Retired NASA Flight Director: Dwain Deets

[firstlook]

Retired NASA Flight Director: 9/11 Aircraft Speed Is The “Elephant In The Room”
July 14th, 2010
Via: Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

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?

Someone explain further? :confused:

[dontbeafraid]

There is a mil version of that plane that is designed to make high speed low level flights. The underbody of the mil version has a pod like bulge to it, to strenghten the frame of the aircraft so it does'nt shake itself apart at ground level due to the thicker sea level atmosphere. Thats what the guy probably wants to say.

[luciferhorus]

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.



Well in the thread "Flight 175 flew at 693mph in the final 52 miles. I have posted various excerpts from essays from the "Pilots for 911 truth forum" where based on the radar evidence and it has been calculated that flight 175 flew at an average speed of up to 774 mph, not 693mph.

If 175 hit the WTC at over 500mph, and if 774 was the average speed, then it must have been flying faster than 774 at some point, however there appears to be various estimates of the speed based on the radar information.

"An average speed of 774 mph on a descent from 25,000 feet to below 1,000 feet, covering a distance of sixty miles directly towards target in just over 4.5 minutes, represents a totally impossible achievement, on multiple levels, for a mid-size wide-body twinjet airliner."

Since I have no technical expertise in aviation or aeronautical engineering I am not really qualified to comment on the technical impossibility of the various speeds and jet fighter type maneuvers that Flight 175 carried out, however it has been claimed by pilots who tried to reproduce the collision that they could not keep control of the craft on a flight simulator to even fly at even 500mph into the middle of the WTC.

Unfortunately there also appears to be numerous aviation experts who follow the line that if the US state terrorist propaganda says that it is possible, then it must be possible, and who work backwards from this conclusion to contradict other aeronautical experts who claim that it is impossible.

Frankly to get the bottom of such discussions, they are probably better discussed on the "Pilots for 911 Truth Forum" where there are numerous pilots and aeronautical engineers who dispute the US terrorist propaganda, since the only professional aeronautical engineer we seem to have on this forum admits that he is here to defend state terrorist propaganda.

"As to the 'speed' debate, the maximum dive speed is a function of demonstrated flight testing; that's a hard figure; 420 knots. Above that speed, the aircraft becomes unstable, to put it mildly."

More on: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=8


Lux

[firstlook]

Thanks guys, I have been reading that thread luciferhorus........Im learning.

:)

[urbanmonk]

Interesting post Op and the link to that other forum is a bit of an eye opener aswell.

[aviatorexp]

Frankly to get the bottom of such discussions, they are probably better discussed on the "Pilots for 911 Truth Forum" where there are numerous pilots and aeronautical engineers who dispute the US terrorist propaganda, since the only professional aeronautical engineer we seem to have on this forum admits that he is here to defend state terrorist propaganda.



Lux,

I have never said I support 'state terrorist propaganda'. I have said it on numerous occasions that I do not support any government, but only look at the physical aspects of the events and find them plausible.

I feel, that if the government was involved or responsible, they got the terrorists to do its dirty work, I would not put that past them at all but I just don't know because I have nothing to evaluate apart from past history of deviance on their behalf, which does not prove they did this.

With respect, please don't put words in my mouth.

[firstlook]

I have nothing to evaluate apart from past history of deviance on their behalf, which does not prove they did this.


are you sure you got the real history?

[shure]

I was able to talk with Dwain Deets about the article and get some clarification on the plane issues. Also included in the audio is Dave's aka "broken sticks" conversation with Ross "Rusty" Aimar who is CEO of Aviation Experts, and is 3rd on the list of Rob Balsamo's Pilotsfor911truth "Core Members".

Mp3 Download link (35.9MB):

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-69500/TS-378263.mp3