9/11 #30 Insert nice plane....

quote:

Op zaterdag 2 oktober 2010 15:18 schreef Salvad0R het volgende:

[..]

-edit op quote-

quote:

11 SEPTEMBER: DE VLIEGTUIGEN DIE HET WTC HEBBEN GERAMD, WAREN GEEN BOEING 767's

Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

quote:

Op zaterdag 2 oktober 2010 16:11 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

als je zo kinderachtig blijft doen dan speel je maar in je eentje

quote:

Op zaterdag 2 oktober 2010 13:34 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

eerste was mooi in het midden, tweede was een stuk schever, maar ok, dan waren 2 van de 4 precies goed...
50-50
[..]

Dat is niet waar. Gooi eens een ei tegen de muur en film het als je bewijs wilt dat die uitspraak niet klopt.

quote:

?
Eerst wordt er uitgelegd wat zo'n wolk is, daarna dat die niet ontstaan kan zijn, daarna dat het dus explosieven geweest moeten zijn?
Ik snap de hele redenering in dat stuk totaal niet, misschien dat je het in eigen woorden uit kunt leggen?

quote:

Op zaterdag 2 oktober 2010 16:21 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

was al aan het google-en

Volgens wiki is de maximum cruising speed 493 knots. Aangezien het vlietuig daalde vind ik 510 niet een extreem hoog nummer.
In hoeverre die 17 knots invloed hebben op het stuurvermogen, vooral op het horizontale vlak (verticaal boeit natuurlijk wat minder) weet ik niet, dat kan ik niet zo snel vinden (behalve dan wat je zelf aan haalt natuurlijk )
Maar die mensen maken allerlei claims die totaal niet overeenkomen met de andere informatie, ook vreemd

quote:

Cruise is the level portion of aircraft travel where flight is most fuel efficient. It occurs between ascent and descent phases and is usually the majority of a journey. Technically, cruising consists of heading (direction of flight) changes only at a constant airspeed and altitude. It ends as the aircraft approaches the destination where the descent phase of flight commences in preparation for landing.

quote:

Commercial or passenger aircraft are usually designed for optimum performance at their cruise speed or VC. There is also an optimum cruise altitude for a particular aircraft type and conditions including payload weight, center of gravity, air temperature, humidity, and speed. This altitude is usually where the higher ground speeds, the increase in drag power, and the decrease in engine power and efficiency at higher altitudes are balanced.

Typical cruising speed for long-distance commercial passenger flights is 475-500 knots (878-926 km/h; 547-578 mph).

quote:

Op zaterdag 2 oktober 2010 16:45 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

Nja misschien is het wel een semantische discussie. Een pyroclastische wolk komt voort uit een vulkaan vanwege grote luchtverplaatsing. Hier ontstond een wolk vanwege grote luchtverplaatsing.
[..]

En daar gaat de redenatie dus mank. De eerste claim is dat de wolk veel op een pyroclastische wolk lijkt. De tweede claim is dat deze niet uit een instorting voort kan komen. De conclusie is dan dat het dus CD moet zijn.

Ik kan die redenatie niet volgen, want hij snijdt logisch gezien geen hout.

Wat logischer en beter zou zijn is om te kijken of een wolk zoals de waargenomen wolk veroorzaakt kan zijn door normale instorting. Het pyroclastische vulkaan verhaal voegt niets toe behalve verwarring aangezien we (neem ik aan) het er beiden over eens kunnen zijn dat het sowieso geen pyroclastische wolk was vanwege het gebrek aan vulkaan.

quote:

Pyroclastic flows can only occur when a dense slurry of fine dust is suspended in air or volcanic gasses and is concentrated in a defined area. The suspension will then act as a separate, denser fluid that remains distinct as it moves through the less dense medium. Because of their density such flows can reach speeds of hundreds of miles an hour and do tremendous damage, especially with the high temperatures seen in volcanic events.

quote:

Ik lees het even door, alhoewel ik over die laatste zin wel mijn bedenkingen heb. Ik bedoel we hebben allemaal genoeg plaatjes gezien van stukken beton en ander puin. Almost entirely to dust lijkt me dus een beetje overdreven

quote:

Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks. But huge amounts of structural steel remained scattered in tangled heaps, says Allen Morse, USACE chief debris expert and FEMA technical advisor.

quote:

Op zaterdag 2 oktober 2010 16:51 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

Ik neem aan dat we beiden begrijpen dat je meer snelheid kunt maken tijdens het dalen (zwaartekracht helpt een handje).
De vraag is wel of dat nog handelbaar is. Zoals ik al eerder zei kan ik daar vrij weinig over vinden, behalve jouw bron maar die piloten zeggen allerlei zaken die niet kloppen met de informate voor handen dus daar wil ik niet te veelv ertrouwen in leggen

quote:

Effects of air density on airplanes, baseballs, race cars

More dense, or "heavier" air will slow down objects moving through it more because the object has to, in effect, shove aside more or heavier molecules.

Such air resistance is called "drag," which increases with air density. Baseball players have found that home runs travel farther in the less dense air in high-altitude Denver than in ball parks at lower elevations. The reduced drag slows the ball down at a slower rate, which means it travels farther. (Related: Why baseballs fly farther at high altitudes).

Cool, dense air slows a race car, but some race cars gain from dense air. Cars designed from the wheels up for racing are really like upside down airplane wings that the air pushes down on the track, increasing their grip going around curves. Denser air pushes then down harder. (Related: Auto racers' winning equations include weather)

Aircraft pilots don't do as well as baseball players when the air's density decreases. Lower air density penalizes pilots in three ways: The lifting force on an airplane's wings or helicopter's rotor decreases, the power produced by the engine decreases, and the thrust of a propeller, rotor or jet engine decreases. These performance losses more than offset the reduced drag on the aircraft in less dense air.

Pilots use charts or calculators to find out how temperature and air pressure at a particular time and place will affect the air's density and therefore aircraft performance. In general, these calculations don't take humidity into account since its affects are so much less than the others. When the air's density is low, airplanes need longer runways to take off and land and they don't climb as quickly as when the air's density is high.

Air density also affects the performance of automobiles, with lower density decreasing performance in the same way it decreases the performance of aircraft engines.

Turbochargers or superchargers are ways of increasing the density of the air going into an engine. The give autos more power on the ground and they allow aircraft to fly higher into thinner air than they would otherwise.

Pilots use "density altitude" to relate air density to aircraft performance. For more about density altitude, you can read an article I did for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's Flight Training Magazine in July 2003 on Why airplanes like cool days better)

quote:

a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet
above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.

b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept
the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.