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

[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. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/sweat.gif)

(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.

(IMG:http://mcraeclan.com/Caitlin/g/NewJerseyMap.gif)

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.

(IMG:http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/pc022a.jpg)

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

[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