Physical Impact Model Video

[N320AW]

Thanks.


What altitude was this aircraft at when it's GS was 546 knots?


About J. Keiths comments: Why does he use such numbers of 220 & 330 MPH? I don't understand his analogy concerning the engines are " capable of 330 MPH." Capable of what?

[dMole]

I found the 545.64 kts at 32000 feet Mode C/ 33600 feet primary radar height. My calculations give a 0.86 mach velocity of 502.61 kts for this 32 Kft altitude.

At P4T there is a thread about Flight Test Limits being verified to 0.92 mach by Boeing engineers (not certain on plane model). My calculations give 537.68 kts (again 32 Kft) at this 0.92 mach "overtest" level that mentions flapping wings and nearly-destructive flight. In the conspicuous absence of FDR's and CVR's, we can only speculate about the goings on inside the Boeing, but if I were hypothetically tasked with "suicidal Jihadist Boeing missile duty," I'd probably want to be certain that the plane ACTUALLY made it to the target rather than risk destroying the Boeing in mid-flight.

I believe that Joseph Keith was referring to the low-altitude increased air density and drag, especially on the jet turbofan engines (only rated to 105% of maximum rated shaft RPM from my research in FAA datasheets). A female Boeing aerospace engineer in one of the videos was laughing via telephone about the feasibility of 500 mph velocity near 800 feet ASL. Incidentally, the last 3 RADES radar returns averaged 501 mph by my estimates, so there is ONE thing that approximately checks with the "official" box-cutter conspiracy story (although it appears to contradict the 2 Boeing engineers).

Another interesting anomaly that I believe contradicts the "eyewitness" and video accounts of the UA175/WTC2 South impact- the RADES data shows an altitude decrease of over 8000 feet in the last minute of flight. Wasn't the video of a relatively "flat" Boeing approach, banking to the port side immediately before impact? I haven't calculated the dive angle yet from dive & lat/lon (GS velocity), but the USAF/FBI RADES data seems to contradict the video "evidence" IMHO- both simply CANNOT be true from my observations.

[N320AW]

dMole: Any Boeing engineer, worth his diploma, wouldn't make such silly claims about these " speeds." The numbers are of course, way too low, that it is laughable.

Jet aircraft, after departure climb at 250 KIAS (287 SLMPH) until reaching 10,000 feet. This is done because the maximum indicated airspeed below that altitude is 250 kts. Obviously, during climb, the TAS increases.

On this descent of 8,000 ft./min. Almost nothing can descend at that rate. The worst way to try to get an airplane down as fast as possible is to lower the nose and reduce the power. You'll get a good rate of descent alright, but not 8,000 FT./Min. Emergency descents in jet aircraft are performed by slowing the plane to Vge, lowering the landing gear, and establishing a certain speed given by that AC's flight manual. This procedure will get you down faster than any other method.

I can readily believe that the second aircraft struck the North tower around 500 MPH. To do so, it would take the application of full-power and a slight dive, but it could be done. That aircraft will not attain a speed of 500 MPH in level flight at that low altitude.

Something else of interest about aircraft in general. Sometime in the 1980's, a disgruntled/fired employee of PSA airlines in CA entered the cockpit of a BAE-146 and shot both pilots. He then pushed the control wheel down and entered a vertical dive until the aircraft impacted the ground near Paso Robles, CA. Witnesses stated they heard two explosions prior to impact. The first, was the sonic boom created by this not very aerodynamic 4 engine jet . . .the second explosion was the aircraft's vertical impact. NTSB determined there was no aircraft parts far away from the wreckage. This indicates the aircraft did not breakup while exceeding the speed of sound. A B767 could very easily exceed the speed of sound in a powered steep descent. Of course, I don't feel any of this reflects on 9-11-01.

Also, the quick turn to the left just before the aircraft hit the North tower, I an sure, was NOT this pilot getting " more bang for the buck " in attempting to create a more vertical impact zone! It is my opinion this pilot(?) experienced what sky-divers call " ground rush." Ever see skydivers floating in the air as it appears? Not so when a free-falling object gets within about 1000 ft. of the ground and moving about 125 MPH. That ground suddenly comes up at an alarming rate. I feel this is what happened to this B767's pilot. 2-3 miles away from the WTC, no matter what the speed, the closure appears minimal. Just aim your nose at something until you hit it, right? Wrong! What appears to be a straight course to an object at miles is not particularly true. Those last few thousand feet will show the error of your ways and as the " rush " effect becomes clear . . . the pilot will have to do some quick last second course corrections to hit what is being aimed at.

[dMole]

dMole: Any Boeing engineer, worth his diploma, wouldn't make such silly claims about these " speeds." The numbers are of course, way too low, that it is laughable.

That would be an issue to support with documentation or test data or else to take up with either Joe Keith or the female Boeing engineer in the telephone call. I have never claimed to have nor have ever worked for Boeing or been a certified pilot. I have however worked in aerospace/defense engineering, and I contend that Boeing and others do not have the "markets cornered" on mathematics, physics, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, metallurgy, materials science, error analysis, or forensic research/investigation. Furthermore, USAF 84 RADES/FBI compiled the .XLS radar data (released in Oct. 2007, after a third party's FOIA request) that I independently audited (from the .ISO file that I downloaded).

Something else of interest about aircraft in general. Sometime in the 1980's, a disgruntled/fired employee of PSA airlines in CA entered the cockpit of a BAE-146 and shot both pilots. He then pushed the control wheel down and entered a vertical dive until the aircraft impacted the ground near Paso Robles, CA. Witnesses stated they heard two explosions prior to impact. The first, was the sonic boom created by this not very aerodynamic 4 engine jet . . .the second explosion was the aircraft's vertical impact. NTSB determined there was no aircraft parts far away from the wreckage. This indicates the aircraft did not breakup while exceeding the speed of sound. A B767 could very easily exceed the speed of sound in a powered steep descent. Of course, I don't feel any of this reflects on 9-11-01.

I agree with you that the BAe-146-200 of PSA Flight #1771 and a Boeing 767/757 (ambiguity per Kean-Hamilton Committee/FEMA/NIST/USAF/FBI) is something of an apples-to-cherries comparison. According to the FAA datasheet for a BAe-146, its "speeds" are listed as:

M_mo = 0.70 (standard, 0.73 optional)
V_mo (to 8000 feet) = 250 KIAS
V_mo (8000 - 22 950 feet) = 300 KIAS
V_mo (T.O.) = 160 KIAS

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...8?OpenDocument

The NTSB Incident Docket says:
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id...13X32679&key=1

"
NTSB Identification: DCA88MA008 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 34799.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier PACIFIC SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
Accident occurred Monday, December 07, 1987 in SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/4/1989
Aircraft: BRITISH AEROSPACE BAE-146-200, registration: N350PS
Injuries: 43 Fatal.A RECENTLY DISCHARGED USAIR EMPLOYEE BOARDED PSA FLT 1771 AFTER HAVING LEFT A GOODBYE MESSAGE WITH FRIENDS. HE BYPASSED SECURITY AND CARRIED ABD A BORROWED 44 CALIBER PISTOL. A NOTE WRITTEN BY THIS PSGR, FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE, THREATENED HIS FORMER SUPERVISOR AT USAIR, WHO WAS ABOARD THE FLT. AT 1613, THE PLT RPTD TO OAKLAND ARTCC THAT HE HAD AN EMERGENCY AND THAT GUNSHOTS HAD BEEN FIRED IN THE AIRPLANE. WITHIN 25 SECONDS, OAKLAND CTR CONTROLLERS OBSERVED THAT PSA 1771 HAD BEGUN A RAPID DESCENT FM WHICH IT DID NOT RECOVER. WITNESSES ON THE GND SAID THE AIRPLANE WAS INTACT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE BEFORE THE AIRPLANE STRUCK THE GND IN A STEEP NOSE-DOWN ATTITUDE. THE CVR TAPE REVEALED THE SOUNDS OF A SCUFFLE AND SEVERAL SHOTS WHICH WERE APPARENTLY FIRED IN OR NEAR THE COCKPIT. THE PISTOL WAS FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE WITH 6 EXPENDED ROUNDS. FAA RULES PERMITTED AIRLINE EMPLOYEES TO BYPASS SECURITY CHECKPOINTS.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

CONTROL INTERFERENCE..INTENTIONAL..PASSENGER
SABOTAGE..INTENTIONAL..PASSENGER
EMOTIONAL REACTION..PASSENGER

Contributing FactorsSECURITY..INADEQUATE..COMPANY/OPERATOR MANAGEMENT
PROCEDURE INADEQUATE..COMPANY/OPERATOR MANAGEMENT
INSUFF STANDARDS/REQUIREMENTS,OPERATION/OPERATOR..FAA(ORGANIZATION)"

I found no evidence of explosions, velocity estimates, or sonic booms at NTSB.

Much like 9/11/2001, futher investigation revealed conflicting information:

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-pa1771.shtml

"The sound of the gunshot is picked up on the cockpit voice recorder, and seconds later the sound of the cockpit door opening is heard. A female, presumed to be a Flight Attendant, advises the cockpit crew that “we have a problem.” The Captain replies with “what kind of problem?” Burke then appears at the cockpit door and announces “I'm the problem,” simultaneously firing two more shots that fatally injure both pilots.

Several seconds later, the CVR picks up increasing windscreen noise as the airplane pitches down and begins to accelerate. A final gunshot is heard as Burke fatally shoots himself. Airspeed continues to build until 13,000 feet, when traveling at a velocity of 1.2x Mach, the aircraft breaks apart and the Flight Recorders cease functioning.

All 44 passengers and crew aboard PSA Flight 1771 died as the aircraft crashed into a Farmer's field in the Santa Ana Hills."

Did the BAe 146 break up? Did it "crash" intact into the farmer's field? Do we trust the eyewitnesses or the "broken" flight data recorder (presumably last logged at 13,000 feet AGL)? Do we trust the engineers who have worked for Boeing? Would the UA175 Boeing 757/767 (especially the engines and control surfaces) survive and continue to operate MANEUVERABLY at 500 mph at 700-1000 feet ASL?

I suspect that one would have better luck gathering facts on PSA 1771 (which TRULY WAS hijacked with a .44 revolver IMHO), from the multiplying inconsistencies that I and others have already found in AA11, AA77, UA175, and UA93 data and "official" documents/reports.

[psikeyhackr]

A B767 could very easily exceed the speed of sound in a powered steep descent.

Would the aircraft survive breaking the sound barrier?

The Concord SST was shaped somewhat differently than a 767.

psik

[AuGmENTor]

Wow, this is really the rocket scientist thread these days. Keep talking gentlemen! I may not have any idea what the hell you're talking about, but I feel smarter just having read it!

[N320AW]

Would the aircraft survive breaking the sound barrier?

The Concord SST was shaped somewhat differently than a 767.

psik

Sure, thats not a problem.

[N320AW]

I found the 545.64 kts at 32000 feet Mode C/ 33600 feet primary radar height. My calculations give a 0.86 mach velocity of 502.61 kts for this 32 Kft altitude.

At P4T there is a thread about Flight Test Limits being verified to 0.92 mach by Boeing engineers (not certain on plane model). My calculations give 537.68 kts (again 32 Kft) at this 0.92 mach "overtest" level that mentions flapping wings and nearly-destructive flight. In the conspicuous absence of FDR's and CVR's, we can only speculate about the goings on inside the Boeing, but if I were hypothetically tasked with "suicidal Jihadist Boeing missile duty," I'd probably want to be certain that the plane ACTUALLY made it to the target rather than risk destroying the Boeing in mid-flight.

I believe that Joseph Keith was referring to the low-altitude increased air density and drag, especially on the jet turbofan engines (only rated to 105% of maximum rated shaft RPM from my research in FAA datasheets). A female Boeing aerospace engineer in one of the videos was laughing via telephone about the feasibility of 500 mph velocity near 800 feet ASL. Incidentally, the last 3 RADES radar returns averaged 501 mph by my estimates, so there is ONE thing that approximately checks with the "official" box-cutter conspiracy story (although it appears to contradict the 2 Boeing engineers).

Another interesting anomaly that I believe contradicts the "eyewitness" and video accounts of the UA175/WTC2 South impact- the RADES data shows an altitude decrease of over 8000 feet in the last minute of flight. Wasn't the video of a relatively "flat" Boeing approach, banking to the port side immediately before impact? I haven't calculated the dive angle yet from dive & lat/lon (GS velocity), but the USAF/FBI RADES data seems to contradict the video "evidence" IMHO- both simply CANNOT be true from my observations.

Just to illustrate the Boeing engineers data is flawed; as you know the Vmo of a B767 is 360 KCAS. Thats approx 414 MPH. That aircraft will certainly fly at low altitude on the " barber pole." Thats the redline airspeed. Well, if the aircraft is certified to operate at a a max IAS of 414 MPH (360 kts.) the engineers are very wrong. It is that simple.

Please advise, when you have the time, what you are trying to determine with your data. I would be very interested. Maybe I missed something along the way.

I can only speak as a pilot, not an engineer. Maybe we could put our heads together on some of this.

[psikeyhackr]

Sure, thats not a problem.

What is the basis for that claim?

[dMole]

Just to illustrate the Boeing engineers data is flawed... That aircraft will certainly fly at low altitude on the " barber pole." Thats the redline airspeed. Well, if the aircraft is certified to operate at a a max IAS of 414 MPH (360 kts.) the engineers are very wrong. It is that simple.

I don't recall the video mentioning engineers' data. Apparently Joe Keith helped develop the "shaker system" that Boeing uses to qualification test their airframes, so I would consider this to be "expert opinion" in absence of documentation or EMPIRICAL flight or wind tunnel test data that conclusively refutes the 2 (corroborating) Boeing engineers' opinions. I'm more familiar with military and NASA policies and procedures, but I would expect that the Boeing test engineers had CONSIDERABLE input in writing the performance specifications and Flight Manuals based upon EMPIRICAL flight and wind tunnel test data and on FAA and CFR regulations.

See CFR Title 14:
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.3.11.3.162.2

PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

(Subparts E & F cover Turbine engines)

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.3.16&idno=14

I have been unsuccessfully searching for a clear cut definition of "low altitude" for several weeks now, with respect to maximum airframe-safe velocities at various altitudes/air densities. Below 18,000 feet AGL, "Mach" is effectively a red herring IMHO, and I'm QUITE certain that WTC1, 2, & 7 were WELL below 3000 feet ASL. So far, Boeing, GE, Pratt Whitney, and Rolls-Royce aircraft/jet engine/aerospace engineers have been conspicuously silent on the feasibility of the Kean-Hamilton/FEMA/ASCE/NIST/Purdue/MIT/PM/History Channel/MSM "official" bin Ladin boxcutter conspiracy story.

Perhaps the following would explain the scarcity and silence of Boeing engineers:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...illance16.html

I'm personally not certain that an identity-challenged B757/B767 (especially the turbofan engines and control surfaces) are capable of velocities WELL over V_mo and nearly-aerobatic maneuvers at "low altitude". There are over a dozen engine possibilities for these 2 Boeing models, by the way. Incidentally, V_mo, V_d, and V_fc were ALL allegedly exceeded by UA175 from 08:19:16 EDT at 10400 feet AGL with no Mode 3 return (allegedly STILL at the hands of a professional United Airlines pilot for roughly another 25 minutes) until at LEAST 09:01:59 EDT. People can certainly speculate on various Boeing airframe and engine capabilities and on pilot and/or hijacker behaviors in the conspicuous absence of AA11 and UA175 FDR's and CVR's, but I prefer to stick to documentable or experimentally-verified numbers.

For the B767 flavor, the FAA datasheets tell us:

Airspeed Limits:
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M
For other airspeed limits, see the appropriate FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...C?OpenDocument

If UA175 was really a B757 as USAF 84 RADES informed the FBI on 13 September 2001:

Airspeed Limits:
VMO = 350 KCAS/.86 M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82 M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82 M

For other airspeed limits, see the appropriate FAA-Approved Airplane Flight Manual listed in Note 2.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...B?OpenDocument

For the non-pilots on the BBS (myself included, but I've known numerous pilots and aircraft engineers and mechanics),
KCAS = knots calibrated airspeed
KIAS= knots indicated airspeed
KTAS= knots true airspeed
V_mo= velocity, maximum operating
M_mo= mach (velocity), maximum operating
VD= Design diving speed (usually 1.4 times normal operating speed, representative of airframe "survivability" in overspeed conditions- not necessarily turbofan engine "safe")
VFC= "maximum speed for stability characteristics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V1_speed#V1w

I haven't seen any conclusive numbers on wind speeds aloft, so that issue is likely a goose chase 6 years later.

Please advise, when you have the time, what you are trying to determine with your data. I would be very interested. Maybe I missed something along the way.

Wellll, the TRUTH for starters... Let me reiterate, this is the USAF 84 RADES .XLS data provided to/for the FBI that I independently audited, not "my" data. I and 3 other researchers/investigators have conclusively proven (to our satisfaction) that the OCT "boxcutter" fable conflicts both with itself and with the USAF 84 RADES .XLS data (which is also self-contradictory).

I and most of my professional tools deal with numbers, not JREF/Pseudo-Mechanics/pHistory Channel/MSM rhetorical sophistry and propaganda methods (but I'm growing increasingly versed on their "methods" however.) My preliminary work has been independently confirmed by 4 RADES radar stations and by 2 other researchers/investigators using different analytical methods. (Incidentally, my velocities corrected for 42 degrees North latitude appear to be the most "conservative" of the bunch). I haven't even brought up the "bumblebee altitudes" and "stealth" portions of the four 9/11 flights, either. Then there are the AA77 and UA93 data recorder anomalies... Do you know of any PUBLICLY available FAA radar data as of Dec 2001 to cross-check against the USAF RADES data? I don't...

As I stated early on, I have posted several DOZEN relevant posts on the 23 PAGE thread over at P4T that might save me considerable typing over here:

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...ost&p=10011348

Note: the original post appears to have been something of a "dark pink" herring if we disregard the singular 888 kts/1021 mph velocity observed by the Riverhead, NY RADES station at 08:55:47 EDT (that I haven't seen an explanation for yet), and the thread originator seems to have disappeared.

Hmmmm...