Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Absolutely Nothing

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Thu, 19 Jun 14 4:29 AM | 42 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 15651 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 15650 by faul)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Dwain Deets also pops up with a theory of "ray beams from space" to explain how Building 7 came down. I forgot to mention the wacko category. He's in that.

As regards this comment, I see no mathematics. Just innuendo. And a deficient level of knowledge of commercial jet flying.

Here, he is missing two critical issues.

(1) That the maximum operating velocity is not the maximum velocity of a plane. Maximum operating velocity is a speed that is considered safe for passenger use and that is also set to limit the need for additional maintenance. I think most folks will agree that the pilot of UA175 wasn't overly concerned with passenger safety or aircraft maintenance. 360 knots is not a performance limit. The Boeing 767-200 can go much faster. Flight simulation has shown that the AQ velocity is well within the limits of the 767.

"Here is a summation of the facts;

1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.
2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.
3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.
4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed” stated by John Lear et al. is false."http://911blogger.com/node/20232

(2) That ground speed and air speed are not the same thing.

Maybe he is good at something else. But clearly he isn't very careful in his reading on this topic. It takes no time at all to learn what he needed to but he didn't bother.


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Absolutely Nothing
By: faul in ALEA
Thu, 19 Jun 14 3:24 AM 		Msg. 15650 of 54959

There are many......here is one of your so
called charlatans

His credentials......

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (198Cool
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career


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?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19919

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next