IPB




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

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

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
What About The Claim Of Impossible Speed?

jimigunne
post Apr 19 2008, 01:07 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 6
Joined: 19-April 08
Member No.: 3,183



I am not a pilot myself, but I have 25 yrs in avionics, maintaining fleet aircraft, so I know quite about about the field of aircraft/aeronautics, etc.
I know that the official govt reports of what happened are hogwash. I think the govt. at least LET it happen, if they were not actually the orchestrators of it. I am considering whether it is possible tht all the networks were fed video that was really not live, but delayed, and the video was "doctored".
I have spent countless hours searching all the info in the internet, and looking at every video available on Google/Youtube trying to get to the bottom of this. In one video, a guy who claims to be a former Boeing engineer who worked on design of a Boeing "stick-shaker" system, says that it is impossible for a 767 to achieve the airspeed that the videos shot of Flt 175 show. I know the videos were analyzed by experts who came up with a range of speeds (curiously they gave it in MPH!) It was a curiously very wide range of speeds, when all the cameras captured the SAME moving object. And there was also a discrepancy in the trajectory between the videos. I know there are all sorts of complications like the difference between gnd speed, TAS, IAS, etc. Of course the speed of the aircraft as computed by video analysis would be gnd. speed. However, I think there were not real strong winds blowing on the morning of 9-11, and so I'm thinking that gnd speed is essentially the same as IAS or TAS for this purpose.
I obtained an operators manual for the B767-200, and checked the Vspeeds chart. Then it dawned on me that knowing Vne for sea level won't help much, as a hijacker bent on destruction of the aircraft doesn't care if he is exceeding Vne--- in the unlikely event he KNEW anything about Vne. So the question "Was the aircraft was flying at an impossible speed according to the videos?" needs to be answered either by obtaining engineering data from Boeing or by obtaining the FDR data showing airspeed at impact. To my knowledge, the NTSB has not released this info to the public, although I know that the FDR data was obtained from Flight 77 under the FOIA. Or one has to know from the flight test data what the max speed at sea level is before it suffers structural failure. Or perhaps there is just a wall, a max airspeed beyond which it won't go even when firewalled in clean configuration? Possibly it can fly at this max speed, with no doubt severe vibrations for quite some time before structural failure?

I have flown the sims of the 767 and other airliners in MS Flt Sim, so I have an idea how complex flying and navigating these airliners is! And yea, I find it VERY difficult to believe that these supposed hijackers, when they had never, ever piloted a 767 or 757, were able to navigate these complex airliners hundreds of miles, to successfully strike those buildings. I would say it is absolutely impossible....especially if there were any IFR conditions along the way.

Has anyone obtained this airspeed data I need? I am new to this forum, so maybe I missed it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 19 2008, 01:09 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,599
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showforum=25

Welcome to the forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post May 26 2008, 06:04 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



Could a 767 do this at "590mph" even if computer controlled?


(Note this gif does not show the time when the "plane" is behind the smoke to limit the gif size. Here is the full clip.)
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#CBS_Live_1


Seems like the banking this "plane" did would be too many G-forces for a giant aluminum soda to handle regardless of who/what is flying it.

This post has been edited by Killtown: May 26 2008, 06:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post May 27 2008, 12:53 AM
Post #4





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



QUOTE
Could a 767 do this at "590mph" even if computer controlled?


...whether it was a 767 or something else!?... it done it!... deal with it!!.... or prove otherwise!

...also!.... the clip you link to!... seems to run a bit slower than your GIF!... did you speed your GIF up a bit!?!

This post has been edited by CocaineImportAgency: May 27 2008, 12:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post May 27 2008, 03:29 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



QUOTE (CocaineImportAgency @ May 26 2008, 11:53 PM) *
1) ...whether it was a 767 or something else!?... it done it!... deal with it!!.... or prove otherwise!

...also!.... the clip you link to!... seems to run a bit slower than your GIF!... did you speed your GIF up a bit!?!

1) Would a CGI plane fall into your "something else" category?

2) The speed of the gif is not accurate. It may be faster. The gif is just to show people the path of the "plane." Officials said it flew in at 590mph, so that what we are going by.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 31 2008, 07:24 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



To get independent verification of my results, I would like to post the following "interesting" portions of the USAF 84 RADES data for UA175 (from the .XLS spreadsheet, not the RS3 Software). FEMA/ASCE and NTSB tell us that no SSFDR or CVR were recovered in Manhattan for either AA11 or UA175, so RADES is effectively the only data that we have for these 2 flights (not counting "video" and eyewitnesses of course).

As a quick review, speed = distance/time. V_mo for a B767 is 360 knots. M_mo for a B767 is 0.86 mach (but that's a little more complicated). 1 hour is 3600 seconds. RADES data has lat/lon data as well as time stamps, and a distance calculator can be found at:

http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm

EDIT: Adding requested average velocities based upon lat/lon, radar "sweep" interval, and Spherical Law of Cosines (for distance- mine is in a pretty trigonometry-intensive spreadsheet BTW). Also the Zulu time that I used in my calculations has greater precision than these "rough" timestamps posted here- that will affect velocity estimates considerably.

EDIT5: I added the more accurate "Zulu time" radar intervals "dt= " for the readers' convenience.

"Curious" data:
8:34:38, N 41.8544, W -73.2403, dt= 11.735 sec
8:34:49, N 41.8374 -73.2705, v~ 519.375 knots

8:44:12, N41.1789 -74.4215, dt= 11.745 sec
8:44:25, N41.1546 -74.4422, v~ 512.487 kts

8:48:48, N40.8605 -75.0198, dt= 11.980 sec
8:49:00, N40.8434 -75.0494, v~ 508.297 kts

8:50:48, N40.7454 -75.2975, dt= 12.050 sec
8:51:00, N40.7222 -75.3223, v~ 535.541 kts

8:51:12, N40.7052 -75.3421, dt= 12.050 sec
8:51:24, N40.6789 -75.3577, v~ 517.269 kts

8:51:36, N40.6650 -75.3720, dt= 11.605 sec
8:51:48, N40.6326 -75.3775, v~ 608.442 kts

8:53:35, N40.4242 -75.3288, dt= 12.025 sec
8:53:47, N40.3976 -75.2978, v~ 639.228 kts

Here's the "kicker:"
8:55:35, N40.3237 -75.0264, dt= 11.920 sec
8:55:47, N40.2793 -74.9777, v~ 1049.654 kts

EDIT3: The GCC calculator just gave me 1042.889342364 kts for the above (assuming a 12.000 sec interval)- that's +0.649 percent difference in my approximation for this data point. That's close enough for sidewinders and stingers. wink.gif

There are several other data points, but these should prove interesting enough.

For most of the data above, I calculated the speed of sound near 580-590 knots (it varies with altitude), if anyone is interested in that part.

Also, I found an average radar sweep interval of 12.0332 seconds, Standard Deviation = 0.799319918 sec for the USAF UA175 data in the .XLS spreadsheet. All UA175 radar returns were taken at the RIV station.

EDIT2: Summary: I found 15 "interval" velocities over 0.86M, 6 velocities over the presumed 0.91M "flight test" limit, and 3 over 1.0M. "Boeing builds good airplanes" indeed... rolleyes.gif

EDIT4: UA175 was allegedly B767-222 #N612UA B# 21873, PW JT9D-7R4D, Mode 3A 1470 > 3020 > 3321

late EDIT: I just noticed that "BCR" had made a post about "Law of Cosines" on 19 April 2008. Weren't we discussing that around here last Christmas (about post #349 on another thread?). whistle.gif

This post has been edited by dMole: Jun 1 2008, 10:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 31 2008, 08:03 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,599
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



dMole,

please post the speeds based on your calculations.


Also, i just tried to call you. Give me a ring when you get a chance...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 31 2008, 02:18 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



Some info on RADES radar stations that I got from the RS3 Software and put together:
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2414427832.html

And here's a bit about primary vs. secondary radar:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8803

The RADES site codes are at:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10534255

This post has been edited by dMole: May 31 2008, 08:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post Jun 11 2008, 05:22 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



QUOTE (Killtown @ May 26 2008, 05:04 PM) *
Could a 767 do this at "590mph" even if computer controlled?


(Note this gif does not show the time when the "plane" is behind the smoke to limit the gif size. Here is the full clip.)
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#CBS_Live_1


Seems like the banking this "plane" did would be too many G-forces for a giant aluminum soda to handle regardless of who/what is flying it.

What's everyone's opinion on this? Could a 767 not only handle the G loads from doing this radical last seconds maneuver at the reported 590mph, but could be flown with pin-point precision into the South Tower via remote control?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seatnineb
post Jun 11 2008, 05:37 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 38
Joined: 11-June 08
Member No.: 3,546



Killtown raises a good question:

Can a 767 dive like this:






A book I got shows the consequences of a more acute dive....

Not only would the aircraft possibly experience structural failure.....but the pilot may pass out....







Mechanics Of Flight
By AC Kermode
Published by Prentice Hall
page 250 +251
1996

This post has been edited by Seatnineb: Jun 11 2008, 05:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 11 2008, 06:41 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



Hello and welcome S9B,

Your book looks helpful, but I think AC Kermode would have done well to include a pitch angle on his? velocity vector (vectors requiring both magnitude and direction). No matter, I can likely re-construct it from the diagram posted, provided trigonometry still holds- thank you for the diagram. USAF RADES data has UA175 pitching down at 8-15 degrees, as I recall- I've posted that somewhere here a while back- search around a bit.

On the structrucal/performance issues, see the following:

Post #83:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10246064

My take is at post #94:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10260226

Also, a minor, late correction- the FAR has commercial transport safety factor at 1.5, IIRC- see the Aircraft section here on "Flight Test Limits."

LATE EDIT:
Post 21:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10475164
Reason for edit: Added x-ref
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post Jun 12 2008, 01:22 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317





Does everyone at least agree that programming a remote controlled 767 to fly into the South Tower as observed above was WAY more riskier than flying it in straighter and more level like "Flight 11" supposedly flew in like?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 14 2008, 10:40 AM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,885
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I know that if I were going to fly such a suicide mission, I would be lined up 5 miles out at 1000 feet or so, and just take it to the target.

I have never been able to understand the need for the yanking and banking at the last few seconds. Unless, of course, it was a drone with some sort of homing device locking on in the last few seconds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post Jun 14 2008, 01:55 PM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 14 2008, 09:40 AM) *
I know that if I were going to fly such a suicide mission, I would be lined up 5 miles out at 1000 feet or so, and just take it to the target.

I have never been able to understand the need for the yanking and banking at the last few seconds. Unless, of course, it was a drone with some sort of homing device locking on in the last few seconds.

Or a fake plane? Fake planes can be made to do the impossible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 14 2008, 06:58 PM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,885
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Fake planes can be made to do all sorts of things "in the movies".

In real life, fake planes will not fly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post Jun 15 2008, 03:25 PM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 14 2008, 05:58 PM) *
Fake planes can be made to do all sorts of things "in the movies".

And where did most people on 9/11 see a plane hitting the building? On TV (i.e. the movies).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 15 2008, 03:46 PM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,885
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



No doubt!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
diesel737
post Jul 23 2008, 02:37 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 27-August 07
Member No.: 1,861



In my professional opinion, IF UA 175 was the real plane involved here, the gross weight of the aircraft plays a huge role here. To put the aircraft into a 8-15 degree dive at that weight(remember, we have a fuel load to go x-country), the speed would rise so fast even with the throttles closed that I doubt some amateur could handle it. You would have to practice the maneuver many times to know how to manage the speed and energy to even pull out of the dive without ripping the wings off. Now if the amateurs did manage to dive the plane and achieve the claimed speed, the aerodynamic load on the control surfaces(ailerons, spoilers, elevators) which are powered by 3000psi of hydraulic pressure, would be so great that the rookie-pilot would either over or undercontrol the aircraft in relation to the target.
In regards to the last few maneuvers the aircraft made to hit the building, once it made its turn in toward the tower, it held a constant angle of bank(from what I see) until impact. If that really was a nervous, no experience, kamikaze jihadee going close to mach 1, he would have been rolling to left the whole time to assure himself more of a center-target hit. Only one other thing besides experience could have assured impact with the smoothness of those maneuvers, and yes at that speed those were pretty smooth, and that is controlled guidance.
Any of you with handheld GPS's or those of you with them in the car ever said, " Wow, these things are amazing!" ? Well, they are. And the technology in today's airliners are better than that. I would bet on the remote guided, or even pre-progammed guided theories.
Back to topic matter. I have a hard time believing the claims of 590 miles per hour, purely on the aerodynamic loads imposed on the aircraft during pullout from the dive and the turns. In order to maintain altitude in a turn, you have to increase the load on the elevators. Basics, I know, but I'm no test pilot and my company doesn't want me to be. However, I do know what is required to make 20 degree bank turns, at 300 knots(or about 345mph) and maintain altitude without the autopilot, and I think Joe Public Microsoft Flight Sim pro would be surprised.

Just my two cents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 24 2008, 11:06 AM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,885
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for the input Diesel. I agree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 28 2008, 05:06 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



OK here's an open challenge to anyone- be they a pilot, engineer, aviation technician, ATC, or just Joe Q. Public:

Please bring documented, independently-verifiable, sourced evidence that a commercial Boeing transport (specifically B767 and B757 in the 9/11 contexts) can operate and survive in the flight envelope "officially" claimed for UA175 and post it here for independent review and analysis.

I'm ideally hoping for Boeing, Pratt-Whitney, Rolls-Royce, or General Electric engineers' or test pilots' input here, but they and the "supporting documentation" have been strangely silent for the last 7-ish years...

I have already seen the clip where Joe Keith? considered it laughable. Please include NCSTAR, section, and page number if you are going to cite NIST or ASCE/FEMA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 19th April 2014 - 03:10 AM