Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

All the flights were seen on radar data for their entire flights. Some were lost by one or two ATC stations, but the radar data clearly shows them all, for their entire flights.

You do know that plane swaps ARE possible on radar, right?

Radar Swaps

Air Traffic Control (TRACON) operators see all aircraft flying in their sector on a computer screen on which is displayed geographical information (boundaries, coastlines, etc) as well as all aircraft flying within that airspace. The map below displays all the control sectors in the continental US.



For example, the control sector labeled ZDC includes Virginia down to North Carolina and west to West Virginia. Washington DC is marked in red. This sector has dimensions of approximately 450 mi (N/S) by 300 mi (E/W). If one divides the N/S dimension by the number of lines on a standard computer display screen (1024), a distance of 0.43 miles or about 2200 feet.

Two aircraft having this separation will appear as two blips on the screen, but aircraft closer together than this will appear as one. Radar operators (i.e., air traffic controllers) are the only people who are aware of what aircraft are presently in the sky and where they are going. The vast majority of people are completely unaware of such details and, when an aircraft passes overhead, can usually not tell one type from another, let alone what airline or aviation company may own it. This observation, while something of a commonplace, has important implications. If an organization wishes to substitute one aircraft for another without anyone knowing it, the only people it has to deceive are the air traffic controllers.

In other words, as soon as two aircraft get within 2000 feet of one another, there would be a tendency for their respective blips to merge. With a smaller separation, the two aircraft could easily appear as one.
Of course, two aircraft that are that close together run a certain risk of collision – unless they are at different altitudes. Radar screens are two-dimensional in that they represent airspace in the same way as a map does, with the vertical dimension of altitude suppressed.

Every commercial passenger jet carries a transponder, a device that emits a special radio message whenever it senses an incoming radar wave. The signal carries the transponder code that appears on ATC screens as a “data tag,” a small four-line block of text that appears on the controller’s screen, as in the following example:
UAL 93 375 309 NWA LAX 884 FE 3
flight identifier altitude (100s of feet) & airspeed (knots) origin and destination airports other data
The purpose of the code is to make it clear to ATC operators which plane is which. Other information sent by the transponder includes the altitude at which the aircraft is flying. Transponders were implemented many years ago precisely

for the reason that radar blips are otherwise easily confused. Transponders make the controller’s job much easier. (WIKI 2008)

The pilot of an airliner can turn the transponder on or off in the cockpit. He or she can also change the code by keying in new numbers. It takes a pilot less than a minute to key in a new code — or less than a second to turn the unit off. Without a displayed altitude number, it is impossible for a radar operator to tell whether two merged blips represent a potential collision or not. The data tag is displayed if an aircraft’s transponder is turned on, otherwise, the radar operator has no idea of the altitude at which an aircraft happens to be flying.

If one aircraft happens to be within half a kilometer of another, above it, below it, or even slightly behind or ahead of it, the radar operator will see only one aircraft, as long as the two maintain a horizontal (plan view) separation that is no greater than 2000 feet.

Imagine now two aircraft, both headed for the same approximate point on the radar screen, both with their transponders turned off. One is well above the other but, as the blips merge, both planes swerve, each taking the other’s former direction. The operator would simply see the aircraft cross and would have no way of realizing that a swap had taken place. This could be called an “X-swap,” since the maneuver is intended to make a radar operator think that the two flight paths had actually crossed each other.

There are many other swapping patterns available. For example, one plane could apparently catch up and “pass” another when, in fact, it slowed after the blips merged, even as the other speeded up. Such a swap could be called an “I-swap,” since all the action takes place along a straight line.

Another method involves the replacement aircraft climbing out of a valley where it would be invisible to distant radars, even as the other aircraft descended into the valley. Again, a radar operator would see a more or less seamless flight without realizing that he or she had been momentarily seeing not one, but two aircraft on the radar screen.

Of course, if the transponders are turned on, such confusion is unlikely to occur. Even in this case, however, the deception can be complete if the aircraft switch transponder codes.

Finally, in a few parts of the United States there are areas termed radar “blind spots” because, owing to topography, radar coverage is poor to nonexistent. In such areas swaps may be made far more easily. One such area exists in southwestern New York state.

NewAgeMan

You do know that plane swaps ARE possible on radar, right?

Lots of things are POSSIBLE.

how about finding some evidence - credible is good, verifiable is better - that it DID happen?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I'm well aware of how radar works, I wrote a very long thread about it shortly after 9/11. Yes, radar swaps are possible, and they happen, but where's the evidence that they happened on this day, as well as the evidence that the plane landed, and the passengers were dealt with?

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

I'm well aware of how radar works, I wrote a very long thread about it shortly after 9/11. Yes, radar swaps are possible, and they happen, but where's the evidence that they happened on this day, as well as the evidence that the plane landed, and the passengers were dealt with?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff once recommended just such a thing, not only to suggest that it's possible, but previously considered, at the highest level, although Kennedy was outraged and replaced one of those Generals if I'm not mistaken, while threatening to break the CIA into a million pieces, and it might have been in that context (CIA talk), he was so outraged and disgusted by the plan/plot. We all know it as "Operation Northwoods" (pdf).
It's the kind of thing they "do" and were certainly willing to do at one point.

And they DID have the War Games Operations under way that very day, something that we have yet to cover in this thread, but have made mention of repeatedly. Let's not forget the War Games, in the context of potential radar swapping, and there were many of them all running that day all or many of which could have been involved, tangentially. The day that just so happened to coincide with the unknown hijackers flying planes into buildings, scenario, that the known hijackers were doing just that, as per plan - what if they were followed? All evidence seems to indicate that they were and it was known what they were doing and even when, to the day. Same day as the war games. "The Big Wedding" it was called by the hijackers, a little factoid that Cheney was angry made it into the public record. Sounds like a Philip D. Zelikow wet dream if you ask me.

So while I haven't and cannot prove that one happened in terms of capturing the moment one plane crossed paths with another, the opportunity, and by precedent the willingness to employ a plane swapping scenario (radar swap), as a false flag pretext for waging war, in this case by far more complex by many orders of magnitude, makes it something that's doable, something that's plausible - so we have the motive, the means, the opportunity, and the willingness.., and for that - all we need do is look to the words of people like Philip D. Zelikow and Richard Cheney, like a prophecy foretold, and the eventuality, like an magic act of their will, along with everything that's ensued in the wake of 9/11 including the excessive intelligence gathering..(domestic spying) so in other words, to this very day, by extension, the crap they're giving us in their great "power grab" is all of it based on a monstrous hoax of the very worst kind, all in the name of BLAH. (sick of saying it)

"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it.

Such An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.

Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after."

Philip D. Zelikow

While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experience generation passes from the scene."

In Rise of the Vulcans (Viking, 2004), James Mann reports that when Richard Haass, a senior aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and the director of policy planning at the State Department, drafted for the administration an overview of America’s national security strategy following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dr. Rice, the national security advisor, "ordered that the document be completely rewritten. She thought the Bush administration needed something bolder, something that would represent a more dramatic break with the ideas of the past. Rice turned the writing over to her old colleague, University of Virginia Professor Philip Zelikow." This document, issued on September 17, 2002, is generally recognized as a significant document in the War on Terrorism.

en.wikipedia.org...

How did he know?

And it's all just been crap, all garbage the whole power grab, disgusting and ridiculous, and unnecessary, all of it justified by one thing, 9/11.

What happened to the originating "hijacked" aircraft I cannot say, only that we're not looking at flight 175 when we look at the south tower plane, and I'll be a monkey's uncle if that thing isn't a 300 and not a 767-200 or 222 (same diff.. more on that later).

Can I prove that a plane swap occurred on that day?

Only if it CAN be proven that that plane observed flying into the south tower of the WTC on September 11th, 2001 was not and could not have been flight 175, N612UA. Which it can. In more ways than one, (the plane was a 300..#!)

Then it could be proven, yes. By logical inference from fact.

It would also prove that the plane was remotely piloted. - if it can't have been N612UA, flight 175.

It, what we've looking at here, would then be the evidence that they (swaps) happened on that day. Yes.
This is the evidence we're looking at, which could very well prove it, and may have already, by any reasonable doubt. Plane swapping.

We'll see.. interesting thread though eh? Gives new meaning to "the hoax bin" doesn't it? LOL
This is not the real hoax though, it is, the 9/11 event itself, as it actually occurred, in reality.
"The Gaul" is mistaken, because I am fully committed to the truth and reality of it, with no deception.
I love the fact that we have a whole selection of near Mach events to choose from - some day this will offer the makings of a truly epic thread.

Aloysius the Gaul

NewAgeMan

You do know that plane swaps ARE possible on radar, right?

Lots of things are POSSIBLE.

Ok then - how be for now we give each other the benefit of the doubt and you give me the possibility for plane swapping and radar swaps, and I'll give you the alleged north tower plane hijacker's passport as the only thing from the plane, of any kind, to exit the north tower, and somehow ,on a clear sunny day with very light winds to the N/W, fly, or flutter I should say, well, quite a longgg way away (haven't fully investigated it yet to be honesst) for a fairly weighty (and indestructible?) passport on an almost windless day, let's just put it that way. I'll let that go. Won't even look into it, be like Schultz on Hogan's Heroes - I SEE NOTHING!

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

I haven't seen anything that proves it wasn't. You haven't proven anything. Your premise is that they used raw engine power, which they didn't. There is no reason that the plane couldn't have dove down, under control, at that speed and impacted the building. What you call "fighter type moves" are nothing that any commercial plane couldn't do quite easily, and would have put almost no stress on the airframe.

I'm not the one who has hung my hat on that, it's you, in your insistence that all the speed during level flight was gained only during the dive, prior to level flight. But in that case, what do you make of this?

"During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6,000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's descent to 1000 feet, it accelerated and impacted World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.

Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175 (pdf)

It should be noted here that at about Sea level, groundspeed is only effected by windspeed as a seperate vector, which could reduce the airspeed but in this case, because the winds were light and to the N/W, the airspeed would be closer to 515knots, or just slightly faster than groundspeed.

So after a dive, from 12,000 feet, down to ultimately 1000 feet, it remained somewhere between 500 - 520 knots, and as it began to level off at the lower altitude, to maintain a speed of 510 knots, it accelerated. And that's what a lower altitude would require, to maintain a speed during level flight, as observed, at 510 knots, but that speed is beyond engine capacity at that altitude as you know, therefore how could it accelerate at 1000 feet through 700 ft, on final approach to target, after coming out of such a speedy dive, while exceeding the Vd limit of 420 knots, not by one or two knots or five or ten knots, but NINETY knots, over the Vd limit whereby 425 EAS is the equivalent of .99 - Mach 1.00 @ 22,000 feet.

I'm not even talking about controlled flight here..

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

You have to prove that it couldn't have dove down and reached that speed. Which you haven't, and can't. If a plane can dive down, and remain under perfect control and reach Mach 1, there is absolutely no reason why 175 couldn't have done it.

Zaphod58
They climbed to 52,000 feet, where they put it (the DC-8) into a half G pushover (a dive no steeper than 175 performed, and possible not as steep), at 45,000 feet, while in perfect control, the aircraft reached Mach 1.01 for 16 seconds. They were able to recover at 35,000 feet, with no damage to the aircraft.

Equivalent Airspeed of south tower plane:

510 knots (9/11 Commission Report, NTSB confirmed by radar data) = 575-600mph, with independant observation for groundspeed calculations using building distances with approaching aircraft = 586mph.

= 1.38 Mach @ 35,000 feet or 915 knots

= 1.19 Mach @ 22,000 feet or 722 knots

Zaphod58

The maximums set by Boeing are also below the absolute maximum that the aircraft can handle. They always build a safety feature into the aircraft. Just because it's set to 420 knots, that doesn't mean that the aircraft will hit 421 knots and suddenly fly apart.

Vd is 420 knots (EAS) for the 767 (you'll note in the video below that the aircraft starts to shake and vibrate when it reaches or begins to exceed the Vd limit)

"UA175" exceed that speed by 90 more knots, at sea level. That's rather more than on or two or five or ten knots, or 40 knots, or 60 knots. It's way way way out there, by margins far exceeding your best examples even by orders of magnitude when we do consider, as we must, the equivalent airspeed.

The dive speed (Vd) is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.

theflyingengineer.com...

In that video, for the Airbus380 flutter test, they descended in a steady dive from 38,000 feet aiming for a Vd of Mach .96 (it's a big plane with lots of surface area) which to certify required some major modifications.

The south tower plane, according to you, would be able to exceed Mach 1.39 to Mach 1.4 when descending from the same height of 38,000 feet.. for an EAS of 510 knots, at sea level.

To put this into perspective in regards to the airspeed magnitude by which the south tower plane is/was observed exceeding the Vd limit as set by first wind tunnel then flight testing, just like with the Airbus380..

Vd is 420 knots for the Boeing 767 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing.

Here are those limitations, from Boeing...

(pfd) rgl.faa.gov...$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf

Vd explained
theflyingengineer.com...

At EAS (Sea Level), over test Vd - let's take a look at the range, beyond Vd for the Boeing 767, and we'll do it in full 5 knot increments, which is fair, since we're already at and beginning to exceed the threshold limit for structural failure, and small increments at that point can have grave effects, as the flight testers experienced with the Airbus A320 in the video contained in that link above.

420 (Vd limit, by stress/flutter testing)

425 (which is .99 - Mach 1.0 equivalent airspeed and pressure at higher altitude of 22,000 feet - which is about the threshold from all those examples of near or just over Mach flight, while surviving, and this is very conservative, because such dives are mostly done from much higher altitudes as per your DC-8 ref cited above in which case an EAS of 425 represents an even higher Mach # up around 35,000 - 52,000 ft, well exceeding Mach 1.0 ++)

430

435

440

445

450

455

460

465

470

475

480

485

490

495

500

505

510 knots.

A note on EAS or equivalent airspeed:

Zaphod58

Equivalent Airspeed doesn't mean anything. The airspeed that was recorded is the airspeed the aircraft was flying at, at the time of impact. THAT is what matters, not what airspeed it might have been flying at 40,000 feet.

I think that's being a little tricky and deceptive on your part Zaphod, you know it matters and is significant, even citing your DC-8 at high altitude reflects the same principal.


EAS is sea level airspeed. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS. EAS is defined as:

EAS is the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as a True Airspeed at higher altitudes. It is used for determining aircraft performance, structural integrity.. .etc. The Vd limit is expressed in in EAS.

The air is thinner at higher altitudes so the aircraft will need to go faster to match the amount of air hitting the airframe at low altitudes, in thick air.

In other words, to be more specific, 510 knots at sea level (EAS) would produce the same dynamic pressure as 722 knots True Airspeed (TAS) at 22,000 feet.

Thus an EAS of 510 knots = 722 knots or Mach 1.19, at 22,000 feet, and at still higher altitude, 915 knots or 1.38 Mach, at 35,000 feet.


510 knots is the airspeed claimed for "UA175".

So, dearest reader, consider that those who believe a standard 767 can fly at 510 knots near sea level and remain stable/controllable, MUST also accept that the same airplane can fly in a controlled fashion, even in a dive at 722 knots at 22,000 feet... or Mach 1.19, and 915 knots at 35,000 feet...or Mach 1.38 heading for 1.39 or 1.4 at 38,000 ft. It's absurd.

Therefore, let's take another look at all those precedents for compare, which ones survived, which ones narrowly survived, and which broke apart - at what speed and what altitude. I'll bet not one not even China 006 one which exceeded Mach at much higher altitude, will compare to the STP (south tower plane, I just can't bring myself to call it flight 175 in light of this data, never mind piloted by a Saudi hijacker no more better trained or skilled than the likes of Hani Hanjour.

So we can keep on pushing this envelope, but it'll push the pilot and the possibility of flight control right out of the cockpit, even as a possibility, because as I've successfully shown here it's way way WAYYYYYYY out there in the domain of unbelievable nonsense and absurdity - to then try to place one of these hijackers at the helm is just beyond absurd.

Say what you want but I'm not sure the reader will believe you "the Gaul" and "Zaphod58", because you seem to have an agenda here and I'm just trying to get to the truth and the reality, including strong, incontrovertible evidence, that the twin towers were brought down by a high precision-engineered CD and not as a result of the plane strikes and fires.


Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan


They used engine power to keep the aircraft under control during their dive, then pushed the throttles forward at the end of it to accelerate. Easy enough.

And you have absolute proof that it was a 300, and not a 222 right? And absolute proof that they swapped the planes on radar right? And proof of ANY of your claims, right?

NewAgeMan
Vd is 420 knots (EAS) for the 767 (you'll note in the video below that the aircraft starts to shake and vibrate when it reaches or begins to exceed the Vd limit)

Ok, so it starts to shake. That doesn't mean that it's going to suddenly fly apart because it's over the Vd limit. Aircraft have safey margins built into them, that they can exceed by a lot if done right. The Mach 1 DC-8 was so far past its speed limits that it wasn't even funny, and it didn't even suffer damage, let alone fly apart.

China 006, which never went supersonic, pulled more Gs than any commercial aircraft was designed to take, and didn't come apart, except for some tailplane damage. It was repaired and returned to service and flew many more years.

Now suddenly, the 767 is so terribly fragile, that flying in excess of its Vd speed is going to cause it to fly apart into pieces, unless it's been hugely modified to be able to do it.

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

They used engine power to keep the aircraft under control during their dive, then pushed the throttles forward at the end of it to accelerate. Easy enough.

Up until now, you've been maintaining over and over again that all speed was accrued during the dive and that the plane's engines would not be capable of self propulsion or acceleration at that speed (510 knots) and altitude (700 ft or sea level).

More research needed to see how fast a Boeing can fly by self propulsion, whether at sea level or high altitude.

You seem to be forgetting again about EAS, and the thicker air whereby at 30,000 feet the atmosphere is 1/3 the thickness of atmosphere at 700 feet, so I guess you're saying that the engine propulsion of a Boeing 767 is capable of supersonic flight at higher altitude..?, but then we have this

The dive speed (Vd) is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake.

theflyingengineer.com...

Again the dive speed limit or Vd for the Boeing 767 is 420 knots (EAS), in a DIVE.

So how is it that you're now saying, contrary to your statements throughout this thread (may have to go find them) that the engines could propel and accelerate the aircraft, when travelling at 510 knots + (with windspeed factored into the airspeed) as a simple matter of just "pushing the throttle forward" at the end of the dive where "engine power kept the aircraft under control during the dive"...

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that in level flight the engines couldn't push the plane up to over 500 knots (which apparently I'm wrong on, see below). In a dive the engines could be used to control the speed of the dive, and then be used to accelerate the aircraft at the end of the dive. The dive plays a huge role in the acceleration as well.

However, further research seems to indicate that Vd wouldn't play a role in this case. Vd is for use when the dive is beyond a certain point nose low. The dive that 175 was in was very shallow, and wouldn't have passed that point, so Vd wouldn't have come into play.

And oh...look here. It seems your premise has been tested in a Boeing 767-300 simulator, and proven to be horribly wrong.

The simulator used was built using flight test data from the testing program of the 767-200/300, actual data from flight recorders, and observed flight performance. Pilots that fly both the -200 and -300 were asked how accurate it was, and all agreed that it is dead on as far as performance goes.

The actual test placed a 767-300 (the 200 has less power, but is shorter and lighter so the thrust to weight is roughly the same), 2,000 feet above Sydney, Australia (so they didn't "hit" anything if he lost control). The weight was set to 286,000 pounds, which was the best approximation of the weight that day for both American 11, and United 175. In straight and level flight, using nothing but engine power, the aircraft reached 654 mph, or Mach 0.86, the rated limit for the airframe. There were no problems with controllability, and no problems whatsoever reaching that speed. In fact, he said he was surprised at how easy it was to maintain attitude once it was trimmed out.

He then took the aircraft to 10,000 feet and placed it into a 5 degree dive down to 2,000 feet. It quite easily maintained Mach 0.89 with no problems, and he said he was surprised at how easy it was for a non-pilot.

The idea of using a Full Flight Simulator accredited by the FAA or relevant authority to test the maximum attainable speed for a Boeing 767-200 is only possible if you have the thousands of dollars it costs to hire such or access to one through your vocation. Well it just so happens that during my training in Sydney I worked in our Simulator Centre as a technician where Australian 767 pilots are trained and certified. The simulators are extremely busy and it is difficult to get access during the day or evening. On the 29th of April, after I had completed my work for the night shift, I drove to the Simulator Facilities at our Flight Training Centre at the Jet Base. I rang the nightshift maintenance staff and gained access to the building at just after 3am on the 29th of April 2009. Being licensed on the 767 and familiar with the facilities, I asked if I might access the simulator under the supervision of the technician on duty, Daniel Gazdoc. He agreed to help and I explained what I wanted to do and why.

We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered 767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test. I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed.

Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name.

After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series Boeing 767.

911blogger.com...

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You should call your theory the IF theory it's a collection of if's, if the the government did this, if the aircraft manufacturers did that, if this happened, if that happened.

Seriously you really need to count the number of if's to make it true!!!

reply to post by Zaphod58


Looking into this claim made by John Bursill..

From what I've discovered so far, he's not a pilot at all but an "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer" or an avionics technician, and that he pulled the circuit breaker for the overspeed warnings which disabled the crash logic of the simulator, although this needs further verification, imo. It's also based on nothing but his, Bursill's word alone, as someone who also appears to have been hell bent on attacking the information presented by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in the video "World Trade Center Attack" as part of some strange 9/11 truth movement debate-war involving the absurd claims by some about "no planes", something the pilots for 9/11 truth make no such claim about suggesting instead that the actual planes involved must have been modified aircraft as the standard 767 would not be capable of such speed at sea level altitude with controlled flight and directional maneuvering.

He (Bursill) also makes a claim that the hijackers probably used CWS (Control Wheel Steering) to pilot to targets, a system which was no longer in use on 9-11-2001.

Furthermore, cockpit simulators are not meant to test aircraft performance outside the envelope of the aircraft. Again, this is what wind tunnels and flight testing are for...

To understand Flight Testing during certification out to the aircraft Vd... again, read the article and watch the video on the bottom of the page, here
theflyingengineer.com...

Here's something I found at another forum dealing with this:

John Lear (son of LearJet founder) tried to write Quantas to see how their simulators are certified and if they have crash logic enabled. Bursill cried that Lear was trying to get him fired. Lear was doing no such thing. He just wanted more information. So, no, we do not have confirmation that the crash logic was disabled, but it is obvious that it was, or Bursill would have seen a red screen and the sim would have froze, as does every other sim with crash logic, at 30 knots past Vmo. Even Microsoft Flight Simulator X has crash logic under "real" settings.

Bursill was debunked just by manufacturer limitations alone, which are based on wind tunnel and flight testing. He ignores the low altitude limitations at sea level and thinks the high altitude limitations apply for all altitudes ie: .86M at high altitude = 360 knots at sea level. He is wrong and EAS calculations prove it.

It wasn't "real world" either, such as those other fine examples of high altitude near Mach 1 level excursions, like that of the DC-8 and China 006 examples, among others.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Wow you really don't know anything about aviation do you.

No, he's not a pilot, which is his point. He had no problem controlling the plane, as a non-pilot in the simulator, at speeds that you claim would be uncontrollable.

Overspeed warnings have nothing to do with the crash logic of the simulator or the simulator itself. The circuit breaker simply keeps the warning from sounding inside the cockpit (which is exactly what the simulator is, a real cockpit mounted on a movable axis). Otherwise they would be listening to the warning from the time he crossed the safety threshold.

Cockpit simulators are designed to fly exactly like the real aircraft, otherwise what is the point of a simulator? They are programmed to do everything that a real aircraft can do, and react to input exactly like the real aircraft would. Simulators have been used in flight testing by manufacturers for years. The flight crew of the 787 had flown in the simulator for hundreds of hours before they even started an engine on the 787, and after the flight said the aircraft was 100% the same as the simulator in every single way.

He wasn't debunked by manufacturer numbers at all. Boeing says that the 767 will fly at 0.86 Mach, which is what it flew at in the simulator.

EAS doesn't prove anything. You're saying that airspeed at 34,000 feet is the same as airspeed at 2,000 feet and it's not. You're so blinded by EAS and Vd that you can't see the forest for the trees.

From the link you provided:

Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent),

There was nothing steep about the dive that 175 performed at all. It didn't even look like it was five degrees, which wouldn't have brought Vd into play.

Zaphod58

He wasn't debunked by manufacturer numbers at all. Boeing says that the 767 will fly at 0.86 Mach, which is what it flew at in the simulator.

EAS doesn't prove anything. You're saying that airspeed at 34,000 feet is the same as airspeed at 2,000 feet and it's not.

I never said any such thing, that it's the same and that's the point, because the air at high altitude is much thinner, thus equivalent airspeed to factor in the difference between high and low altitude.

When Boeing indicates a top operational speed limit of .86 Mach, that's at altitude, where the equivalent airspeed limit, is 360 knots, at Sea Level.

As to Vd, that's a structural speed limit, which they can only reach in a dive for reasons already explained, and it's measured in EAS. It's the point beyond which there is a likelihood of structural failure, as presented already. It's a speed limit, not the measure of the angle of a dive, which is so high that it can only be reached in a dive as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. So it applies regardless of dive angle.

And as to Bursill's alleged jaunt in the simulator bear in mind there is no evidence that he even went into the sim or that such a test ever took place. There is no video, just his word nothing more, and he seems to assume, as you do, that the .86 Mach speed limit applies at any altitude, which it doesn't.

You're starting to make this up as you go, like how you changed your tune about the engines ability to generate sufficient thrust at level altitude, post dive, to maintain 510 knots. It's knowingly deceptive, or at least that's the way it appears.

I don't bandy myself about as an aviation expert - you do, but you're all over the map much moreso than you're trying to pin on me.

You are appearing in fact to be a little shrill and completely undisciplined in your protestations.

I'm going to use your DC-8 precedent to show you what EAS really means as it relates to Vd, and then do a comparison with the south tower plane flying at 510 knots at 700 ft alt. or sea level, and you'll see that you've flown off the handle here with John Bursill's claim. Surely you can find a better example, which you provided with the DC-8 as to how fast a plane can go without breaking apart, and then we'll use the best example for a 767 which we ought to be able to find in "the Gaul's" examples that he brought forward, but Bursill's claim can't be validated and it isn't real world, and it's quite possible that he may very well have overridden the crash logic of the simulator. Like you he thought that the .86 Mach speed limit applies equally at all altitudes, which is absurd right out of the gate, but you don't seem to realize that when you state repeatedly that "EAS is irrelevant".

I don't think you're even committed to the truth or discovering it, that all you're concerned with is trying to bolster and cling to a story that on the face of it in so many ways, including evidence of CD of the towers, just isn't credible or believable, including this plane's speed at sea level. You make it seem like it's nothing, a walk in the park, but there are a number of very credible pilots who vehemently disagree with you, including two or three who've actually flown the alleged aircraft involved on 9/11. Forgive me if I take their word over yours, and John Bursill's who think's he owns the 9/11 truth movement over at 9/11blogger.

Just like you, Bursill ignored and is still ignoring the reasons Boeing assigned a speed limit of 360 knots at sea level, as the EAS for .86 Mach, at altitude, and a Vd or structural limit of 420 knots at Sea Level, which is bordering on .98-.99 Mach at an altitude of 22,000 feet, so it makes sense that that's it's outer structural limit, as evidenced by all the other real world cases who've approached or barely managed to reach the sound barrier, at altitude. Can't you see that? Not.

NewAgeMan
You're starting to make this up as you go, like how you changed your tune about the engines ability to generate sufficient thrust at level altitude, post dive, to maintain 510 knots. It's knowingly deceptive, or at least that's the way it appears.

I never changed my tune about the engines. I said all along that the speed was achieved in the dive, and said that the engines were used to control the speed in the dive, then used to generate the last bit of speed in the dive. I also said that the speed didn't have time to bleed off after they leveled off, because they impacted almost immediately after they leveled off.

You on the other hand still have to prove that Vd or any other speed is absolutely unsurpassable, and that the plane will instantly fly apart if it's surpassed.

You also ignore the link where Airbus said "generally in a steep dive", which means that dive angle absolutely does matter.

reply to post by Zaphod58


90 knots over Vd of 420, where 425 = .99 Mach at altitude. NINETY.

So I'm not saying that one knot over Vd and it will instantly fly apart, or even 5 knots, as the EAS equivalent of higher altitude Mach 1.0, is approached.

NewAgeMan

Wrabbit2000

Those planes did take off. If those were not the same aircraft crashing.....?

..they must have swapped in a gap in the radar coverage and/or crossed over with the originating flight(s).

That's why I also included the "Flight of the Bumble Planes" link to give you an idea as to how it must have taken place, once we have deduced that the buildings were demolished from the top down, starting at around the level of impact and descending in an explosive debris wave all the way to the ground to within a mere few seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air alone.

That's the part of this puzzle that you seem to be missing, as the fundamental premise for this explanatory hypothesis.

What they used was a false play on the Occam's Razor postulate by which to bring off their evil genius plan and operation, but it doesn't really slice in favor of the official story when the actual phenomenon and occurrence of the destruction of the buildings is factored into the overall analysis.

Regards,

NAM

I would like to add here that the CD of the buildings stands alone, as evidence that 9/11 is by no means the way it was presented, thus making the planes suspect.

However, since the backward causation of events, if CD must be accepted is true, which it is as far as I can tell no matter how I look at it, or time it with a stopwatch, then as an operational objective, it would only make sense that they would use radar and plane swapping, to realize the objective as there are just too many unpredictable and unknown variables in the hijacking and successful piloting to the buildings, hitting at just the right levels to "sell" that idea that the building hit second, because it was hit lower, fell first, before the other building did the same thing, from the 95 floor all the way down, again, to within about 4-6 seconds of absolute free fall in nothing but air alone. It's absurd. Every weld and joint, all along the remaining structure, would have to break apart where the laws of motion and conservation of momentum apply, at or above the speed of sound (of all things), but that's about the right analogy, absent the use of explosives or the foot of God, since the only different there, between nothing at all (but air) and the remainder of the building, as steel - is that very difference in time. 4-6 seconds.

Can I FIND the radar swapping possibly including a transponder ID swap (if one turned off then on again - will see..)?

Maybe. Because if the model holds up it would be out there somewhere in the overall radar data for the region. And it probably coincides in some way with this little series of events and synchronicities. It's not impossible that such a swapping point could be idenitified, with returns intersecting in the rather interesting ways, as if seeking out X's or "I"'s as they are sometimes called in terms of radar swaps. It would be interesting to see if the radar data might actually support such a possibility.. looking into it, requires further and deeper research, but I'll if there are any candidate events for which it could be possible, then based on all other data and phenomenon in evidence, that it would be probable, that that's the point in the radar data where the planes gravitated to a certain point and then crossed over. It's well worth looking for let's just put it that way and a good point of further research. The model dictates that there may be one lurking in the radar data with the other flights flying around also. Do they do anything funny looking? I find the following depiction rather interesting anyway, as a starting point in looking for those other data points with further research and analysis.

(large size for reading the text) 911anomalies.files.wordpress.com...

9/11 Flight Paths

edit, never mind, for now..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


And other aircraft have flown at 0.99 Mach, including several 747s. Just as they have flown past other limits and survived. Until you can prove it couldn't possibly do it under any conditions you can't prove it was swapped for another plane.