9/11 #38 Waar Usama nogsteeds Hide and Seek speelt

quote:

Op woensdag 29 december 2010 23:28 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Leuk dat je met die 707 komt. De energie van de inslag was nml veel hoger dan waar ze rekening mee hadden gehouden. Daar komt het effect van de brandstof, en het effect van de impact op de brandwerende materialen nog bij op.

quote:

Heb jij jezelf weleens afgevraagd of het uberhaupt plausibel is dat een paar kapers, gewapend met stanleymesjes en plastic messen, de controle over een vliegtuig overnemen en het toestel vervolgens met precisie in een toren weten te boren terwijl er snelheden op 300 meter hoogte worden bereikt waarop het vliegtuig eigenlijk helemaal niet gebouwd is? En dat dan ook nog eens door betrekkelijk onervaren piloten die zelfs nog nooit een Boeing bestuurd hebben en getergd zullen worden door alle toeters en bellen die afgaan bij dergelijke snelheden op hoogtes waarbij die snelheden gevaar voor het toestel opleveren? Komt dan ook nog eens een stukje location awareness bij om de hoek kijken om nog maar over de bestuurbaarheid op dergelijke hoogte en snelheid te zwijgen?

quote:

Op donderdag 30 december 2010 14:00 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Tuurlijk heb ik daar wel eens bij stil gestaan. En ja, dat lijkt me wel mogelijk. Het is was ook niet de eerste keer dat een kaper achter de knuppel terecht is gekomen. Het vliegen zelf is niet zo'n probleem. Het veilig vliegen (en landen etc) is waar het moeilijk wordt, en daar hadden ze geen last van.

quote:

Op donderdag 30 december 2010 14:16 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Stiekem kan zo'n vliegtuig best wat meer hebben dan de zeker veilige limieten uit het ontwerp. Er is bijv een keer een poging tot kaping/zelfmoord gedaan met een fedex postvliegtuig. Ik weet het type nr even niet uit mijn hoofd, maar tijdens dat gevecht heeft dat vliegtuig ondersteboven gevlogen, iets van mach 0.9 gevlogen etc. Het had daarna ook wel redelijk wat schade, maar kon veilig landen.

quote:

Op donderdag 30 december 2010 15:01 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Flaps heb je gelukkig ook niet nodig in zo'n situatie

quote:

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.

quote:

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

quote:

Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not 'instrument rated' and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly 'visually' under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach.

quote:

The alleged 'controlled' descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of 'controlled' flight.

quote:

Its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "EFIS" (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls.

quote:

As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.

quote:

Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.

He would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of
precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.

In addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute. To propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a Boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [NIST claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for AA11 at impact and 6 degrees for UA175; see page 276 of 462 in NCSTAR 1-2].

That an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot I know that I could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on September 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.

0. No Boeing 767 airliner(s) exceeded 500 mph in level flight at approximately 1000 feet on 9/11 as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors because they are incapable of such speeds at low altitude.

11. One of the critical issues of the 'impossible' speeds of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Center Towers alleged by NIST as 443 mph (385 kts. M.6, American Airlines Flight 11) and 542 mph (470 kts. M.75, United Airlines 175) is that the VD or dive velocity of the Boeing 767 as certificated by the Federal Aviation under 14 CFR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Transports of 420 kts CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) makes these speeds achievable. This is unlikely.

12. The 'Dive Velocity' VD is 420 knots CAS (calibrated airspeed)(483 mph). Some allege that this speed, 420 knots (483 mph) is near enough to the NIST alleged speeds that the NIST speeds 443 (385 kts.) mph and 542 mph (471 kts.), could have been flown by the alleged hijackers and are probably correct.

13. In fact VD of 420 knots (483 mph) is a speed that is a maximum for certification under 14 CFR Part 25.253 High Speed Characteristics and has not only not necessarily been achieved but is far above VFC (390 kts. 450 mph) which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated.(14 CFR 25.253 (b).

14. What this means is not only was VD not necessarily achieved but even if it was, it was achieved in a DIVE demonstrating controllability considerably above VFC which is the maximum speed under which stability characteristics must be demonstrated. Further, that as the alleged speed is considerably above VFC for which stability characteristics must be met, a hijacker who is not an experienced test pilot would have considerable difficulty in controlling the airplane, similar to flying a bucking bronco, much less hitting a 208 foot target dead center, at 800 feet altitude (above mean sea level) at the alleged speed.

15. Now to determine whether or not a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 could even attain 540 miles per hour at 800 feet we have to first consider what the drag versus the power ratio is.

Drag is the effect of the air pushing against the frontal areas of the fuselage and wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Drag also includes the friction that is a result of the air flowing over these surfaces. If there was no drag you could go very fast. But we do have drag and there are 2 types: induced and parasite. Assume we are going really fast as NIST and the defendants claim, then we don't have to consider induced drag because induced drag is caused by lift and varies inversely as the square of the airspeed. What this means is the faster you go the lower the induced drag.

What we do have to consider is parasite drag. Parasite drag is any drag produced that is not induced drag. Parasite drag is technically called 'form and friction' drag. It includes the air pushing against the entire airplane including the engines, as the engines try to push the entire airplane through the air.

16. We have two other things to consider: induced power and
parasite power.

Induced power varies inversely with velocity so we don't have to consider that because we are already going fast by assumption and it varies inversely.
Parasite power however varies as the cube of the velocity which
means to double the speed you have to cube or have three times the power.

17. So taking these four factors into consideration we are only concerned with two: parasite power and parasite drag, and if all other factors are constant, and you are level at 800 feet and making no turns, the parasite drag varies with the square of the velocity but parasite power varies as the cube of the velocity.

What this means is at double the speed, drag doubles and the power required to maintain such speed, triples.

The airspeed limitation for the Boeing 767 below approximately 23,000 feet is 360 kts [414 mph] or what they call VMO (velocity maximum operating).

That means that the maximum permissible speed of the Boeing 767 below 23,000 feet is 360 knots and it is safe to operate the airplane at that speed but not faster.

18. While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.

19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible considering:

(1) the power available,* **
(2) parasite drag (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(3) parasite power (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(4) the controllability by a pilot with limited experience. 14 CFR Part 25.253 (a)(b)
* http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...01MA063&rpt=fa
** http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...PW4000_FAA.pdf

20. Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred.

21. One more consideration is the impossibility of the PW4062 turbofan engines to operate in dense air at sea level altitude at high speed.

The Boeing 767 was designed to fly at high altitudes at a maximum Mach of .86 or 86/100ths the speed of sound. This maximum speed is called MMO, (Maximum Mach Operating). Its normal cruise speed, however, is Mach .80 (about 530 mph) or less, for better fuel economy. (The speed of sound at 35,000 feet is 663 mph so 530 mph is Mach .7998 see

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html.)

The fan tip diameter of the PW4062 which powered UAL 175 was 94 inches, over 7 feet in diameter making it, essentially a huge propeller.
This huge fan compresses enormous amount of air during takeoff to produce the thrust necessary to get the airplane off of the ground and into the air.
At high altitudes, in cruise, where the air is much thinner and where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the fan and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust.

But at low altitudes, in much denser air, such as one thousand feet, where the air is over 3x as dense as at 35,000 feet, going much faster than Vmo or 360 knots, the air is going to start jamming up in the engine simply because a turbofan engine is not designed to take the enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight. Because of the much denser air the fan blades will be jammed with so much air they will start cavitating or choking causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. The turbofan tip diameter is over 7 feet; it simply cannot accept that much dense air, at that rate, because they aren't designed to.

So achieving an airspeed much over its Vmo which is 360 knots isn't going to be possible coupled with the fact that because the parasite drag increases as the square of the speed and the power

required increases as the cube of the speed you are not going to be able to get the speed with the thrust (power) available.

It can be argued that modern aerodynamic principles hold that if an aircraft can fly at 35,000 ft altitude at 540 mph (~Mach 0.8), and for a given speed, both engine thrust and airframe drag vary approximately in proportion to air density (altitude), that the engine can produce enough thrust to fly 540 mph at 800 ft. altitude.

That argument fails because although the engine might be theoretically capable of producing that amount of thrust, the real question is can that amount of thrust be extracted from it at 540 mph at 800 ft.

22. To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.

23. I am informed that the lawsuit for which this affidavit is intended is in its preliminary, pre-discovery phase. I am further informed that actual eyewitness statements cast considerable doubt on the jetliner crash claims, irrespective of the media-driven impression that there were lots of witnesses. In fact, the witnesses tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes. I am also informed that information that will enable further refinement of the issues addressed in this affidavit will be forthcoming in discovery including, without limitation, the opportunity to take depositions and to request relevant documentation (additional information). When that additional information is obtained, I will then be in a position to offer such other and further opinions as, upon analysis, that additional information will mandate.

24. At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted
as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding.

Notes:
1. On any chart plotting velocity versus either drag or thrust required or power required the parasite value rises sharply after 300 kts,
2. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust or power required the curves rises sharply after 250 kts.
3. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust required at sea level, the curve rises dramatically above 200 kts as does the curve for power required.

quote:

Op donderdag 30 december 2010 15:29 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
Flaps gebruik je voor extra lift bij lage snelheid, ten koste van extra drag. Vandaar mijn opmerking

quote:

Op donderdag 30 december 2010 15:58 schreef Culto het volgende:

[..]

Heel goed dat hier op FOK de mogelijkheid is om aan deze 9/11 fakery-issues aandacht te besteden.

Nederlandse media doen vrolijk mee aan het promoten van het 9/11-sprookje:
Dit is een uitzending van Pauw en Witteman van aug. 2006 over 9/11 met als gasten:

- Femke Halsema: naief over de "conspiracy-issues" ....
- Paul de Leeuw: denkt best wel logisch na over AA77 eigenlijk, hoopgevend..
- Daan de Wit: doet goed zijn best, maar het is toch 3 tegen 1 in zijn nadeel..
- Max Westerman: vanaf 12.43 in de video gaat hij zijn uiterste best doen om de kijkers ervan te overtuigen dat er toch echt wel een B757 het Pentagon ingevlogen is..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4883022303414226557#

De hele video is de moeite waard om te bekijken, vind ik:
hoe gaan de Nederlandse mainstream-media om met 9/11 ?

( Had je trouwens mijn post #60 op blz. 3 nog gezien?)
(More to come... )

quote:

Op donderdag 30 december 2010 16:12 schreef DarthHouse het volgende:

[..]

Hier zien we wel wat van 'je' discussiepunten in terug;
Luchtdichtheid, flapperen van vleugels, hoe vliegtuig motoren reageren op laag vliegen etcetc

Instructor/Airshow Pilot Questions 911 Scenario

quote:

Op donderdag 30 december 2010 16:45 schreef DarthHouse het volgende:
Men neme een briefje van 100 shekel uit Israel;

[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]

Meer JPG en uitleg hier klikken!

Zeg 't maar.......

quote:

What is the name of your "friend/" I would like to research to see if he were real. I don't believe there were planes. What is your friend's name? Please post it.