[X] My Assistant

[Factfinder Gener...]

moved / Zap

Flight UA 175: An Incredible Journey

In August 2006 the NTSB, in response to a NSA FOI request, finally released details of the 9/11 flights.

NTSB Releases 9/11 Flight Information

When going over the report in reference to another thread it suddenly dawned on me how incredible a journey the flight of United Airlines 175 actually was. Report Here

The report includes a flight profile, a ground track, A pressure altitude graph derived from radar mode C returns, and a transcript of radio communications.

Below is a widely published graphic of the flight path:

< image deleted >

The following is a "blow by blow" of the alleged plane's astonishing flight, taken from the report:

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Boston Logan at 8:14AM

It reached 31,000 feet at 8:33AM

The final radio transmission was at 8:42AM

Beacon Codes were changed twice within one minute at 8:47AM

UA 175 started into a climbing turn to the South East at 8:51AM

It reached 33,500 feet at 8:53AM

UA 175 began its descent while continuing its turn

It turned towards North East while its descent continued

The "plane" was now headed towards WTC2 in a direction of North east (45 degrees)
at what is termed point (G)

Its altitude at this point was 25,000 feet at 8:58 AM

It was at 24,000 feet at 8:59AM

18,500 feet at 9:00AM

15,000 feet at 9:01AM

9,000 feet at 9:02AM

The "plane" is presumed to have struck its target at a height under 1000 feet at 9:02 40 AM. Mission Accomplished.

(END FLIGHT SUMMARY)

Now point (G) where UA 175 starts heading straight for WTC2 is just east of Trenton, NJ. The targeted tower is approximately sixty miles away at this point.



This is incredible target acquisitioning, but just as incredible is the fact that according to the NTSB report, which was founded on three sets of radar data ( FAA, JFK Approach and USAF) the alleged plane covered the sixty mile distance in approximately 4 minutes and 40 seconds. That works out to an average of 774 mph; this is above Mach 1! (The altitude ascent and descent are worthy of interest too, I might add)

Now a Boeing 767's cruising speed is Mach 0.8 at 35,000 feet which is 530 mph. Its Maximum cruising speed is Mach 0.86 which is 568 mph.

An average speed of 774 mph on a descent from 25,000 feet to below 1,000 feet, covering a distance of sixty miles directly towards target in just over 4.5 minutes, represents a totally impossible achievement, on multiple levels, for a mid-size wide-body twinjet airliner.

This surely is not a Boeing 767. It can't even be a Tomahawk Penetrator as these are subsonic (though a supersonic variant is in the works). Now I know the following option is in the "not quite out of the showroom" category but the above flight profile (and the impressively explosive finale at flight's end) does fit the new breed of Tactical Penetrator: the RATTLRS.



Revolutionary Approach To Time-critical Long Range Strike (RATTLRS) represents a new supersonic cruise missile concept, enabling warfighters to rapidly launch precision attacks against time-critical targets, from ranges of hundreds of kilometers. When planning RATTLERS missions, users will be able to adjust fuel consumption, speed and range to address a particular mission objective. Unlike current cruise missiles, depending on a lengthy and complex mission planning process, RATTLRS will feature much faster mission preparation, taking only few minutes. Missiles will be able to strike a target after flying a distance of hundreds of kilometers, within 30 minutes from target detection. One of the main advantages of RATTLRS is its ability to cruise at variable speeds, including supersonic speed.
Update on RATTLRS

(END EXCERPT)

For all those people seeking a candidate for a projectile that looks like a plane but stings like a penetrator, this might fit the bill. The Military Establishment may just be beginning to unveil RATTLRS now but who's to say they weren't tempted to road test it a couple of times back in 2001?

As a point of interest, m-v-b has another thread going on where he is in the early stages of calculating speeds from the 2nd Hit videos. Thus far he has been turning up astonishingly high speeds including one in the Mach 1 range. Flight 175 Cruise Speed - Could It be?

I am sure that the NTSB will be pleased to see independent corroboration of their mind-blowing report.

Factfinder General September 21 2007

This post has been edited by Sanders: Oct 11 2007, 02:18 PM

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Looks like you just debunked the Offical Theorie with youre own, dirty hands.


Outstanding, fantastic Job!

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

I hope i did nothing wrong. Pls correct me if needed!!!!

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

i couldnt resist, and made a short movie for the youtube folks.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVnGSiu-nL4

^^

[Factfinder Gener...]

On the other end of the spectrum, a scrutiny of the NTSB report for American Airlines Flight 11, shows this to be the little airplane/missile that could.



Here's the report:

NTSB Report on AA 11

Heres a collection of the various 911 plane/missile flight paths as reported in the media:



So, according to the NTSB report, as American Airlines Flight 11 wended its way above Westchester County, it averaged approximately 400 mph over a distance of 40 miles (point G to H in the report) and then when it flew above the Yonkers district it took a slight turn to the South South West, targeting WTC1. This last 16 miles or so of the plane/missile's approach as it headed towards the North Tower saw its average speed drop to approximately 315 mph. Apparently though, despite its comparitively tardy performance, it still managed to pack as big a wallop as it's supersonic buddy, UA 175.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 21 2007, 11:22 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

i couldnt resist, and made a short movie for the youtube folks.

Apparently I was being conservative in my estimates.

F*#k Concorde indeed. I might also add F*#k the Perpeteers who tried to pull off this sordid scam!

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 21 2007, 08:36 PM

[grizz]

Good job, FfG!

[Factfinder Gener...]

Good job, FfG!

Thank You Much, Oceans Flow. What a nifty little vid our good fellow, m-v-b, put together. Did you watch it? Raises a smile when the music shifts gear and the caption just says Wow! Very nicely done I thought!

[grizz]

Good job, FfG!

Thank You Much, Oceans Flow. What a nifty little vid our good fellow, m-v-b, put together. Did you watch it? Raises a smile when the music shifts gear and the caption just says Wow! Very nicely done I thought!

Yeah. I'm going to use this on my home board. It's very strong evidence.

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Also watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

"Pump it out calls Boeing"

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

I just where forced to relook at the messurement, and sure i made a more percise, drawing. This one is as accurat as i could get, maybe someone is even better.
The speed is still incredible for a Boeing 767.

Look for your self.

[Factfinder Gener...]

I just where forced to relook at the messurement, and sure i made a more percise, drawing. This one is as accurat as i could get, maybe someone is even better.
The speed is still incredible for a Boeing 767.

Yeah, it's obvious we are dealing with a ridiculous speed but let's lock down the distance between point (G) and WTC2. I estimated at least 60 miles which gave me 774 mph with 280 sec. This would be faster yet with your 270 sec time. Your first estimate of distance was 66 miles. Now it's another. I will double check this distance as best as I can, but let's lock it, m-v-b! It is an actual and specific distance, and we need to know what it is precisely, IMO.

[Factfinder Gener...]

I just where forced to relook at the messurement, and sure i made a more percise, drawing. This one is as accurat as i could get, maybe someone is even better.
The speed is still incredible for a Boeing 767.

Yeah, it's obvious we are dealing with a ridiculous speed but let's lock down the distance between point (G) and WTC2. I estimated at least 60 miles which gave me 774 mph with 280 sec. This would be faster yet with your 270 sec time. Your first estimate of distance was 66 miles. Now it's another. I will double check this distance as best as I can, but let's lock it, m-v-b! It is an actual and specific distance, and we need to know what it is precisely, IMO.

m-v-b, I just double checked and I still get 60 miles plus for the distance. I overlaid the NTSB Ground Track diagram over this map of NJ which has a mileage guide. (*Note: The map's indication of NY is not over Lower Manhattan, but below it for some reason. Carry out the measurement to Lower Manhattan.) It keeps giving me over sixty miles. I am not using computers for the overlay process; I am doing it by hand. Maybe you could do an overlay of the ground track and the map and get a more accurate read. Im using reference points of New Jersey State from the two maps to match up. Maybe there's a better map that has more of the States indicated and that has a mileage guide? I'll look see. New Jersey ref points should be good enough though.




This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 22 2007, 11:04 AM

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Hey Factfinder.

Yes i recognized, that there is a discrepancie in using the Warminster Airport.
What i did in my last comparison was to focus on the borderline of Pensylvania.



ill try to use youre NJ map now.

[Sanders]

Great work, guys !

[rob balsamo]

Wow... really good work guys...

I did some quick calculations based on the diagrams you show. I havent checked the report itself, but if in fact your diagrams are from the report then...

This aircraft was traveling at 10 miles per minute or 600 knots average over 4.5 mins! Holy crap!

I'll be looking deeper into this and if all is correct, will be putting it up on the main site in the near future... of course i'll give the hat tip to FFG and mvb for the find...

Excellent work guys... really.

[Factfinder Gener...]

Wow... really good work guys...

I did some quick calculations based on the diagrams you show. I havent checked the report itself, but if in fact your diagrams are from the report then...

This aircraft was traveling at 10 miles per minute or 600 knots average over 4.5 mins! Holy crap!

I'll be looking deeper into this and if all is correct, will be putting it up on the main site in the near future... of course i'll give the hat tip to FFG and mvb for the find...

Excellent work guys... really. 

Thanks Rob!

Update on the distance travelled:

The map I was using to chart distances was drawn up by Magellan Geographix

Magellan Geographix Website

Here's a link to another NJ map from them:

http://i.infoplease.com/images/mnewjersey.gif

They claim to be the most accurate resource. There may be a more accurate one?

[rob balsamo]

I used Google Earth for distance.. came out to ~45NM.

Also keep in mind, winds were primarily out of the north/northwest that day.... nice crisp blue air... so the wind was not helping much if at all...

[rob balsamo]

Several possibilities exist here...

1. The NTSB screwed up on the data (which no doubt will be the excuse used by govt loyalists and perhaps the NTSB)

2. It was an aerodynamically modified 767 able to sustain such speeds/descent rates.. etc in order to precisely hit WTC2

3. It was a 767 and perhaps left many parts ripped from the airframe during such sustained high speeds from Trenton to NYC. The "Hijacker" pilots were able to recognize Mach Tuck and took appropriate measure during onset, yet decided to increase speed once again...

4. It wasnt a 767.

5. The data is fabricated

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

I have to go now, so just a crapy try.

:}