Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ United 175 _ Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 2 2009, 04:20 PM

Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed

For Immediate Release

(http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed) - 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 "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf" 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.

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.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

[1] http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed, http://www.csgnetwork.com/machonecalc.html (Equivalent Airspeed and Mach One Calculator to convert Mach into True Airspeed based on altitude/temp and then into Equivalent Airspeed)
[2] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/instruments/q0251.shtml

Posted by: SKYDRIFTER Nov 2 2009, 08:57 PM

Boeing hasn't used wind tunnels in decades. What is needed is the demonstrated certification data for the 767. Specifically the dive stability limit speed. That speed will indicate the controlability of the aircraft at a specific speed - within reason. The speed factor has no meaning, besides exposing another lie. The planes hit the buildings; controlled demolition brought down three buildings (including WTC-7).

We know that all the official offices were lying from beginning to end. The only appreciable truth that I've discovered, so far, is that the two airplanes hit the tower on the first try. That took the hands of skilled jet pilots.

After that, it's an exercise in "Eliminate the impossible..."

The only particularly compelling issue is the fate of the other two planes; they didn't crash; that's for damned sure.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 2 2009, 10:32 PM

QUOTE (SKYDRIFTER @ Nov 2 2009, 08:57 PM) *
Boeing hasn't used wind tunnels in decades.


"The original 767-200 first entered into airline service in 1982" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767


2009 - 1982 = almost 3 decades. smile.gif

In other words, the 767 design underwent wind tunnel testing.

Also...

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2003-06-16-Wind-Tunnel-Testing-Under-Way-for-Boeing-7E7 - June 2003

"On the 767 program, we performed wind-tunnel tests with more than 50 different wing configurations," said Mike Bair, senior vice president of the 7E7 program. "On this program, we likely will test no more than a dozen."


You may want to check your sources SKYDRIFTER. Boeing still uses wind tunnels.

QUOTE
What is needed is the demonstrated certification data for the 767. Specifically the dive stability limit speed. That speed will indicate the controlability of the aircraft at a specific speed - within reason. The speed factor has no meaning, besides exposing another lie.


Agreed. And we have it. See A1NM Supplemental Type Certificate for the 767. VD is 420 Knots for the 767. It's all covered in the presentation.

QUOTE
The planes hit the buildings;


This is not disputed. What is disputed is if the aircraft were stock, 767's. According to EA990, they were not.

QUOTE
controlled demolition brought down three buildings (including WTC-7).


Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not have expertise in building design. For such issues, we defer to Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth.

QUOTE
We know that all the official offices were lying from beginning to end. The only appreciable truth that I've discovered, so far, is that the two airplanes hit the tower on the first try. That took the hands of skilled jet pilots.


Again, undisputed, and confirmed by those who have time in the actual aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. Both are featured interviews in our new presentation.

Posted by: SlackerSlayer Nov 3 2009, 02:10 AM

Paraphrased,

mod edit: quote tags, time and name removed.

'No 767s hit those towers at the officially claimed airspeed'

Would these claimed airspeeds be within the structural capabilities of the 737-400 series? From what I have seen of the two types, you could not tell the difference between a 767-200 or a 737-400, not in those videos so far released. If you examine the Boeing graphs for the two model types, there are basically three small differences in the profiles, ignoring overall size differences. Has anyone that has the back ground examined the relative size of the flights in question from the available videos? Could it be the smaller of the two models, two 737s that were used?


Radio talk host A.Jones released a video shortly after the attacks of peopel on the streets. This video had the voice of a woman clearly stating "that's not an American Airlines" (paraphrased real close if not the exact words used), but it was supposed to be the United flight flying over her. This always bugged me, why was the voice confusing the first plane for the second if she was supposed to be witnessing the second.

Far too much official obstruction of the crimes and too much mud from others to accept anything told by anyone. Which means Where Is That Grand Jury?




ps, the transponder signal went off because the remote recovery system uses that radio path for the remote pilots live flight data feed. Nice slow 'S' flight for "AA11". Atta do that uh?

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 3 2009, 02:21 AM

Slacker,


1. Please do not place quote tags, time and names around words never said by the person you claim to quote. If you are to 'paraphrase', there is obviously no time, name, or specific quote as a paraphrase is your opinion/interpretation of a specific statement. Please use discretion in your posting.

2. You are asking us to speculate. I'll let others answer regarding P4T speculation.

3. I disagree with your paraphrase. 767 have many different models, perhaps some which are classified?

Posted by: onesliceshort Nov 3 2009, 09:43 AM

Excellent job Rob,
Thanks for the layman wording.
Time to spread this info again.
It has always been a ┤muddy┤ area for me when discussing the ability for a 757 to
travel at such high speed at low altitude with detractors. They always ask for the ┤math┤
and claim that there are no prior examples to verify this. Now we have both smile.gif
Cheers big ears!

Posted by: diesel737 Nov 3 2009, 10:58 AM

Yes, highly skilled pilots indeed!

OR, I don't think we can rule out remote or automated precision control features such as laser guided, or a satellite based system similar to RNP airline style program.

Those speeds are complete crap. IF, they are real, there is no way any of those rookies could handle the stick.

My two cents.

Posted by: aerohead Nov 3 2009, 05:01 PM

Well in my opinion..........

Since we know the whole thing is a lie....... nothing is out of question
except that which can be proved and disproved with evidence and fact.

Precision Guidance could have easily been accomplished though any number
of technologies that have existed for many years. INS (IRS) guidance using ILS
receivers and transmitters to a predetermined GPS/FMC or Lazer designated location
and/or using instant live feed video and autopilot servo's as a means to hand fly it remotely
into the towers just like this......... in 1984

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


Or the UAV/Preditor program that was started in the 90's ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we9Rr8lE3L0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYnYEl4di94

And if there is still any doubt........
The QF-4 full scale, fully capable, remote fighter......also since the 1990's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xISpZYajveA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0MY03UtMls


ALL of which, require extensive modification and testing.

IMO, the speeds and maneuvers eliminate the original airframes and instead
insert "drone look-a-likes" capable of these excessive speeds and maneuvers
in the puzzle of the Twin Tower Impacts.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Nov 3 2009, 05:11 PM

QUOTE (aerohead @ Nov 1 2009, 09:01 PM) *
The QF-4 full scale, fully capable, remote fighter......also since the 1990's.

Back in the 1960s and 70s Sea Vixens and then Phantoms shot down remote control Meteors.

Then as the Sea Vixen was being withdrawn a drone programme was started based on them and it is that we have to thank for there being a surviving airworthy Sea Vixen XP924 (G-CVIX) that works around the airshow circuit. Was in Red-Bull colours for a few years.



No, its not using the Sea Harrier Ski-Jump!

Posted by: aerohead Nov 3 2009, 05:12 PM

BTW Rob,

Great job on the film. Very well made.
Your hard work is appreciated.

-Aero

Posted by: aerohead Nov 3 2009, 05:15 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Nov 3 2009, 05:11 PM)
Back in the 1960s and 70s Sea Vixens and then Phantoms shot down remote control Meteors.

Then as the Sea Vixen was being withdrawn a drone programme was started based on them and it is that we have to thank for there being a surviving airworthy Sea Vixen XP924 (G-CVIX) that works around the airshow circuit. Was in Red-Bull colours for a few years.



No, its not using the Sea Harrier Ski-Jump!



Thanks Omega,
Wow is that ugly tho ohmy.gif

haha

Posted by: Omega892R09 Nov 3 2009, 05:22 PM

QUOTE (aerohead @ Nov 1 2009, 08:15 PM) *
Thanks Omega,
Wow is that ugly tho ohmy.gif

haha

Only when you are spotting on the range and they come blasting in overhead loosing off 144 x RPs in ripple!

Otherewise they have a kinda beauty of their own.

I used to use a TAG line:

Hunter for elegance
Sea Vixen for pugnacity
Phantom for clout.

The Sea Vixen was my first front line a/c in 1966 and on HMS Victorious an old WW2 veteran but much modified by then.

Posted by: SKYDRIFTER Nov 3 2009, 05:38 PM

My apologies to everyone about the wind tunnel. I was apparently misinformed. I've taken a tour of one of the Boeing computer centers, where the data was strictly calculated. I can't recall where I got the apparently wrong information about the wind tunnels.

If you look to FAR Part 25, there are essentially two dive speeds, one is a minimum FAA certification requirement, the other is the flight test demonstrated speed.

Posted by: SlackerSlayer Nov 3 2009, 08:04 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 1 2009, 05:21 AM) *
Slacker,


1. Please do not place quote tags, time and names around words never said by the person you claim to quote. If you are to 'paraphrase', there is obviously no time, name, or specific quote as a paraphrase is your opinion/interpretation of a specific statement. Please use discretion in your posting.

2. You are asking us to speculate. I'll let others answer regarding P4T speculation.

3. I disagree with your paraphrase. 767 have many different models, perhaps some which are classified?


Sorry for the laymen English usage.


What is to speculate for those with the background in photo analysis to determine what the parameters are for those planes in the video. It is either the size of a 767 or the smaller 737. Maj. Stublebine please take over here?? Are those speed / flight parameters to high for the 737 air frame? I realize any single craft can be modified to take a rougher flight and survive, like those they take through hurricanes.

The line under my name, can you change it to 'less than a student pilot'? The closest I've been to being a pilot was that I had read every book on the flight of helicopters by the time I was in the eighth grade, that the San Diego Library system had to offer.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 4 2009, 04:40 PM

http://www.opednews.com/articles/9-11-Speeds-Reported-For-by-rob-balsamo-091102-795.html

Posted by: Omega892R09 Nov 4 2009, 05:21 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 07:40 PM) *
http://www.opednews.com/articles/9-11-Speeds-Reported-For-by-rob-balsamo-091102-795.html

That's great Rob.

How many hits does that site get I wonder?

Posted by: VirPil Sep 17 2011, 12:19 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 2 2009, 11:20 PM) *
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. ... 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. ... Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie.

Hi!

First of all, guys, you do a great job, but I have some remark to your calculations.

Well, 425 knots at sea level has equivalent dynamic pressure for 0.99M of EA990 at 22,000 feet, it's right. But EA990 was not destroyed by this speed and continued to fly more than two minutes. And I guess we should consider never exceed speed - 0.91M for 767, but not maximum operating speed, which is lesser.

And Russian Tu-154 in the 1995 year crash http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19951207-0 reached more than 540 knots at 2700 feet altitude http://www.airdisaster.ru/reports.php?id=13 (in Russian), despite that never exceed speed for this plane is 351 knots below 23,000 feet. Plane destroyed by impact into mountain, but not by air forces.

So it seems that aircrafts have some safety factor, and probably 767 can really reach 510 knots w/o beeing disintegrated.

Posted by: rob balsamo Sep 17 2011, 01:24 AM

QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 01:19 AM) *
Hi!

First of all, guys, you do a great job, but I have some remark to your calculations.

Well, 425 knots at sea level has equivalent dynamic pressure for 0.99M of EA990 at 22,000 feet, it's right. But EA990 was not destroyed by this speed and continued to fly more than two minutes.


Define "fly"?

The FDR stopped recording several seconds after recording .99 Mach. According to the NTSB, the FDR did not record any speed higher than .99 mach for EA990. This implies in flight structural failure. Sure, the aircraft kept "flying".... right into the ground with two distinct debris fields, as reported by the NTSB. EA990 came apart in flight. It's just that simple.


QUOTE
And Russian Tu-154 in the 1995 year crash http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19951207-0 reached more than 540 knots at 2700 feet altitude http://www.airdisaster.ru/reports.php?id=13 (in Russian), despite that never exceed speed for this plane is 351 knots below 23,000 feet. Plane destroyed by impact into mountain, but not by air forces.


From one of your links.

The aircraft was flying at 9600m when it suddenly banked right and entered a steep spiral dive.


9600m is nearly 31,500 feet.

Your other link is in Russian, However, please show us where it states 540 knots at 2700 ft altitude with an aircraft rated at 351 Vmo.

This may help.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airdisaster.ru%2Freports.php%3Fid%3D13

Be sure to also quote the Vd/Md of the Tu-154 and the Russian regulations for designating Vd/Md.

QUOTE
So it seems that aircrafts have some safety factor, and probably 767 can really reach 510 knots w/o beeing disintegrated.


The 767 is not Russian, nor designed by Russians. nor regulated by Russians during initial certification.

Secondly, the http://airlinergallery.nl/tu154bel.jpg is a virtual remake of the http://members.tripod.com/craigs_airlines/ua2_b727.jpg. Far from being a bulky http://www.luftfahrt.net/galerie/photos/2003/9/1045223880_N603UA_Boeing-767-222_United-Airlines.jpg. You are talking apples and oranges.

But hey, welcome to the forum! I look forward to your replies and participation.

Posted by: VirPil Sep 17 2011, 05:15 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
But hey, welcome to the forum!

Thanks, Rob!
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
I look forward to your replies and participation.

Here is it:
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
Define "fly"?
The FDR stopped recording several seconds after recording .99 Mach.

Well, indeed according to NTSB report http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2002/AAB0201.pdf
"At 0150:23, the airspeed reached its peak calculated value of 0.99 Mach ... the FDR recorded the last data for the accident flight at 0150:36.64, the pitch angle had increased to about 8║ nose down, and the airplane was experiencing about 2.4 Gs." FDR worked 23 sec. after reaching 0.99M, but report states "The primary radar returns indicated that the airplane then began to climb, reaching about 25,000 feet msl about 0151:15" I think we can call such climb for 3000 feet "fly", for sure in the case that radar data is reliable.
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
Your other link is in Russian, However, please show us where it states 540 knots at 2700 ft altitude with an aircraft rated at 351 Vmo.

OK, here is: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airdisaster.ru%2Freports.php%3Fid%3D13 But Google translation is quite obscure, see my remarks.

"Full-scale layout of the wing, its mechanization and control Sun As a result of the study (see "The findings of the expert study design elements destroyed the Tu-154 85 164 number") found that the destruction of a glider aircraft in flight was the mechanization of the wing and stabilizer were in the flight position. Chassis removed" - right translation is "there was not airframe destruction in the flight, high-lift devices stabilizer and were in flight position, gear up".

"In 17chas.08min. 21 sec. plane collided with a mountain slope in an inverted position with the angle of inclination of the trajectory on a dive at about 70 ░ at the speed of the device [IAS] more than 1,000 km / h and a vertical descent rate of about 300 m / sec."

"Scene of the accident is located at a distance of 274 km with an azimuth .- 98 ░ from the airport of Khabarovsk on the CTA elevation 820 m above sea level. "
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
Be sure to also quote the Vd/Md of the Tu-154

I have russian flight manual for Tu-154 from http://www.protu-154.net/index_e.html , it's included in installer. To be precise it says "Calculated maximum speed Vmax on levels up 7000 m 650 km/h, 7000-10300 625 km/h, levels >= 10300 m. 0.95M". I can send you PDF itself, if you like.
QUOTE (rob balsamo) *
and the Russian regulations for designating Vd/Md.

Don't now exactly. At least 650 km/h is maximum speed mentioned Tu-154 manual.

Also we should remember, that 0.99M it's not just certain speed that provides some dynamic pressure, that that you can extrapolate to 425 kn. at sea level, but is almost sound speed, that involves completely different gas dynamic and shock waves as you yourself wrote "other factors come into play within the transonic ranges"

I only want to say, that plane is capable to override Vd in solid degree. I don't insist by any means that United 175 really flew 510 knots, I just brought some examples and clarifications to similar cases.

Posted by: rob balsamo Sep 17 2011, 05:59 AM

QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 06:15 AM) *
I think we can call such climb for 3000 feet "fly", for sure in the case that radar data is reliable.


Seven primary radar returns from the airplane were recorded during the second
dive; the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors, which
introduces significant uncertainty into the performance calculations during the second
dive.


The same type of radar data also shows "AA77" climbing through 50,000 feet at some points. Primary radar data is far from being "reliable"




QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 06:15 AM) *
Don't now exactly. At least 650 km/h is maximum speed mentioned Tu-154 manual.


Max speed is different from Vd.

For example, Max operating speed of the 767 is 360 knots. Vd is 420.

You need to get the Vd/Md for the aircraft you cite and the regulation as defined by Russian agencies. Until then, your argument is moot.

(i can already tell your argument is moot anyway as the Tu-154 is nothing like a 767)

QUOTE
Also we should remember, that 0.99M it's not just certain speed that provides some dynamic pressure, that that you can extrapolate to 425 kn. at sea level, but is almost sound speed, that involves completely different gas dynamic and shock waves as you yourself wrote "other factors come into play within the transonic ranges"


The above diagram is good from sea level, up to almost 18,000 feet. Above that, the Vg diagram actually moves to the left. In other words, structural failure speeds are less in terms of Indicated at higher altitudes. Real pilots can see this as they climb. The Vmo indicator (Barber pole) actually moves to a lower airspeed once you climb above the crossover altitude. The reason for this is the aircraft is no longer limited by raw dynamic pressure, rather it is now becoming limited by the effects of Mach (both drag related, which is why EAS is calculated using Mach number and good to above Mach 2). A good explanation of this is shown here.

http://www.biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/flight_instruments/_popup_for_40_vmo_mmo.htm


Read more here - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20969&view=findpost&p=10793146

Posted by: VirPil Sep 17 2011, 06:38 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 17 2011, 12:59 PM) *
Max speed is different from Vd.

Sure, but those 650 km/h seems to be Vd speed, because it's the highest number in the manual and above 10300 m. there is 0.95M limitation, also Vmo (this is definition from Tu-154 flight manual) is 600 km/h and 0.86M.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 17 2011, 12:59 PM) *
Max operating speed of the 767 is 360 knots. Vd is 420.

It actually means, that alleged 510 speed provides air pressure (510/420)^2 = 1.47 times (fix me if I'm wrong) more than Vd=420. I guess that Vd speed is speed airframe is able withstand to. Is there chance that aircraft has 50% safety factor? Or 420kn. is pure design calculated speed without any margin?

Thanks.

Posted by: rob balsamo Sep 17 2011, 06:54 AM

QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 07:38 AM) *
Sure, but those 650 km/h seems to be Vd speed, because it's the highest number in the manual and above 10300 m. there is 0.95M limitation, also Vmo (this is definition from Tu-154 flight manual) is 600 km/h and 0.86M.

It actually means, that alleged 510 speed provides air pressure (510/420)^2 = 1.47 times (fix me if I'm wrong) more than Vd=420. I guess that Vd speed is speed airframe is able withstand to. Is there chance that aircraft has 50% safety factor? Or 420kn. is pure design calculated speed without any margin?

Thanks.


The "Safety Factor" as defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics is the yellow caution zone below between Vmo and Vd.



There is no additional "Safety Factor" above Vd.

Your speculation is moot.

Posted by: VirPil Sep 17 2011, 09:59 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 17 2011, 01:54 PM) *
There is no additional "Safety Factor" above Vd.

Does it mean that Vd is "ultimate load" as described in http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-301.html and http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-303.html?

I've tried to make conclusions from http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-335.html and http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2025.335-1A/$FILE/25-335-1a.pdf, but it's not clear to me. blink.gif Any reference to Vd as "ultimate load"?

If it's really such load w/o safety margin, it means that 767 has no chance fly 510 kn.Question arises why NTSB provides such data, assuming it's faked. Why they didn't say some more real speed, e.g. 400-420knots? huh.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Sep 17 2011, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (VirPil @ Sep 17 2011, 10:59 AM) *
Any reference to Vd as "ultimate load"?



Your reference is in the diagram above. Anything beyond Vd is considered the structural failure zone as defined by the Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics.

This is also confirmed by precedent in terms of EA990 and several other aircraft accidents.

Have you viewed our film "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"? It's all thoroughly explained.

Posted by: amazed! Sep 17 2011, 02:28 PM

VirPil

Having been out near the redline a fair amount of time, and over it a few times, I understand your point about exceeding limitations. I worked as a production test pilot for several years, and I think you make sense.

But even before that, it seems that the radar data is utterly corrupted.

Welcome to the forum!

Posted by: rob balsamo Sep 17 2011, 02:53 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 17 2011, 03:28 PM) *
VirPil

Having been out near the redline a fair amount of time, and over it a few times, I understand your point about exceeding limitations.


Agreed.

I would like to make it clear that one knot over Vd does not guarantee structural failure. All it means is that you are now a test pilot flying in what is defined as the Structural Failure zone.

VirPil,

V-speeds are based on wind tunnel and flight testing.

See here for examples.



When going through certification, the aircraft prototypes are subject to high speeds in the wind tunnel. When the aircraft develops an onset of buffeting, flutter, instability, CG v CP.. .etc, Vd is set. If they go too far with the wind tunnel, the above video is what you get.

Then the test pilots go out and try to do it in the real airplane. If they can get to Vd without problem, then Vmo is set using the safety margin calculations mandated by the FAA.

If they experience any problems prior to Vd, a new and lower Vd is set, which in turn lowers the Vmo, or the aircraft prototype is modified to achieve those speeds.

Line Pilots are not given Vd performance speeds in their aircraft manuals as the manufacturer doesn't want pilots anywhere near Vd. They are only given redline, ie. the barber pole.. Vmo (and other lower speed limitations, such as Va, flaps, gear.. etc)

At least, this is the way it is in the USA. Not sure about Russian aircraft certification.

Aircraft can come apart at any speed. The important speed to remember for the 911 aircraft, is Va/Vra - ie, Maneuvering speed. As the aircraft were maneuvering.

According to reports, an A300 lost it's tail when maneuvering and attempted to recover from a wake turbulence upset out of JFK losing control and killing all on board (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa587/4.jpg). This was at departure speeds.

The speeds reported for the 911 aircraft are impossible if the aircraft were standard 767/757's.

This can only mean either the aircraft were modified to achieve such excessive speeds over the standard aircraft and maintain control, or the data is wrong, in which case there is a serious problem at the NTSB, a govt agency tasked with ensuring the safety of the flying public.

Hope this helps...

Posted by: datars Feb 14 2012, 12:52 PM

Good stuff Rob

-Chuck

PS Rob do you think you can come out to the Conspiracy Con 2012 http://conspiracycon.com

And if you make contact with Brian just maybe you can become a speaker there

(925) 449-6844
conspiracycon@comcast.net

Posted by: VirPil Feb 20 2013, 07:43 AM

Another example of real speed of 737-400's structure failure:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/final-report-adam-air-737-plunged-into-sea-after-pilots-lost-control-222430/

QUOTE
the speed reached Mach 0.926 during sustained nose-up elevator control input while still in a right bank. The recorded airspeed exceeded Vdive (400 kcas), and reached a maximum of approximately 490 kcas just prior to the end of recording.”

It says that around 20sec before the end of the recorded data, the aircraft suffered a “significant structural failure” due to speeds that were beyond the 737’s design limitations, but by that time it was already in a “critically uncontrollable state”.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 22 2013, 09:36 AM

QUOTE (VirPil @ Feb 20 2013, 07:43 AM) *
Another example of real speed of 737-400's structure failure:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/final-report-adam-air-737-plunged-into-sea-after-pilots-lost-control-222430/



Add yet another aircraft which is unable to exceed its limitations by 150 knots and remain stable, controllable or hold together....


Thanks VirPil...


More listed here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html

Posted by: 23investigator Feb 23 2013, 02:37 AM

QUOTE (VirPil @ Feb 20 2013, 10:13 PM) *
Another example of real speed of 737-400's structure failure:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/final-report-adam-air-737-plunged-into-sea-after-pilots-lost-control-222430/


Dear 'VirPil'

Have you considered the, Boeing 727?

You may be interested to have a look at a video on youtube, Jennifer Spell video EXPOSED.

The "aircraft" that appears to be contained in the messy image of what appears to be meant as a Boeing 767 (by size) is not a 737 nor 727, but it was and still is, a very robust aircraft, with quoted figures, of rated speed at 1700 feet of 620mph.

By consideration of the aircraft in the image, it is moving forward at 25.5 feet per frame, which computes as 521 mph at 30 frames per second.

This is well below 620mph, giving the aircraft every chance of surviving, while descending at 5 degrees.

Also the aircraft does not appear to be banked at all, as it would have had no need to have, and retained its wings within the east perimeter of the south face.

Robert S

Posted by: VirPil Aug 4 2014, 09:36 AM

I found Vd test video of A380:
http://theflyingengineer.com/2012/03/18/diving-into-the-a320-dive-speeds/

So aircraft should be able to flight with Vd speed, thus we can suggest that some minimal margin is present.

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 5 2014, 05:57 PM

QUOTE (VirPil @ Aug 4 2014, 10:36 AM) *
I found Vd test video of A380:
http://theflyingengineer.com/2012/03/18/diving-into-the-a320-dive-speeds/


Yes, this is covered in our new presentation "9/11: Simulations" and in this thread.....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22665

QUOTE
So aircraft should be able to flight with Vd speed, thus we can suggest that some minimal margin is present.


There is no requirement for a margin of safety beyond Vd for an aircraft which is maneuvering. However, can an aircraft fly 1 knot past Vd and survive? Yes.

Can an aircraft fly 90 knots past Vd and remain controllable and stable? Allegedly, only on 9/11/2001, when physics and aerodynamics were apparently suspended.




Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 29 2014, 03:48 PM

Have had some questions regarding this thread so I am bumping....

Posted by: pacem Nov 3 2014, 11:20 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 5 2014, 11:57 PM) *
Can an aircraft fly 90 knots past Vd and remain controllable and stable? Allegedly, only on 9/11/2001, when physics and aerodynamics were apparently suspended.

The 767 VD in the A1NM certificate is in KCAS, at 09:02:10, 470kts ground speed at 5000ft is 440KCAS, no ? So VD+20k or VD+5%.

The last radar point is at 09:02:24, what time of impact used the NTSB to compute the final acceleration from 470k to 510k ?

Posted by: EagleEye Nov 3 2014, 07:41 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 5 2014, 02:57 PM) *
Can an aircraft fly 90 knots past Vd and remain controllable and stable? Allegedly, only on 9/11/2001, when physics and aerodynamics were apparently suspended.


Might it have been possible for a highly modifed 767-type aircraft, with hardened structures (Kevlar composites), leading wing edge mods, and more powerful engines?

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 6 2014, 03:31 PM

QUOTE (pacem @ Nov 3 2014, 11:20 AM) *
The 767 VD in the A1NM certificate is in KCAS, at 09:02:10, 470kts ground speed at 5000ft is 440KCAS, no ? So VD+20k or VD+5%.

The last radar point is at 09:02:24, what time of impact used the NTSB to compute the final acceleration from 470k to 510k ?


pacem, please see this link to refresh your memory....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22772

Also, please spend some time reviewing our wok... and the work of the NTSB.

Posted by: rob balsamo Nov 6 2014, 03:33 PM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Nov 3 2014, 07:41 PM) *
Might it have been possible for a highly modifed 767-type aircraft, with hardened structures (Kevlar composites), leading wing edge mods, and more powerful engines?


EagleEye, Please spend some time reviewing our work, specifically, http://pilotsfor911truth.org.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)