Reply With Quote
lol pilots for twoof
Is your theory now that neither 757s nor 767s were used in any of the 9/11 attacks, dan?
Yes or no.
Nope...nobody could....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...howtopic=20178Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.
Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher al udes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high al ude, there is an airspeed appropriately led "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high al udes.[2]
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.
lol pilots for twoof
Is your theory now that neither 757s nor 767s were used in any of the 9/11 attacks, dan?
Yes or no.
I was behind 911. Mystery solved.
Now Chumpy knows better than licensed pilots too...Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11.
Maybe the plane was one of the lucky ones and survived the rapid (world-record breaking quite honestly) death plunge from rapid decent, would such an inexperienced pilot been capable of correcting the death plunge and still maintain (almost flawless) heading? ....things to think about....
Last edited by Nbadan; 05-26-2014 at 10:59 AM.
I knew it.
dan, the thing to think about is the theory you probably don't know you are now trying to sell here.
You are now saying that no 757s or 767s were used in the attacks.
What are you now saying was used in the attacks, dan?
I know that the NTSB never suggested that EA990 broke up at 22,000 feet -- so yes, I do know better than these "licensed pilots."
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-26-2014 at 12:36 PM.
This is a whopper of a lie, dan.
The flight data recorder stopped receiving data when the suicidal flight officer turned off the engines.
The plane was able to climb 9000 feet after the FDR recorded the highest speed (Mach 0.99) and G-forces (2.4) without any power. Obviously, the plane didn't break up during this time. If it broke up -- the debris fields aren't totally conclusive -- that happened during the final descent when the engines were off and no data was being recorded by the FDR.
Did you even try to vet this, dan? I mean, this was especially easy to destroy. You just saw it and took it as gospel?
As Boutons would say....why you lie?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_Air_990From the presence of a western debris field about 1,200 feet (370 m) from the eastern debris field, the NTSB concluded that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact.[1]
For those of us who live in the real world, the plane was compromised before it hit the water....
Right, not at any time the FDR was functioning, since the plane climbed 9000 feet after it stopped functioning.As Boutons would say....why you lie?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_Air_990
For those of us who live in the real world, the plane was compromised before it hit the water....
What part of that do you not understand, dan?
Seriously, dan -- I want to help you out here.
What part are you not understanding?
The flight data recorder stopped receiving data when the suicidal flight officer turned off the engines
http://vimeo.com/7340833
This does nothing to disprove the fact that the flight data recorder stopped receiving data when the suicidal flight officer turned off the engines. In fact is uses the graph that shows the engines' being turned off. It's the same graph in your wiki article.
Are you drunk?
Go back and watch the presentation again... , it disproves your bull ....there are redundant systems that kept recording flight data....the ATC Transponder would not have stopped because of a power-down of the engines....the transponder failed because the plane was structurally compromised by exceeding the max speed set by Boeing...
The FDR and CDR do not shut down when you power down the engines....
Apparently p4t didn't know that backup power to FDRs was not required in 1999.
Go back and watch the presentation again... , it disproves your bull ....there are redundant systems that kept recording flight data....the ATC Transponder would not have stopped because of a power-down of the engines....the transponder failed because the plane was structurally compromised by exceeding the max speed set by Boeing...
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/...n/wp300_en.pdf2.2.1 pit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR) Improvements
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). In February 2005, the FAA released an NPRM that if
adopted, would make several improvements to the quality, quan y and reliability of the current flight
recorder system’s data. The rulemaking is a result of technical assessments of accidents, such as Alaska
Airlines Flight 261, SwissAir Flight 111, Egypt Air Flight 990, and American Airlines 587 and in
response to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendations. The rule would
require that two years after the effective date of the rule, operators and aircraft manufacturers must
accomplish the following:
• All airplanes that are required to carry a CVR must retrofit their airplanes to install a
two-hour, solid-state recorder. This eliminates the use of magnetic tape and 30
minute solid state recorders which were raised as a concern in A35-WP/144. Also all
newly manufactured airplanes and rotorcraft that are required to carry a CVR, must
install a two hour, solid-state recorder.
• All newly manufactured aircraft that are required to carry a CVR, must install an
independent power supply capable of providing 10 minutes of back-up power to the
CVR in the event that normal aircraft power is lost
• All newly manufactured aircraft that are required to carry a CVR or FDR, must
incorporate design changes to ensure that no single aircraft electrical power failure
will remove power to both the CVR and FDR.t
Man, I know so much more than these guys!
After 2007 they don't.
Back in 1999, they certainly could -- otherwise, there would have been no reason to write a rule requiring backup power in 2005.
Also, EA990 wasn't registered in the US, so it wasn't subject to the same regulations even if backup power was required by the FAA back then -- which it wasn't.
Any further comment, dan?
I'm still here, just bored....It is your theory that the FDR stopped because of engine stop, I don't think so, ...my theory is that the FDR stopped recording because the plane started falling apart, the multiple debris field seems to support my theory, that just like in wind tunnel tests, when you push a plane pasts its limits, the wings and engine peel off...none of this takes away from my initial argument that it would have been very difficult for an inexperienced pilot to control this death fall and still maintain heading...
How do you explain the plane's pulling out of its dive and climbing thousands of feet after you claim it broke up?
The hijackers only clew at those speeds for a few seconds and almost misses the buildings. They were not good pilots but one doesn't have to be a good pilot to crash a plane.
Which plane are you talking about? EA990 or United 175?How do you explain the plane's pulling out of its dive and climbing thousands of feet after you claim it broke up?
False, the hijackers actually flew the planes for hundreds of miles, navigated themselves without GPS, although there has been speculation that they possessed held-held GPS, no proof exists, flew at 'sometimes' incredible speeds for inexperienced pilots, made accuratecourse corrections ......and then managed to hit a target on land...he hijackers only clew at those speeds for a few seconds and almost misses the buildings. They were not good pilots but one doesn't have to be a good pilot to crash a plane.
the former.
What part of "they only flew at those speeds for a few seconds" is wrong? I am talking about the speeds outside the regular operational limits.
Be specific.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
