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 )

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nasa Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The " Elephant In The Room ", PilotsFor911Truth.org

Rating 5 V
 
Maha Mantra
post Sep 29 2010, 01:49 AM
Post #181





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



Actually it doesn't indicate stall does it ? Just at the structural failure point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Oct 31 2010, 01:00 AM
Post #182





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



Its been awhile and I figured someone would have said I was dumb. So I'll do it. Maha, you're dumb. OK.

So, the graph basically shows that stall is relative to speed and that as speed increases, stall becomes less possible, but as Rob has shown well, the lift increases as well and moves reward causing severe handling problems, as well as aileron reversal etc.

The graph seems to show that airspeed at low altitude can be acheived up to structural failure. So for me, it seems like the plane could have been going as fast as at least the videos depict it as going, and that it is getting well into structural failure levels.

So, in my measily mind, it looks like more of a military industry style endeavor to take a 767, make it reliably withstand the forces and fly reliably and very accurately to accomplish this particular mission.

Is there any data or experience of flying such a manuever even at high altitudes from pilots ? Not equating air density but actual flight characteristics regardless of air density? Has anyone found a 767 to start handling abnormally when turning one at high speed at high altitude ?

Air density increases lift. it increases resistance. It increases drag.

There must be a comparison between wing geometry and components between aircraft designed for varying air densities at high speed. Meaning the size shape etc of the airfoils between a 767 and F-15 for example, and how the differences would show why a 767 couldn't do what an F-15 could at the considered speeds and air densities.
How easy would it be to hit the towers in an F-15 at 500 mph? Anyone know ? I'm just trying to increase my perception of the unlikeliness of a 767 doing what it did, and wonder more clearly what would have had to be done to make a 767 capable of that manuever.

Right now, I believe no amatuer pilot could have done it, and have doubts about a human doing it at all, and wonder if the plane with advanced control systems remotely could have been guided and/or what changes would have to be made to have even remotely piloted the plane and have it reliable and accurate.

Then the flashes at impact become more interesting too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 14 2010, 03:08 PM
Post #183





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,931
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It is likely that at least one of the aircraft had been modified into tanker configuration, thereby making the airframe stronger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scooby
post Mar 10 2014, 02:20 PM
Post #184





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 82
Joined: 31-October 12
Member No.: 7,076



Just a quick note about the air speed. I have argued the “flying way beyond specification” case several times and always hear the response “We don’t know if that speed chart is accurate”.

On Netflix there is a series about airline disasters (I forget the name). One of the episodes is called “Mixed Signals” and it shows a 757 getting mixed air speed signals which eventually cause the plane to stall because the pilot thinks the plane is going too fast. In the CVR recreation they show the plane flashing over speed alarms and beeps when the plane gets too close to 350 knots at 10,000 feet. So a 757 has a very intricate warning system to prevent over speed structural failure. This is great independent verification of a 757 speed specifications at lower altitudes. It also is a strong data point that what hit the Pentagon could not have been flight 77 – a 757 flying 480 knots twenty feet above ground.

This post has been edited by Scooby: Mar 10 2014, 02:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peterauty
post May 27 2014, 11:24 AM
Post #185





Group: Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: 17-May 14
From: England
Member No.: 7,814



I understand these are reported impact speeds. Can anyone tell me for how long these maximum speeds were sustained or was it maybe a case of revving the engines to maximum at the last minute when controllability and any need to keep the airplane intact would no longer be an issue?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 27 2014, 12:05 PM
Post #186



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Peterauty @ May 27 2014, 04:24 PM) *
I understand these are reported impact speeds. Can anyone tell me for how long these maximum speeds were sustained or was it maybe a case of revving the engines to maximum at the last minute when controllability and any need to keep the airplane intact would no longer be an issue?


According to the official story, no:

http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c1/Radar_...AA11,_UA175.pdf






Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAaEZEB850M

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 27 2014, 12:12 PM
Post #187



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095




"UA 175" Stable 1.5 Mile Turn Toward WTC 2 (Enhanced View)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgMsDfJ-gB0

That is ridiculous.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 27 2014, 12:38 PM
Post #188



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 27 2014, 12:12 PM) *
"UA 175" Stable 1.5 Mile Turn Toward WTC 2 (Enhanced View)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgMsDfJ-gB0

That is ridiculous.


Well... to be clear....

Ridiculous for a standard 767 flown by a 'pilot' with zero time in type and less experience than one who couldn't control a Cessna 172 at 65 knots....

It is probably why the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 were never positively identified....


pilotfly.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10
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: 25th October 2014 - 03:42 PM