Deets: "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?"

1) I doubt the margin of error on the NTSB flight speed estimate is huge; probably not enough to compensate for the difference between 360-410 knots and 510 knots- but, for the record, what is it?

2) "maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots."
Does this refer to the maximum safe speed for which a Boeing 767-200 is rated?
What is the maximum speed a Boeing 767-200 can actually travel at?
Is it true that aircraft in general are engineered to be able to exceed the "maximum operating velocity" and the "maximum dive velocity;" is this the case for the Boeing 767-200?
Is there evidence showing that a Boeing 767-200 cannot travel at 510 knots; what is the evidence?
Are there any examples of aircraft failing at speeds which exceed their "maximum operating velocity" or "maximum dive velocity"?

3) Is it possible that a normal Boeing 767-200 could have been guided at 510 knots by remote control, either human and/or auto pilot, perhaps with some kind of homing beacon in the WTC towers? Operation Northwoods is evidence that the technology to remotely control planes existed in the 1960's; surely it was far advanced by 9/11.

4) Is it possible that, if the aircraft that hit the WTC towers had been modified, that these modified aircraft were in fact UA 175 and AA 11- and that no post-takeoff "plane swapping" was involved?

The ONLY source for establishing that A B767 can fly at sea level and at the speeds noted by FAA radar and some video analysis associated with UA175 on 9/11, is the aircraft manufacturer, Boeing.

Before any airliner is certified for use in commercial aviation it has to go through very comprehensive flight tests as well as extreme ground tests such as bending the wings upward simulating G-force limits to find out at what G loads the wings and airframe will break apart. There are similar tests for all the critical parts of the aircraft that are also tested to the points of failure.

Something similar goes on when these aircraft are flight tested as they are put into flight conditions that not only approach the above mentioned stress or "G" load failure points to the aircraft frame and fuselage, BUT, there are another set of characteristics that are also discovered and tested. These are the stresses to the airframe, control surfaces and engines, and the flight characteristics that change when the aircraft is flying under specific flight configurations...some of which include operation beyond any approved speed limitations that are established for normal and routine flight operations. In this case it would be flying at 510K at sea level.

Its in these flight test situations where speeds well above what are considered "normal limitations" are approached or flown beyond. This is done for two basic reasons:

1. To discover what the flight airfoils and control surfaces react like at excessive speeds and "G" loads in various flight configurations in part because, as aircraft approach the speed of sound [well above 510K], the airflows take on radically different shapes and characteristics. These different air flows may make normal control surface deflections often react very differently than when the airfoils are operating within the normal speed profiles. [see below]

2. To see what damage to the aircraft fuselage and it fairings and other proturbances might occur at critically high speeds. This is what is meant when aviation experts state: "The airplane will begin to break apart". Usually its NOT the control surfaces, the engnes nor the wings that first sucumb to destruction at high speeds. Usually its the fiberglass-plastic-laminate fairings and coverings that begin to break apart...and those parts are not control or lifting surfaces...nor engines of course.

An example of the critical nature of higher speeds of flight affecting airfoils that work well at lower speeds of flight are the inboard and outboard ailerons on the B727 wings. At lower speeds of flight, both inboard and outboard ailerons can be deflected up or down to get the desired lift changes to the left and right wings to initiate a bank required to turn the aircraft.

IE: If the aircraft was instructed to bank to the left, the right set of ailerons would be deflected downward affecting the chord, or lift capacity of the right wing to create MORE lift causing the right wing to lift upwards...and likewise, but to the opposite result, both sets of ailerons on the left wing would deflect upward a bit changing the wing chord or lift potential to create LESS lift thus causing the left wing to drop slightly. These aileron actions cause the aircraft to roll to the left...or bank to the left...as long as the ailerons are deflected thusly.

However, at higher speeds flight at which the B727 wings [very thin chord towards the tips and highly swept back wings] have to deal with air flows that have different characteristics affecting those wings and airfoils, It was soon discovered [I'm sure it was suspected on the design tale too] that at certain high speeds of flight, if the outboard ailerons were deflected one way, the net result would cause the net lift of the wing AT the outboard aileron locations to create the OPPOSITE of the desired commands.

This is due to the fact that the thinner wing out at the wingtips would distort because when the outboard aileron would deflect downward in its goal for INCREASING lift on the outboard section of the wing, the actual force of that downward deflection caused the trailing edge of the wing to lift upward at the same time causing the leading edge of the wing to ditsort downward resulting in the net lift of the aileron deflection that was intended to INCREASE lift at that point on the wing to actually DECREASE lift thus encouraging a RIGHT bank when the aileron deflection was intended to cause a LEFT bank. And the same-but opposite result would occur on the left wing where the aileron was deflected to DECREASE lift yet the net result through the aileron induced wingtip distortion caused a net result of the OPPOSITE...aka...an INCREASE in lift.

In laypersons terms, this would be like a motorist, when driving under 60MPH using the steering wheel to turn to the left by turning the steering wheel to the left, BUT, over 60MPH using the steering wheel to turn to the left by turning it to the right. A big problem...

Anyway, Boeing's solution was to "lock out" or "lock into a neutral position" the outboard ailerons above certain higher speeds of flight or flap settings. Thusly, at higher speeds or higher speed configurations, the responsibility for making "aileron lift changes" to the wings became the sole responsibility of the inboard ailrons.

OK...so why the looooong story about another aircraft?...its simple. Because flight characteristics of these sophisticated airvehicles are any thing BUT simple. Its a complex physical activity, and only the designers and "TEST PILOTS" of these aircraft are the ones who know what happens when aircraft are flown at and above the design limitations of any aircraft.

Back to the beginning...with the exception of a few pilots out there who may have had either very unusual flight conditions, or in-flight emergencies causing a B767 to fly well past its normal operating speed range...and have LIVED to tell us about it...the fact is that its only Boeing and its test pilots and other computer analysis of critical data are the ones who can give us accurate and truthful answers.

And last I heard Boeing gets quite a few military aviation contracts, and its test pilots are sworn to secrecy for a wide variety of reasons. So, I suspect that this is why we have not been able to get any answers from Boeing about the potential for B767s to fly at 510K or so. And I liken this to why the Pentagon has not released the videos showing events at the Pentagon on 9/11...because the truth will hurt them.

However, an interesting "slip" has been discovered by John Bursill Down Under.

John has had an opportunity to fly a B767 "simulator"...which is a combination of a physical replica of the cockpit...[along with hydraulic rams and the like that actually physically move the cockpit in manners simulating some aspects of normal flight]...BUT...here is the big one:

Boeing also created a computer program in which the B767 simulator/trainer unit could be put into a very wide variety of flight conditions and in various flight configurations...such as departure, approach and landing, climbs-descents-cruising, and...high speed descents...using full power from the engines.

Bursill was able to fly the B767 simulator AT such high speeds AT sea level without loosing control or anything bad happeneing. Howdid the computer flight programming have the knowledge about what the B767 simulator should behave like WHEN it was flying at speeds approaching 510K?

Well, where did that high speed flight characteristic and aircraft controllability change data come from? Flight tests maybe? I surely suspect so. In Boeing presenting a computer simulator program that is certified to be that of a B767 and that simuulated program KNOWS AND ALLOWS the simulator to fly at those excessively high speeds, its telltale that somebody on their test flight team and flight analysis team had DATA from which they could model that flight program.

So, if pilots who have tens of thousands of hours in the B767 but have NOT flown the B767 at speeds well above the normal flight profiles noted in this blog..aka...speed approaching the 510K as some have suggested the top speeds might have been...then their hours in the aircraft are not neccessarily telltale of that aircraft's capability to fly at such speeds at sea level.

So, neither Pilots for 9/11 Truth, nor anybody else other than Boeing, can credibly state the term "IMPOSSIBLE SPEEDS" regarding UA175...because such a fact simply cannot be proven.

And so far, if anything, it has been proven, AND SHOWN that such speeds COULD be attained by a B767 flying in a descent approaching sea level.

And as far as What Dwayne Deets has stated, I do not read any hard, definitive or positive statement that the speeds in question are...IMPOSSIBLE.

And there is a world of difference between improbable and impossible.

Retract the word IMPOSSIBLE...and let the research continue.

9/11 Truth for World Peace

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

What strikes me, and presumably other relative newcomers, is the rabid debate as to whether Pilots for 911 Truth is on tack, or off. Their (Pilots) extensive research and propositions have been disputed at great length by authors published in Journal of 911 Studies, and other online journals, including 911 Blogger.
Not merely disputed, but more often than not, virulently opposed. Bit strange, don't you think?
One can scarcely argue with the Scholars, but.....there's something wrong with this equation. Why such instant, inflamed opposition, again and again? I bring this to the forum's attention in the hope that everyone will take a closer look at the evidence, and not be drawn in by lengthy, virtually inexplicable (more often than not due to their length) "scientific" diatribes/debates.

4.5 years after 9.11, which means this technology was more-than-likely available at the time.

"The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck. "

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/01/210869/diagrams-boeing-p...

I'm sorry for being angry, prideful and conceited during this debate!

I apologise to 911blogger and the 911 Truth Movement for my rash actions in heat of battle for truth!

Kind regards John

Note: Sorry for not posting sooner. I had problems logging in.

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

Assume such things as, a vanilla 767-200 series aircraft did impact the tower, the radar data were correct, and NTSB did the math correctly.

One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.

Dwain