, your CG won't change?

That's almost as good as you saying an aircraft which physically loses an engine way out on the wing will be easier to control than if the engine was there balancing out the drag of the other engine.

So...for the made-up V-g diagram (which, no one disputes...it is "made" simply by plugging in known V-speeds into a generic graph. Even "Ralph-the-Mouth" who posted at pprune said so. I happened to see that, a few days back, so it's not news to me. AND, it only proves more that the V-g diagram is irrelevant, and pointless. BTW....guessing that might be Ralph Kolstad, at pprune??? Just sayin'.....)

And yet you still haven't gone over to pprune to let them know that plotting a V-G for any aircraft, given the V-speeds, would be "irrelevant".

SO....UAL 175's excessive airspeed? AND, given its flight conditions, it experienced AT MOST about 1.5 gs (and that's generous).

Wrong.

Anyone can plot that, at the 1.5 g line.

It's been plotted. You should click the links I gave you. Now you know why I repeatedly post them for you. Hoping that perhaps one time, you may click them instead of repeating your inaccurate, unsourced, assumptions.

The ONLY factor, then, fromteh[sic] V-g diagram (which is meant to simply daze and confuse laypeople) is the "red line"

Actually, it is used for pilots to get a quick reference of the flight envelope and capabilities of an aircraft based on manufacturer's set limits tested through flight and wind tunnels. Student pilots are taught this early in their education.

We've (I and others) already shown, through posts and sources, that merely exceeding the "maximum safe" speed for a few seconds isn't going to result in "INSTANT" structural failure,

And yet you still have yet to provide one example where an aircraft exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, its Va/Vra by 220 knots, pulled G's and was controllable/stable.

Every one of your "sources" lost control, shed parts, or needed 30,000+ feet to recover at Vmo+20/30/40/70.

Let us know when you find one at Vmo+150.

There are numeraous[sic]examples of airplanes exceeding their "printed" max speeds, both in qualified flight tests (Airbus A380 --- there's a nice video about it) and in certain in-flight 'upsets' (TWA 741 comes to mind) and still being recoverable and intact enough to land safely, albeit with possible damage. BUT, not damage that renders the airplane unflyable[sic] later, after proper inspections and repairs.

See above.

Again -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Once again you miss my point and only focus on each line with the desire to disprove every word I write. This has been you style throughout and it means little since....I'll say my point again....

There are many different speeds using many different methods to calculate them...the only thing we can take from all this is the planes hit at a high rate of speed.

I asked you if Boeing suggested the report and speeds were impossible and you mumbled back something about a sound bite floating around the net awhile back, and after about a 30 second search I came up with two printed that supports the notion that Boeing does not disagree, but you want to turn their words (or at least one) into something else…read it for what it is…

This is like me saying that the control of a plane can go from easy to impossible rather quickly when we were talking about high speed turns and such and your reply was “thinks for saying it was impossible, now you can join pilotsfor911truth…” or something close to that. You only read what you want to see within your narrow views of reality.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Because, searching everywhere for one, comprehensive and complete "Official Story" from any source, and there isn't one, so far..........

That was my point Weedwhacker with the speeds. Many different official agencies along with universities like MIT have come up with many different numbers. The common conclusion is that the second plane hit at a higher rate than the first causing more kinetic energy of destruction which is why the second tower fell first.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

The info in you post could be incomplete or misleading, depending upon the sophistication of the analysis.

Yep it could be, my main point was there are many and I mean MANY different speeds calculated across many different agencies and laypersons. This shows there is no official speed and any agency that posts one might as well have thrown a dart at a dart board with multitude of speeds on it. What is known and can be taken from all this is both planes hit at a high rate of speed with the second one most likely above 500 MPH (80 to 100 MPH over the first one that hit).

In both cases the planes would most likely line up and then the pilots would firewall the engines on a straight line approach with low Gs hitting the towers at whatever final speed the firewalled engines could get them to at impact. With the intermittent mic use by the hijackers during what I assume was their maneuvering phase I didn’t read that the over speed clackers were going off so I think we can assume they were not over speeding the airplanes until the final run in.

I have never endorsed a single speed and if it seemed that I have then that wasn’t my intension.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Once again you miss my point and only focus on each line with the desire to disprove every word I write. This has been you style throughout and it means little since...

[snip]

There are many different speeds using many different methods to calculate them...the only thing we can take from all this is the planes hit at a high rate of speed.

Once again you miss my point and refuse to review the data.

Let me say it again -

If you think the NIST, FEMA or MIT are more accurate with speed estimates than the NTSB using Radar, perhaps you should have the NIST, FEMA or MIT guide your next approach in IMC.

Fortunately for the rest of us, including passengers, radar is used.

I asked you if Boeing suggested the report and speeds were impossible and you mumbled back something about a sound bite floating around the net awhile back, and after about a 30 second search I came up with two printed that supports the notion that Boeing does not disagree, but you want to turn their words (or at least one) into something else…read it for what it is…

I see you failed to click the recording with the Boeing Spokesperson and failed to read their statements - here it is again -

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

Click it, read it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You only read what you want to...

Let us know when you will read the statements from Boeing, listen to the recording provided for you, listen to the interviews from numerous verified experts above, when you get the correct data for the south tower aircraft, when you fix your math. and when you get a verified pilot to support your claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, Va+220, and pull G's leveling from a 10,000 foot dive at over 500 knots in less than 1 minute.

Thanks.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
The info in you post could be incomplete or misleading, depending upon the sophistication of the analysis.
First the distance calculation using the RADES data is a little fuzzy. Was the distance computed using the lat/long/altitude figures or the subtended azimuth angle and range. Whichever, there appears to be a problem. The initial lat/long puts the aircraft over 47th st. at 3rd avenue, while the second position is over the East Village at about 13th. That's some distance from the impact. If you use the azimuth transit for the distance, you get 1.143 degrees at 59.375 miles for a distance, disregarding the arc and descent factors, of 6,250 feet. Going back to the lat/long method, it makes a difference whether the Haversine formula or the spherical law of cosines, or the ellipsoidal Vincenty formula is used. See www.movable-type.co.uk... Which was it?
And the height. Was it the Mode C readout from the transponder and was it corrected for lag? Or was it actually a reflectivity determined figure. Normally, a surveillance type radar would not give height. That usually takes Precision Approach Radar. Whichever, it shows a rate of 400 feet in 11 seconds, or about 2200 feet/minute. At the speeds in the official report,and to level out from that rate of descent, the g load/velocity stresses would be huge.

The RADES positional data is a bit offset to the east for the north tower aircraft due to no Mode C (you can see a blank box under the "MC" column in Xtrozero's data).

The south tower aircraft was squawking Mode C and is much more accurate.

With that said, when you use correct math based on the distance/sweeps of each radar point, you'll get the same as the NTSB reports, 430 knots for the North tower aircraft and 510 knots for the south tower aircraft.

This is all covered in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" produced by Aeronautical Engineers and United/American Airlines 757/767 Captains.

Hope this helps.

So, a big Pratt and Whitney creates no drag? You ever physically lost an engine from the bottom of a wing?

Thrust kind of off sets that drag on the operating engine, right? And with a shut down engine you just basically turned an engine into a barn door. Engine drag on one side with thrust on the other side requires more flight controls inputs since the forces are opposite of each other. Remove the drag (remove the engine) and there is less drag and less opposite force.

BTW what is the balance of drag got to do with one engine is running and one is not running, or missing?
I can’t remember the flight number, but wasn’t there a airliner that the crew shut down the engine thinking it had loss oil pressure to find on landing the engine was actually missing…they never knew.

What happens when a pilot with zero time in type, with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172, loses the balance of drag on one side, and has full thrust on the other? Combine that with an extreme aft CL due to extreme speeds over Vmo, and you will not be able to keep that aircraft straight. Perhaps you disagree.

Wow! So an engine fell off the 911 planes prior to impact.... We all heard it first here on ATS.....