IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Establishing Facts Leading To Logical Conclusions, A proposed end to the 'NPT' connundrum

Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 1 2007, 12:36 PM
Post #21





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Sep 1 2007, 11:31 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 1 2007, 11:47 AM)
This forum should be able to clearly establish the accuracy of Keith's assessment.

Or inaccuracy. I know you love no-planes so much, but facts are facts whether it proves someone accurate or inaccurate.

Absolutely agreed! Good Point, BoneZ. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 1 2007, 01:05 PM
Post #22





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (painter @ Sep 1 2007, 10:29 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 1 2007, 07:01 AM)
<s>
I propose we "triangulate" the evidentiary proof so to speak and consider three basic and important aspects: (1) the impossibility of planes performing in the manner depicted, (2) the impossibility of planes penetrating in the manner depicted and (3) the impossibility of planes approaching in the manner depicted.
<s>

Keep it simple. Possible/impossible -- the debate could go on endlessly. I don't have that long. I just want to know if we can establish facts, one at a time. Let's not "presume" the "impossibility" of anything. Keep it simple stupid should be the rule because most people are.

Step one, establish the top air speed of flight 175 @ 700'.

Painter, I have a real important question here IMO:

What was the actual height of the centre of impact for WTC2?

By implication, you seem to suggest it was 700 feet here.

The building was 1,362 feet tall and the centre of impact was at the 81st floor.

Most accepted versions of events list the estimated height of UA 175 as being 1,000 feet. is this correct?

Before we go about verifying the effect of speed based on assessed altitude, don't we need to conclusively establish this altitude?

Here's a diagram which could help in verifying:



This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 1 2007, 01:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 1 2007, 01:08 PM
Post #23


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 1 2007, 09:05 AM)
<s>
Before we go about verifying the effect of speed based on assessed altitude, don't we need to conclusively establish this altitude?
<s>

Yes. Thank you, FfG.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 1 2007, 01:14 PM
Post #24





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (painter @ Sep 1 2007, 12:08 PM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 1 2007, 09:05 AM)
<s>
Before we go about verifying the effect of speed based on assessed altitude, don't we need to conclusively establish this altitude?
<s>

Yes. Thank you, FfG.

My old eyeballs suggest it is about 970 feet. Is there someone who can provide a definitive assessment please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 1 2007, 01:27 PM
Post #25





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



The NTSB report below states that the final radar return from JFK Approach Control was 1000 feet in close proximity to the Tower. Seeing as UA 175 was tracked as being on a descent, this fits with my eyeball estimation of approx. 970 feet for centre of impact.

There is some other relevant data in the report pertinent to the discussion here, i.e. The Flight and Altitude Profiles.

NTSB report for UA 175

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 1 2007, 01:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 1 2007, 02:52 PM
Post #26





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



I don't think there's going to be much difference on the effect of speed between 700 feet and 970 feet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 1 2007, 03:26 PM
Post #27





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (BoneZ @ Sep 1 2007, 01:52 PM)
I don't think there's going to be much difference on the effect of speed between 700 feet and 970 feet.

I defer to your greater knowledge on this one, BoneZ and what you state sounds reasonable. I trust though that you will agree that we should be as accurate as possible when stating figures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
post Sep 1 2007, 04:06 PM
Post #28





Group:
Posts: 0
Joined: --
Member No.: 0



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 1 2007, 03:26 PM)
I trust though that you will agree that we should be as accurate as possible when stating figures.

I agree. cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Sep 2 2007, 01:37 AM
Post #29





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



why was my post removed?...thought it raised an interesting slant on this arguement and intended expanding on it after seeing any replies...maybe you missed my point or thought i was being insensitive to the people that jumped!?!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Sep 2 2007, 06:15 AM
Post #30





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE (CocaineImportAgency @ Sep 2 2007, 05:37 AM)
why was my post removed?...thought it raised an interesting slant on this arguement and intended expanding on it after seeing any replies...maybe you missed my point or thought i was being insensitive to the people that jumped!?!

Mines gone too I think, maybe we needn't bother here any more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
georgie101
post Sep 2 2007, 06:40 AM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 1,221
Joined: 20-October 06
From: south london, uk
Member No.: 114



Guys, they didn't get deleted, this thread was split out, as jrsnr went slightly off topic.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=8753
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Sep 2 2007, 07:06 PM
Post #32





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (painter @ Sep 1 2007, 03:24 PM)
-- are you saying that we do not know and can not establish a top figure for how fast flight 175 (not a modified Boeing) could have been flying at 700 feet altitude?

All I want is a number, ONE number that can be agreed upon. Top speed for flight 175 at 700 feet.

Anyone? dunno.gif

Um... no, but maybe what I am trying to say is... well you know how it is if something is 9/11 related... people always find excuses or that impossible things are in fact possible etc.

When I first heard about the alleged speed, then I just: What! Five hundred and what mph !

Since then, I have tried to find out some number and read all related talk about that issue... and what most people agree about is; Yes it is over VMO/VNE etc... BUT... the planes can handle it because they did 9/11 !!

Even Eduardo Kausel MIT said it "greatly exceeded VNE":

"The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorists were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, consideering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at the normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded VNE (“never exceed velocity”) and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction."
web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf

But about "ONE number at 1000 feet" etc... It must be possible to find it out, but it is better ofcource if one is an expert. Also would be interesting ofcource to see the wind tunnel tests from Boeing... but I highly doubt that they will release them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Sep 2 2007, 07:10 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Great post, behind
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 2 2007, 08:40 PM
Post #34





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I don't know if it's been brought up, but aircraft are able to exceed their limitations as to airspeed and such, at some point further on controllability might be compromised, but they can exceed those numbers and world does not end.

Which is not to say that we really know how fast they were going. For me, I don't see where it matters how fast they were going.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 2 2007, 08:49 PM
Post #35


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 2 2007, 04:40 PM)
For me, I don't see where it matters how fast they were going.

1: I want to see if we can establish ONE FACT from which we can extrapolate. So far nada.

2: The REASON air speed is important is multifold: a ) If the plane is going faster than it CAN fly, then obviously we have yet another material impossibility; b ) The way the plane is shown to enter completely into the building with no (what I call) "splashing," deceleration or visible deformation is suspect and the damage done to the building is in question by some. Both these characteristics will be influenced by the velocity at which the object was traveling -- obviously, the faster the object is traveling the less of it will be seen from the ground, the more 'reasonable' its total penetration of the building seems and the more reasonable the observed damage becomes.

I just want to know if we can establish ONE FACT. If not, fine. f*ck it. cleanup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Ningen_*
post Sep 2 2007, 10:49 PM
Post #36





Guest






Another question is raised by ATC Dave Botigglia's account that he tracked Flight 175 diving at 10,000 feet/minute, in the video here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TXIW97e6kc

Would the plane shake itself apart in such a dive, or is it OK at higher altitudes? When did it pull out of the dive? If the dive accounts for the high velocity, how long after the dive is the velocity maintained on a more horizontal trajectory, if as Keith says, the engines acts as a brake over a certain speed at low altitude.

On another subject:

This has already been alluded to in comments above, but the velocity is the key premise of the MIT (Wierzbicki/Teng) and University of Akron (Karim/Hoo Fatt) studies that purport to show how the planes could penetrate the external columns of the buildings.

Finally, Botigglia's account places the phone call of Peter Hanson from Flioght 175 at 9:00 into question, because he says that at that time the plane was in the dive or perhaps had just completed it. That is not reflected in Hanson's call.

The official story is that Peter Hanson began a three-minote call at 9:00.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...ansonFamily.jpg

Hanson never described being in a dive or having come out of a dive. There doesn't seem to be any way he could call during the dive described, and it seems unlikely he could even call just after such a dive, and if he could, seems unlikely he would not mention it.

Here's what he said:

"At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:
'It's getting bad, Dad-A stewardess was stabbed-They seem to have knives and Mace-They said they have a bomb-It's getting very bad on the plane-Passengers are throwing up and getting sick-The plane is making jerky movements-I don't think the pilot is flying the plane-I think we are going down-I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building-Don't worry, Dad- If it happens, it'll be very fast-My God, my God.'"

This tells me not that the call is faked, but that the UAL175 is not the plane tracked by the air traffic controller in the above video.

If so, we don't know where the plane was or at what altitude it was at when Hanson called his father. He seemed to think the plane was heading toward Chicago.

The calls from Flight 175 could be real, and still inconsistent with the official story. These issues should be explored before claims that they are fake.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 2 2007, 11:08 PM
Post #37


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Ningen, I welcome you to the forum and welcome your participation. It looks like you may have interesting things to add.

HOWEVER, I'm trying to keep this thread simple, about ONE THING, not about everything related to that one thing. Threads spin off in so many directions it becomes impossible to arrive at a conclusion. So, if you don't mind, please try to not bring everything that is a question into this thread.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 14 2007, 12:16 AM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 31 2007, 04:56 PM)
These are the exact numbers we are also trying to get from Boeing in terms of wind tunnel tests. I agree with what he is saying... dont know if the numbers are accurate though.

Jeff... if you speak to Joe again, please give him my contact info... i would love to have a chat with him..i havent had a chance to listen to the interview yet...

Painter... its "cowlings" or Engine Cowl. Can also be called nacelle. Its the structure that surrounds and holds the actual engine.

Think of it as a hood, like on your car.

smile.gif

Hi Rob,

This from NASA [HQ by the URL?] on the Boeing 767-200 wind-tunnel tests (in case they need to be reminded how much data they have taken):

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-6.htm

"Although of conventional configuration, the detailed aerodynamic design of the 767-200 is highly refined, as might be expected by the nearly 25 000 hours of wind-tunnel time required in the development of the aircraft. To place this wind-tunnel effort in perspective, 14 000 and 4000 wind-tunnel hours were expended in developing the Boeing 747 and 727, respectively."

I'd wager that there is at least one computer server and at least one roomful or rackful of 3-ring binders WITH SIGNATURES (in Everett, WA?) with just the technical B707/B757/B767 "proprietary" information we seek...

Has anything been found on GE/Pratt Whitney/Rolls-Royce high-bypass turbofan data and capabilities? My research indicates that's your most probable upper V_mo/M_mo "decider." wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 14 2007, 01:05 AM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 31 2007, 06:16 PM)
speed limits are speed limits, whether taking off from the ground or diving in from the air.

There are 4 forces acting on an aircraft at all times... thrust, weight, lift and drag.

Once you have a thorough understanding of those 4 forces and how they act on an aircraft, you will understand what Joe is saying.

As for "shaking apart", his concerns are very valid. Google such words as control surface flutter, airframe flutter, high speed buffet, mach tuck, coffin corner...

just some to get you started... wink.gif

I posted this over on the UA175 Mach I thread, but most of that has considerable relevance to this thread as well:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...post&p=10442823

(I don't like Wikipedia AT ALL, but these are good "starter" research topics, and most of my "flow" books are on ["in"compressible] hydrodynamics and ionic plasmas, not air.) Embry-Riddle, MIT, Univ. of Texas, and USAF should all have aerodynamics texts somewhere in their libraries (possibly at other university and USAF or RAF base libraries).

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_travel

"Below supersonic speeds the energy radiated to drag is roughly proportional to the square of airspeed and the density of the air. However, as speeds approach the speed of sound, the phenomenon of wave drag appears. This is a powerful form of drag that starts at about Mach 0.8 and ends around Mach 1.2, (transonic speeds). Between these speeds the coefficient of drag (Cd) is approximately tripled. Above the transonic range Cd drops dramatically again, although it remains 30 to 50% higher than at subsonic speeds. This means that a supersonic aircraft has to have considerable extra power to overcome wave drag, although cruising performance above that speed is more efficient."

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_drag

"Wave drag is caused by the formation of shock waves around the aircraft. Shock waves radiate away a considerable amount of energy, energy that is experienced by the aircraft as drag. Although shock waves are typically associated with supersonic flow, they can form at much lower speeds at areas on the aircraft where, according Bernoulli's principle, local airflow accelerates to supersonic speeds over curved areas. The effect is typically seen at speeds of about Mach 0.8, but it is possible to notice the problem at any speed over that of the critical Mach of that aircraft's wing. The magnitude of the rise in drag is impressive, typically peaking at about four times the normal subsonic drag. It is so powerful that it was thought for some time that engines would not be able to provide enough power to easily overcome the effect, which led to the concept of a "sound barrier".

See also:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Th...c_Flow/TH19.htm

Here's the book I would probably buy on the subject:
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalog...21819831&ss=ind

Related:
Bernoulli's Equation
http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/library/engin...sis/node38.html

http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/library/engin...ysis/node3.html

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/fluids/bernoul.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroelasticity

Supercritical turbofan blades could appear to be a "proprietary" R&D-type subject- I didn't find much there.

A good Turbofan tech discussion is at:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_...ead.main/99101/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
u2r2h
post Dec 17 2007, 09:38 PM
Post #40





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 171
Joined: 9-August 07
Member No.: 1,653



There are more impossibilities.

I reposted an older Marcus Icke article (the pictures didn't work on Marcus' website)

http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2007/12/w...arcus-icke.html


(you may find it illuminating ;-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th November 2019 - 05:52 PM