cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Advisor

The supreme expert speaks !!

  Well well a Cessna 172 pilot thinks he could get behind the controls of a huge fully loaded jumbo jet for the first time and hit the towers at full throttle !!!!!!  That proves your conspiracy theory beyond any doubt !!!

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: The supreme expert speaks !!

How bout it John, could you drive your AMC Pacer into a silo?  Smiley Happy    Seriously, I wish Jim Meade would weigh in on this.  Problem is he can`t stand you guy`s  G*d  d*mn  f*ckin swearin`, so we probably won`t hear from him.

Highlighted
Advisor

30 degrees flaps traveling over V-Max- Really ??

   Do you understand what V-Max is ? The Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. 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.

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: 30 degrees flaps traveling over V-Max- Really ??

Going those speeds no flaps were used.  If those speeds were determined through radar they must be correct. There was witnesses and video of the planes hitting, the planes can be pushed beyond what limits they were tested for ..just one time of course.   What are your other options? Mass hypnosis?  Photo shopped video? (maybe they should have been hired to do Obama`s latest birth cert Smiley Happy)   I mean what else the planes came unglued before hitting and a F-18 fired a tomahawk to finish the job?

Highlighted
Advisor

It's way over your head !

   The aircraft were traveling beyond their maximum speed and made a banking turn before lining up to hit the towers, this would be like you driving your truck around a corner at 150 miles an hour and hitting a silo.

    Here is a opinion from someone you won't be able to respect, being a fathead blowhard, but maybe Jim Meade would.-- 

 

   Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows: 

   A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability

Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?
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 

Highlighted
Advisor

It's difficult to listen when you think you know everything, Isn't it ??

  Yes when you wrote--"Considering the Arabs din`t give a crap about their passengers, I`m sure they did do some wild maneuvers.  After that give her 30° flaps, use your throttles for altitude and aim for the "verticle runway"...nothing supernatural about it.

  I knew you were blowing it out the normal place you get your knowledge, actually it's difficult to believe you even passed ground school.

 

 30 degrees flaps at maximum speed would rip the wings off destroy the airframe.  If you had listened to the first link I provided you would have known the speed, they were talking about the probability of student pilots making that banking maneuver and striking their target.

 

 

 


Highlighted

video of first tower strike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wd6ZgWq5gA

 

Not arguing this proves anything, just interesting.

Highlighted

Re: It's difficult to listen when you think you know everything, Isn't it ??

Lots of troubling questions there but you are arguing the tougher case.

 

It is certain that a guy who couldn't land a Cessna could not execute the sharp corkscrew descent into the Pentagon. Therefore the 9/11 commission findings were at best based on the need to produce a story and not an investigation at all.

 

The planes/no planes debate is immaterial and a distraction. There needs to be an investigation because the official explanation is not accurate. If it was a highly trained pilot, fine, we need to know that and what the whole story is.

 

Or maybe Allah really did want to strike the infidels.

 

Further, the failure of the air defense system on that day has never been investigated. Stand down, no stand down? Nobody ever gave a straight answer to that. And if there was a stand down then someone in the US chain of command is potentially guilty of the greatest treason since Benedict Arnold.

 

Or alternately, if it was merely incompetence then you would have seen the biggest court martial show trial since Admiral Kimmel and Pearl Harbor.

 

And of course the fact that one plane didn't make it to a destination but 7 hours later a fourth building was destroyed by explosive demolition is like, duh-oh.

 

 

Honored Advisor

Re: video of first tower strike

See now Nox,  that`s the video I recall seeing.  I`m no expert but just eyeballing that plane`s speed it seems that an 200 mph Indy car would be booking almost as fast.   Videos can be deceiving, it just doesn`t look 500mphish, the witnesses said it seemed to "slow down to line up".   Not to feed more into the story but assuming the pilots were really incompetent, is it possible that the real `Top Guns` seeking 70 virgins, took the identity of the flunkies at the last moment when it was shown that they weren`t ready?

Highlighted
Advisor

Not arguing no planes, just the difficulty

  I wrote several times it is highly unlikely that student pilots were able to accomplish the hits and is enough all in itself to justify questioning the government's conspiracy theory.   It is certainly a great deal more difficult to take control of these aircraft and make the maneuvers after navigating hundreds of miles the first time behind the controls.  

 

  There are a number of other improbable things that had to happen to make the student pilots so successful and begs questions and answers.   Three buildings collapsing into their footprint is also highly unlikely, for only one other instance.   I find the opinions of groups like Pilots for 9-11 Truth, etc. to trump the by golly and by gosh remarks of kids and blowhards.