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 )

18 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
USAF 84 RADES Data For UA175 Indicates Mach 1 Speed?, edited title

amazed!
post Oct 6 2007, 03:26 PM
Post #61





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I would like clarification.

Does this mean that an official radar record shows the flight offshore whilst another official record shows the flight departing Logan?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 7 2007, 01:13 AM
Post #62





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



Here's my analysis of the supplied radar returns from the USAF 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron as posted by Ashoka:

Distance flown between all 25 supplied returns is 45.3 miles from the first return (listed at time code: 12:57:35, and position: 40.2554, -74.6742) and then tracking through the subsequent listed returns to the final return (listed at time code: 13:02:24, and position: 40.6874, -74.0379.)

With a flight duration of 4 minutes 48.7 seconds, the average speed works out at 565 mph with top speeds of up to 660 mph being reached between certain radar returns.

Point by point analysis. United Airlines Flight 175 is coming out of a turn at the beginning of this sequence, acquisitioning and then approaching the target (the south face of WTC2) on a steep and direct descent:

1 - 2: Distance = 1.9 miles. Duration = 12 seconds. Speed = 570 mph. Height = 26,400 feet.

*2 - 3: Distance = 2.2 miles. Duration = 12 seconds. Speed = 660 mph. Height = 25,800 feet.

3 - 4: Distance = 1.8 miles. Duration = 12 seconds. Speed = 540 mph. Height = 25,600 feet.

4 - 7: Distance = 5.3 miles. Duration = 36 seconds. Speed = 530 mph. Height = 22,400 feet.

7 - 10: Distance = 5.7 miles. Duration = 36 seconds. Speed = 570 mph. Height = 20,000 feet.

10 - 13: Distance =5.5 miles. Duration = 36 seconds. Speed = 550 mph. Height = 18,800 feet.

13 - 16: Distance = 5.7 miles. Duration = 36 seconds. Speed = 570 mph. Height = 14,400 feet.

16 - 19: Distance = 5.9 miles. Duration = 36 seconds. Speed = 590 mph. Height = 10,400 feet.

19 - 22: Distance = 5.6 miles. Duration = 36 seconds. Speed = 560 mph. Height = 7,600 feet.

22 - 25: Distance = 5.7 miles. Duration = 36 seconds. Speed = 570 mph. Height = 2,800 feet.

* Target acquisition obtained at approximate range of 44 miles from WTC2



Total descent during approach: 25,450 feet (approximately 5,000 feet per minute)

WOW!

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Oct 7 2007, 01:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Oct 7 2007, 01:32 AM
Post #63



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



(Assuming the math checks out,)

Nice work thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 7 2007, 02:15 AM
Post #64





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 6 2007, 02:26 PM)
I would like clarification.

Does this mean that an official radar record shows the flight offshore whilst another official record shows the flight departing Logan?

I'm not sure if there are other official reports in contradiction on this issue but I can confirm that the four NTSB flight path reports for the 9/11 aircraft all list point (A) on the various diagrams as the take off point for the respective planes. UA 175 stands mysteriously alone in that this point (A) is designated as being 10 miles offshore due east of Logan. Upon review I do notice that the Altitude diagram shows the take off point at 6,000 feet. The text of the report states that the flight left Logan. This is the contradiction.

I reiterate: all three of the other reports show ground take offs from the appropriate airports and this take off being signified by a named point: (A). The report for UA 175 similarly signifies point (A) as the take off point but this point is ten miles offshore and 6,000 feet in altitude. The reports were all prepared by the same official. If United 175 was a ground launch similar to American 11 why didn't the official present the diagrams in the same way. This to me is a very curious anomaly. It doesn't make sense. Now, I believe that an AGM-86 could be launched at 6,000 feet offshore...

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Oct 7 2007, 02:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KILL YOUR TV!
post Oct 10 2007, 10:38 AM
Post #65


serving suggestion


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 113



just finished reading this thread. props to you guys cheers.gif great find !!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 11 2007, 02:06 PM
Post #66





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 21 2007, 12:31 PM)
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:

[cyber sabotage: obscene replacement image deleted]

My original reference picture has been replaced with an obscene image of a man fellating another man!

Who did this and how? angry.gif

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Oct 11 2007, 03:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 11 2007, 03:14 PM
Post #67





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Oct 11 2007, 01:06 PM)
[cyber sabotage: obscene replacement image deleted]

My original reference picture has been replaced with an obscene image of a man fellating another man!

Who did this and how? angry.gif


Possible Answers Here

Any one with any relevant information: Please forward to me via PM and Sanders (admin.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 13 2007, 12:26 PM
Post #68





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



I first saw this highly impressive YouTube video of Rob's a while back when it was first issued and recently reacquainted myself of it. (I was actually visiting this thread a couple of days ago to post the clip here when I got stopped short by the surprise of the "image switch" sabotage.)

The video is so informative and IMO, worth a look as a salient cross-reference to the flight performance issues that this thread has turned up.

Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Attacks

Professional Pilots Rob Balsamo and FAA Authorized Flight Examiner/Check Airman Dan Govatos discuss the difficulty of the WTC attacks as well as attempts to duplicate the attack in an Airline Simulator on tnrlive.com.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
genghis6119
post Oct 15 2007, 08:58 AM
Post #69





Group: Newbie
Posts: 30
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,730



good work.

but i've tried about fifty times to get that link to the 175 ntsb reports to work. crashes ny browser every time. has anybody got a copy that doesn't run through retarded adobe software?.

or maybe some jpgs n stuff?. cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 15 2007, 09:26 AM
Post #70





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (genghis6119 @ Oct 15 2007, 07:58 AM)
good work.

but i've tried about fifty times to get that link to the 175 ntsb reports to work. crashes ny browser every time. has anybody got a copy that doesn't run through retarded adobe software?.

or maybe some jpgs n stuff?. cheers

Another link to it here with diagram excerpts at least:

Flight paths

dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
genghis6119
post Oct 16 2007, 08:17 PM
Post #71





Group: Newbie
Posts: 30
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,730



cheers. much thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 18 2007, 04:19 PM
Post #72





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (genghis6119 @ Oct 16 2007, 07:17 PM)
cheers. much thanks.

You are welcome, my friend. salute.gif

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Oct 18 2007, 04:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 31 2007, 12:00 PM
Post #73





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Oct 7 2007, 12:13 AM)
Target acquisition obtained at approximate range of 44 miles from WTC2

Open Question for all pilots, (or any other industry professionals with relevant knowledge):

How could a pilot in a passenger plane obtain a fix on WTC2 from 44 miles away (altitude: 25,800 feet) and during an extreme turn, then head straight for it? Does this aspect of the UA 175 flight path information prove "guided" flight?

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Oct 31 2007, 12:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 1 2007, 11:45 AM
Post #74





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Oct 31 2007, 11:00 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Oct 7 2007, 12:13 AM)
Target acquisition obtained at approximate range of 44 miles from WTC2

Open Question for all pilots, (or any other industry professionals with relevant knowledge):

How could a pilot in a passenger plane obtain a fix on WTC2 from 44 miles away (altitude: 25,800 feet) and during an extreme turn, then head straight for it? Does this aspect of the UA 175 flight path information prove "guided" flight?

For reference purposes, here is an aerial photograph taken above a seven mile stretch of coastline (Morro Bay, CA) taken from 25,000 feet:



Imagine coming out of an extreme turn and accurately targeting a point that stretches a further thirty seven miles into the distance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 1 2007, 04:40 PM
Post #75





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



FFG

Assuming the coordinates were in the GPS for the towers, it would be simple to do this. That is, the towers are a waypoint, and the unit navigates to the waypoint.

IMO, there were no pilots onboard. As is the case with UAVs so widely deployed today, any piloting is done by remote control and computers.

Also, as far as I'm concerned the radar data is as suspicious as the passenger lists. Government info and disinfo.

But assuming that data you mention is accurate, 44 miles and 25000 feet would certainly require a steep dive and high indicated airspeed, which would explain some of the numbers in those parameters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 2 2007, 04:00 AM
Post #76





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 1 2007, 03:40 PM)
FFG

Assuming the coordinates were in the GPS for the towers, it would be simple to do this.  That is, the towers are a waypoint, and the unit navigates to the waypoint.

IMO, there were no pilots onboard.  As is the case with UAVs so widely deployed today, any piloting is done by remote control and computers.

Also, as far as I'm concerned the radar data is as suspicious as the passenger lists.  Government info and disinfo.

But assuming that data you mention is accurate, 44 miles and 25000 feet would certainly require a steep dive and high indicated airspeed, which would explain some of the numbers in those parameters.

Many thanks for your response, amazed! What exactly do you mean by simple though? Can we assume that the Boeing 767 had the Towers set up as waypoints in its GPS system? In either case, as I understand it, the maneuver, if hand flown, is extremely difficult. All GPS is doing is telling you which direction to fly the plane but honing in on the target and hitting it at those speeds seems to be another matter entirely.

QUOTE (Dan Govatos: Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Flights)
This was in a 737 (simulator), a lot more maneuverable an airplane and I set it up for these pilots and keep in mind these pilots have many years of experience and I set up New York and they all just took turns trying to hit the buildings and they couldn't do it unless they slowed down to almost landing speeds... they could not hit those buildings at the high speeds: they couldn't do it.


It seems though from your answer where you reference UAVs, that you are inclined to believe that some kind of guided flight system was in operation, albeit with a UAV, not a missile. The question is: would a UAV be able to carry out the maneuvers indicated by the radar returns? I don't believe such a vehicle could. What do you feel? We are talking an average speed of 565 mph (490 knots) and top speeds of 660 mph (574 knots) and a straight trajectory towards target of 44 miles and descent of 25,000 feet. I definitely can't see a vehicle such as a global hawk carrying out this maneuver. I also do not believe a remote controlled Boeing 767 could perform as indicated. Quite honestly, the only vehicle that I CAN see performing in the way indicated by the data is a missile.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 2 2007, 04:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 2 2007, 09:55 AM
Post #77





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



FFG

There is also a function known as Vertical Navigation, VNAV, that these new electronic units perform. Basically it is an ongoing calculation of altitude v. groundspeed in order to arrive at a waypoint at an assigned altitude.

In the old days it required a quick mind on the part of the pilot, but these new avionics make it fairly easy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 2 2007, 02:06 PM
Post #78





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 2 2007, 08:55 AM)
FFG

There is also a function known as Vertical Navigation, VNAV, that these new electronic units perform. Basically it is an ongoing calculation of altitude v. groundspeed in order to arrive at a waypoint at an assigned altitude.

In the old days it required a quick mind on the part of the pilot, but these new avionics make it fairly easy.

Thank you so much for this information, amazed! It is much appreciated.

Would you agree, though, that the returns, if accurate, indicate a maneuver way beyond the performance envelope of a Boeing 767 (remote controlled or otherwise) or a UAV?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 2 2007, 10:50 PM
Post #79





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Well the maneuver certainly exceeding the operating limitations of the Boeing, or so I would guess, not having any familiarity with the numbers on the 767, but remember that limitations can be exceeded on an airplane, but the penalty you pay is that there are structural issues at stake. That is, the limitations may be exceeded, but the structure is compromised for anything in the future.

If the airplane is expendable anyway, who cares? With swept wings and such, the aerodynamic qualities are probably not significantly different.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 3 2007, 07:27 AM
Post #80





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 2 2007, 09:50 PM)
Well the maneuver certainly exceeding the operating limitations of the Boeing, or so I would guess, not having any familiarity with the numbers on the 767, but remember that limitations can be exceeded on an airplane, but the penalty you pay is that there are structural issues at stake. That is, the limitations may be exceeded, but the structure is compromised for anything in the future.

If the airplane is expendable anyway, who cares? With swept wings and such, the aerodynamic qualities are probably not significantly different.

Well actually the penalty, as I understand it, for attempting to fly an airliner in the manner indicated by the radar returns, would be the structural break up of the plane in flight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: 27th August 2014 - 06:51 AM