9/11 #49: Waar deel 50 nu wel héél dichtbij komt

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 mei 2011 19:40 schreef Bastard het volgende:

[..]

Dat zijn ook nog geen opgesomde natuurwetten
Nu ben ik benieuwd, welke wet is er gebroken? Dat een aluminium constructie een gebouw in kan vliegen en er niet tegen te pletter slaat?

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 mei 2011 20:19 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

De vliegtuigen hebben echter wel een optimaal ontwerp om druk te verspreiden over het geheel (b.v. de bolle neus). Juist omdat vliegtuigen over het algemeen al aan hevige krachten onderhevig zijn, zijn ze gemaakt om die krachten zo goed mogelijk te kunnen hebben, wat dus ook betekent dat wanneer ze ergens in knallen ze veel kracht uit kunnen oefenen.

Volgens wiki is de cruising speed van een boeing .8 mach
0.8 mach = 980 km/u
510 knots = 944 km/u

Nu hoefde het vliegtuig niet relaxed te cruisen maar voornamelijk erg hard ergens in knallen. Daarnaast ging het naar beneden dus had het de zwaartekracht mee.

Ik zie de contradictie er niet in....
(ik begrijp dat mensen het zeggen hoor, maar er zeggen ook mensen dat de maan van kaas is)

quote:

According to the CVR and FDR data, at 0150:08, as the airplane exceeded its maximum operating airspeed (0.86 Mach), a master warning alarm began to sound. (The warning continued until the FDR and CVR stopped recording at 0150:36.64 and 0150:38.47, respectively.)17 Also at 0150:08, the relief first officer stated quietly for the eleventh and final time, "I rely on God," and the captain repeated his question, "What's happening?" At 0150:15, the captain again asked, "What's happening, [relief first officer's first name]? What's happening?" At this time, as the airplane was descending through about 27,300 feet msl, the FDR recorded both elevator surfaces beginning to move in the nose-up direction. Shortly thereafter, the airplane's rate of descent began to decrease.18 At 0150:21, about 6 seconds after the airplane's rate of descent began to decrease, the left and right elevator surfaces began to move in opposite directions; the left surface continued to move in the nose-up direction, and the right surface reversed its motion and moved in the nose-down direction.

The FDR data indicated that the engine start lever switches for both engines moved from the run to the cutoff position between 0150:21 and 0150:23.19 Between 0150:24 and 0150:27, the throttle levers moved from their idle position to full throttle, the speedbrake handle moved to its fully deployed position, and the left elevator surface moved from a 3º nose-up to a 1º nose-up position, then back to a 3º nose-up position.20 During this time, the CVR recorded the captain asking, "What is this? What is this? Did you shut the engine(s)?" Also, at 0150:26.55, the captain stated, "Get away in the engines,"21 and, at 0150:28.85, the captain stated, "shut the engines." At 0150:29.66, the relief first officer stated, "It's shut."

Between 0150:31 and 0150:37, the captain repeatedly stated, "Pull with me." However, the FDR data indicated that the elevator surfaces remained in a split condition (with the left surface commanding nose up and the right surface commanding nose down) until the FDR and CVR stopped recording at 0150:36.64 and 0150:38.47, respectively. (The last transponder [secondary radar] return from the accident airplane was received at the radar site at Nantucket, Massachusetts, at 0150:34.)22

Information about the remainder of the flight came from the airplane's two debris fields and recorded primary radar data from long-range radar sites at Riverhead, New York, and North Truro, Massachusetts, and the short-range radar site at Nantucket. The height estimates based on primary radar data from the joint use FAA/U.S. Air Force (USAF) radar sites indicated that the airplane's descent stopped about 0150:38 and that the airplane subsequently climbed to about 25,000 feet msl and changed heading from 80º to 140º before it started a second descent, which continued until the airplane impacted the ocean.

Airplane wreckage was located in two debris fields, about 1,200 feet apart, centered at 40° 21' north latitude and 69° 46' west longitude. The accident occurred at night in dark lighting conditions.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 mei 2011 20:38 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

767 en zoals ik net al voorrekende is .80 mach al meer dan de 510 knopen waar je over spreekt.

Zin had ik toegevoegd om aan te geven dat ik je claim wel heb gelezen maar niet meenam vanwege "mensen zeggen" redenen, haal hem wel even weg als je dat wilt was niet denigrerend bedoeld.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 mei 2011 20:46 schreef oompaloompa het volgende:

[..]

ja en de cruise speed van een 767 is .8 volgens wikipedia
het voorbeeld met falen was .88

510 knopen is dus ruim onder de max, en nog ruimer onder de faalsnelheid.

quote:

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much 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 altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "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 altitudes.[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.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.