USAF 84 RADES Data For UA175 Indicates Mach 1 Speed?, edited title Options

[amazed!]

Yes, at some point breakup would be the penalty. It depends on how much the limitations are exceeded, I would think. Having done so myself, I know that redline airspeed can be exceeded without structural damage. There are many factors that enter into this scenario, and an engineer could probably provide some numbers that would be more specific.

[Factfinder Gener...]

Yes, at some point breakup would be the penalty.  It depends on how much the limitations are exceeded, I would think.  Having done so myself, I know that redline airspeed can be exceeded without structural damage.  There are many factors that enter into this scenario, and an engineer could probably provide some numbers that would be more specific.

Well in this respect I give great credence to Joseph Keith, a retired aerospace engineer who helped designed the Big Shaker system that tests the effects of resonant frequencies on airframes. The system was developed because the first intercontinental passenger jet, The British Comet, was exploding in mid air due to these frequencies. Maybe you should listen to the whole interview, if you haven't already, as it is very informative but in general what I get from it is that the planes would have shook themselves apart well before they would have a chance to impact the towers.

Phone Interview with Joseph Keith

If the plane were flying that fast at that altitude it would have shook itself apart before it hit the building

Keith also discusses the powerframe's inability to perform at the indicated speeds.

The other interesting thing is that Joseph Keith points out that the alleged UA 175 Boeing 767 plane is flying at the same speed as it slices into the building as it does through thin air. The Federal Aviation Administration calculated the speed of UA 175 just prior to impact as being 586 mph which is in line with the performance of the projectile throughout the duration of its target approach according to my figures (Note: For the last 17 miles the plane averaged approximately 580 mph in descending altitude from 10,400 feet to below 1,000 feet. Talk about Velocity Never Exceed being exceeded; this is simply incredible!)

before it hits the towers it takes six or seven frames for the plane to fly its own length... and it takes the same number of steps (frames) to fly through the steel and concrete building its own length as it does in thin air. Well. obvious fake!  plus the fact when you watch the thing go into the steel and concrete tower you don't see anything bending, anything crunching.

So the impossible speed performance of UA 175 continues all the way into the building!!! According to the official story the plane is not only able to fly through the air at approximately 580 mph (an impossibility according to Keith) but it can fly through steel at those speeds also.

Here's one more reference:

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 feet). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorist were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, considering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded Vne ("Velocity Never Exceed") and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 3 2007, 04:29 PM

[Omega892R09]

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 feet). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorist were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, considering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded Vne ("Velocity Never Exceed") and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction.

The limiting factor here is compressability as one enters the transonic region. The aerofoil sections were not designed for such neither would the structure have been stressed to that limit.

There would have been considerable flutter and even control reversal before the aircraft broke up in uncontrolled flight. Dang it, one only has to check out what happened to the prototype DH110 at Farnborough in 1952 - and that aircraft was designed with such a flight regime in mind.

Bottom line is that if the NTSB data can be relied on as true then no airliners contacted targets that day.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Nov 3 2007, 06:20 PM

[amazed!]

FFG

Maybe what you and Keith are talking about is what's known as flutter testing, which is more an aerodynamic phenomenon than a structural one.

As you mention, certain resonances can develop and airframe designs must be checked for this. They understand that pretty well now for the last few decades, and those tendencies are pretty well designed out of modern aircraft. In any event, every type is tested for those resonances and harmonics to make sure that flutter does not occur. Such tests are part of the certification process.

[Factfinder Gener...]

FFG

Maybe what you and Keith are talking about is what's known as flutter testing, which is more an aerodynamic phenomenon than a structural one.

As you mention, certain resonances can develop and airframe designs must be checked for this.  They understand that pretty well now for the last few decades, and those tendencies are pretty well designed out of modern aircraft.  In any event, every type is tested for those resonances and harmonics to make sure that flutter does not occur.  Such tests are part of the certification process.

amazed! I'm merely quoting two experts here: one retired aerospace engineer and one MIT engineer. By my reading of their statements, and with reference to my flight analysis (in particular the 17 miles of below 10,500 feet flight at an average 580 mph speed) both experts seem to confirm that the plane should have in reality broken apart before impact because of resonant frequencies.

Resonant frequencies may well be an aerodynamic phenomenon, as you say, but such phenomenon apparently leads to structural failure according to my two guys here.

When you say that such tendencies are designed out of modern aircraft you surely are not suggesting that modern aircraft are invulnerable to structural break up at speeds over the VNE, are you?

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 4 2007, 10:26 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

Bottom line is that if the NTSB data can be relied on as true then no airliners contacted targets that day.

The NTSB used mutiple sets of official radar returns for their report. Something seems to have been tracked and it sure wasn't a plane, IMO, (or a UAV for that matter.)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 4 2007, 10:32 AM

[amazed!]

No FFG, I'm not saying modern airplanes cannot come apart in flight.

I am saying that flutter and control problems were a very big consideration in 1945 or 1950, but we've come a long way baby, in aircraft design and manufacture.

[Factfinder Gener...]

No FFG, I'm not saying modern airplanes cannot come apart in flight.

I am saying that flutter and control problems were a very big consideration in 1945 or 1950, but we've come a long way baby, in aircraft design and manufacture.

but surely not long enough for a Boeing 767 to maintain structural integrity for seventeen miles of descending flight, from 10,400 feet to approximately 800 feet at an average speed of 580 mph?

[Omega892R09]

I am saying that flutter and control problems were a very big consideration in 1945 or 1950, but we've come a long way baby, in aircraft design and manufacture.

I thought that I had nailed this one by drawing comparisons between the design parameters of low flying high speed military aircraft and passenger airliners and of their very different flight envelopes.

The US Navy A5 Vigilante was designed as a medium to high altitude nuclear penetration bomber, the weapons being on rails and dropped out the rear as it carried out what would have been an over-the-shoulder type delivery for a more conventional bomb release. Thus the airframe was stressed for sonic flight at altitude. With the development of high altitude SAM missiles the A5 was reassigned for low level penetration. Unfortunately this caused a number of issues amongst them being the airframe not being suited to absorb the stresses from the extreme buffet experienced at high speed and low level where the air is thicker and subject to currents and denser pockets.

An associated problem was the sideway buffet of the cockpit due to the long leverage between the CofP and CofG of the aircraft and the cockpit right up in the nose of a slab sided fuselage. The severity of buffet was such that aircrew experienced sever shaking of the head, with bone-dome sometimes contacting the canopy. Vision was impaired such that instrument flying was impossible and if prolonged shaking was experienced, even cumulative, the retinas would be detached and aircrew blinded.

One cannot make a transonic missile out of aircraft designed for economy of flight – thus structure having a much lower density/size ratio. Besides the fan engines of a 767/757 are not designed for such speeds either and would disintegrate and wrench off the pylons.

[amazed!]

Well if it turns out that indeed the Boeing descended in those last 40 miles at high airspeeds and struck the towers intact, then I guess the theory that the airframe could not take such flying would be invalidated, no?

How many B-17's returned to England with parts of wings and airframe missing? Quite a few.

I personally have flown several airplanes over their Vne, and never had one come apart. Not saying that it's a good idea, or that it can't come apart, but on a certified civilian aircraft, and military aircraft, rules require that the airframes be overbuilt. They will take much more of a beating than most people think.

The Vigilante was a beautiful airplane. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

Well if it turns out that indeed the Boeing descended in those last 40 miles at high airspeeds and struck the towers intact, then I guess the theory that the airframe could not take such flying would be invalidated, no?

Yes, and:
(IMG:http://www.k-state.edu/udguidesite/gx/flying_pigs.jpg)

How many B-17's returned to England with parts of wings and airframe missing?  Quite a few.

I personally have flown several airplanes over their Vne, and never had one come apart.  Not saying that it's a good idea, or that it can't come apart, but on a certified civilian aircraft, and military aircraft, rules require that the airframes be overbuilt.  They will take much more of a beating than most people think.

The Vigilante was a beautiful airplane.  (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

amazed! for the last 5,000 feet of descent the projectile was recorded as flying at speeds not even covered by a Boeing 767 ASI. (The ASI's dial goes up to 450 knots which at 5,000 feet translates to a true airspeed of 490 knots or 570 mph.) Imagine that: a plane flying "off dial"! The VMO is well within dial so we aren't even talking about merely exceeding VMO here but flying beyond the ASI parameters. This is truly unbelievable performance specs for a passenger plane.

As Omega892R09 correctly states: neither the airframe nor the powerplant of the airliner were designed to withstand/achieve this velocity level.

Flying off dial, amazed! my friend, off dial; can you really imagine? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 6 2007, 08:26 AM

[dMz]

Yes, at some point breakup would be the penalty.  It depends on how much the limitations are exceeded, I would think.  Having done so myself, I know that redline airspeed can be exceeded without structural damage.  There are many factors that enter into this scenario, and an engineer could probably provide some numbers that would be more specific.

In my space-specific aerospace engineering experience, we had a concept called "safety factor" or "margin of safety" that was 1.25 times the designed flight envelope for satellites (and commercial aircraft too as I recall hearing from some ex-Boeing engineers that I worked with). I could apply for a waiver to fly a 1.1 to 1.15 "safety factor" space structure.

I recall military jet fighters and bombers having safety factors of 3-5 and even higher. I've also read that the A-10 Thunderbolt "Warthog" was designed to fly with one engine disabled and one wing torn off outside the wing stub box, but it has triple redundant mechanical flight control systems and a titanium "bathtub" to protect the A-10 pilot from "flak" and was specifically designed to "search and destroy" Cold War-era Soviet tanks, not carry passengers. The F-22 Raptor and F-15 Strike Eagle have highly-flattened fuselages that serve as a considerable portion of the supersonic "airfoil" IMHO. The F-16 Falcon, not so much, but the "wing root" is considerable on these 9+"G" dogfighters.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/index.asp

The newer Sukhoi Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Su-47, MiG-35, and MiG-39 are amazingly capable aircraft in the hands of an equally capable pilot I've heard, with decidedly primitive avionics compared to their USAF counterparts.

http://www.flymig.com/aircraft/

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/su-27.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mfi.htm

I'll defer to O892 for RAF and Royal Navy aircraft matters- he seems quite knowledgeable on such matters to me.

"Safety factor" is the reason that I was asked about my (considerable) apprehension on several flights- I see equations and vectors when I'm a passenger, and I really dislike being able to see the wings, especially on a fully loaded passenger jet. Then there was that time my seat was falling apart on an Embraer east coast shuttle... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 6 2007, 03:39 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

Yes, at some point breakup would be the penalty.  It depends on how much the limitations are exceeded, I would think.  Having done so myself, I know that redline airspeed can be exceeded without structural damage.  There are many factors that enter into this scenario, and an engineer could probably provide some numbers that would be more specific.

In my space-specific aerospace engineering experinece, we had a concept called "safety factor" or "margin of safety" that was 1.25 times the designed flight envelope for satellites (and commercial aircraft too as I recall). I could apply for a waiver to fly a 1.1 to 1.15 "safety factor" space structure.

I recall military jet fighters and bombers having safety factors of 3-5 and even higher. I've also read that the A-10 Thunderbolt "Warthog" was designed to fly with one engine disabled and one wing torn off outside the wing stub box, but it has triple redundant mechanical flight control systems and a titanium "bathtub" to protect the A-10 pilot from "flak."

"Safety factor" is the reason that I was asked about my (considerable) apprehension on several flights- I see equations and vectors when I'm a passenger, and I really dislike being able to see the wings, especially on a fully loaded passenger jet. Then there was that time my seat was falling apart on an Embraer east coast shuttle... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

Thanks for the info, dMole. Can you relate these factors to the data from the Radar Returns here, dMole? As I said, we are talking about velocities literally off the ASI dial here. Keep it simple and specific, preferably. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 6 2007, 02:19 PM

[dMz]

Thanks for the info, dMole.  Can you relate these factors to the data from the Radar Returns here, dMole?  As I said, we are talking about velocities literally off the ASI dial here.  Keep it simple and specific, preferably.  (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Hi FfG,

Probably not- stress/strain loading of the Boeing 767 wing structure (plus 757 and 707 wings from my earlier questions) will likely require Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and some Boeing proprietary data. My experience was for "little or no atmosphere" structure design and wind shear loading on buildings (and trailers). Boeing did all the heavy lifting on nosecone atmospheric buffeting (included in the pricetag of a Delta II). Additionally, the stress calculations should depend upon air density and airspeed. I would expect that Boeing engineers would plan for takeoff, landing, and max. cruise velocity values for a fully loaded 767, model the wing and possibly tail structure in a wind tunnel with instrumented strain and vibration gauges, apply the appropriate "safety factor," then design/assemble the production wing accordingly.

I would expect that Boeing has some specialty analysis software for wing and engine design (we did for orbit, launch, and thermal analysis), in addition to wind tunnel modeling. These are highly complex problems, but I've never worked for Boeing, and I'd expect them to keep this information very tightly controlled. Boeing has a huge assembly plant north of Seattle (Everett, WA?)-- do we have any associates in engineering or aircraft assembly up that way?

Some things I would expect to see with aluminum aircraft operated over the "safe limit" for extended periods of time: popped rivets, metal fatigue in the wing structure and engine pylon, possible wingtip shearing, jet engine "flame out" due to excessive airflow velocity, control surface failure or damage, flight instability, possible wing root fatigue/cracking/shearing.

Unfortunately, engineering is increasingly about economics, and the primary function of a passenger aircraft is to move as many passengers as possible to generate revenue- this puts light weight as a higher priority than durability, since aluminum and JP4 don't purchase boarding passes. In military aircraft, aircraft survivability and combat effectiveness are nearly the ONLY priorities.

Weakened, cracked, or shorn wing structure or control surfaces would make it exceedingly unlikely to complete "aerobatics-like" maneuvers, especially in a loaded 767 IMHO...

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 6 2007, 07:18 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

Dang it, one only has to check out what happened to the prototype DH110 at Farnborough in 1952 - and that aircraft was designed with such a flight regime in mind.

(IMG:http://military.sakura.ne.jp/aircraft/photo1/1_sea-vixen.jpg)

1952: Dozens die in air show tragedy

At least 27 people have been killed and 63 injured after a jet fighter disintegrated and fell into the crowd at the Farnborough Air Show in Hampshire.

The De Havilland 110 fighter had just broken the sound barrier when it broke up over the spectators, showering them with debris.

Among the dead are the pilot, John Derry, and the flight test observer Anthony Richards.
Mr Derry was the first British pilot to exceed the speed of sound in this country four years ago today - on 6 September 1948 in in a DH 108 research aircraft.

The two airmen had completed one fly-past in which they amazed 130, 000 spectators by breaking the sound barrier to produce a sonic boom.

But during the second low-level fly-past when the plane was travelling at about 500 miles an hour (804kph) over the aerodrome, its nose lifted and the whole plane disintegrated.

The two engines broke loose and one plunged into a dense crowd watching on a hillside. The other engine fell on open ground but other membrs of the public were injured by parts of the cockpit.
Fire engines and ambulances arrived within minutes and after a short break the air display continued.

Squadron Leader Neville Duke, a close friend of Mr Derry, even flew a Hawker Hunter jet up to a height of 40,000ft (12km) and demonstrated a double sonic boom.

The directors of the De Havilland aircraft company expressed their "profound sorrow" at the tragedy. In a statement they said: "Every possible step will, of couse, be taken to trace the course of the accident." BBC News - on this day

Bottom line is that if the NTSB data can be relied on as true then no airliners contacted targets that day.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 6 2007, 09:11 PM

[amazed!]

FFG

We are assuming that the radar data you offer is valid and accurate.

Maybe it is, but on a day in which virtually the entire northeast part of the country, and maybe more, had its radar systems spoofed by the bad guys, maybe it's not.

If it's not, then all this mental masturbation about airspeeds is just that.

If it is, then the airplane obviously exceeded its limitations by a large margin.

If it is and the Boeing hit the tower, then it was proven that at that moment a Boeing could exceed the limitations by a large factor.

It a Boeing did not hit the tower, then your tortured theory is right.

Only point being, that as dMole mentioned, exceeding design limitations can result in structural damage, as I mentioned earlier, and such damage can be popped rivets and bent metal. Thus future flight in an airframe like that will be ruled out.

Structural damage DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that the airplane will suddenly be atomised.

[Factfinder Gener...]

FFG

We are assuming that the radar data you offer is valid and accurate.

Maybe it is, but on a day in which virtually the entire northeast part of the country, and maybe more, had its radar systems spoofed by the bad guys, maybe it's not.

If it's not, then all this mental masturbation about airspeeds is just that.

If it is, then the airplane obviously exceeded its limitations by a large margin.

If it is and the Boeing hit the tower, then it was proven that at that moment a Boeing could exceed the limitations by a large factor.

It a Boeing did not hit the tower, then your tortured theory is right.

Only point being, that as dMole mentioned, exceeding design limitations can result in structural damage, as I mentioned earlier, and such damage can be popped rivets and bent metal.  Thus future flight in an airframe like that will be ruled out.

Structural damage DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that the airplane will suddenly be atomised.

Now, now, amazed! There seems to be a little strawman fallacious argument going on here. Of course we are all discussing this in reference to the radar returns and no one is suggesting the alleged airliner would have atomized according to these returns. Omega892R09, Joseph Keith and Kausel, the MIT engineer all believe that such a plane should realistically have broken apart, and I tend to concur.

I don't know quite where you are coming from by saying that if the plane hit the building then the plane could have flown that fast, as the high speed seems to prove that the plane couldn't have hit the building. You're argument here seems a trifle circular.

As for my supposed "torturous" theory: I personally tend to categorize strawman and circular arguments as being torturous. I would say that a logical, diligent and straightforward presentation of evidence complete with substantiating expert opinion and a reasoned defense of one's position cannot respectfully be classified as torturous.

I would agree that the multiple sets of radar returns (from FAA, USAF and JFK, and realize that it isn't me that "offers" these returns but NTSB) would have to be wrong for there to realistically be an airliner or UVA of some sort impacting the Towers. How is this feasible though? Why would the returns be wrong? How could three agencies be in error? If not error but false readings why would the perps want to put out implausible figures that compromise the credibility of the foundational mechanism of their big illusion?

I'm just applying logic here to attempt to get at the truth, I don't consider myself as indulging in "mental masturbation" (quite an offensive term for all my hard work, I would say). If you have an enlightening angle here that will lend weight to your suggestion that the multiple returns might be wrong, specifically describing why they might be, I would love you to share it.

As things stand, however, and as I said earlier, it seems to me that in all likelihood that something was tracked and it wasn't an airliner (or UAV).

In either case, as far as my reading of the evidence goes, the official record indicates that something other than an airliner (or UAV) hit the South World Trade Center Tower.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 7 2007, 12:34 AM

[dMz]

Update on atmospheric drag-

All those old ballistics equations still haunt me with a -(b * V^2) drag term falling down from the cranium, so I did a little drag research. Many of these [usually experimental] quantities are unknown to me at this time, but I did a quick search.

Some good links are at:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Th...l_coef/TH14.htm

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerod...ics/q0184.shtml

(a student, education-aimed NASA page is at):
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/drageq.html

The ratios of the NTSB radar echo-derived velocities squared divided by the Boeing 767 maximum velocity squared should allow comparison of the respective drag forces to the "safety factor," assuming that the complex, experimental factors do not change appreciably for the same aircraft at comparable altitude, staying within the sub-sonic realm. (This method allows comparison of "dominant factors" without knowing the actual value of "secondary or minor factors").

I'm going off memory on the 1.25 commercial airliner and 3-5 military aircraft "safety factors"-- confirmation or correction would be appreciated.

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 7 2007, 02:38 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

Thanks for the raw data, dMole. Maybe someone has the time and expertise to translate it into a meaningful calculation.

However, to me, the clearest proof that the airliner would have been flying way beyond acceptable safety parameters (according to the official returns) is that the Airspeed Indicator (ASI) dial of the Boeing 767 only goes up to 450 knots or 518 mph.

Speed Indicator dials traditionally exceed the capable top speed of a vehicle and the redline typically falls well within its calibrations. As an example: the VMO for the 767 at 35,000 feet is 493 knots which would show up on the ASI as 290 knots, i.e. 160 knots below the maximum on the dial and as just stated, well within the calibrations.

The idea that an airliner could be safely traveling approximately 55 knots/60 mph OVER the maximum figure on the dial at low level altitude, i.e thick air, seems ludicrous to me.
(IMG:http://www.d4haley.com/images/78HaleyDecca29204Star.jpg)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 7 2007, 06:44 AM

[amazed!]

FFG

I'm sorry if you were offended by the language. I appreciate all the work you have done in this regard.

My only point is that airspeed limitations CAN be exceeded.

Also, the point is that so far the evidence is pretty overwhelming that a Boeing struck at least 1 tower that day.

If that is true, then all this number crunching seems to be a trivial exercise. You and others say such an event is impossible. I understand what you're trying to say, but once upon a time it was considered impossible to go beyond Mach 1.

The events seem to indicate that it was possible, for it happened.