NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[dadeets]

Would you mind reposting here exactly what you posted on that forum? Maybe the context of your post could help me understand.
Thanks

Posted 19 April 2010
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 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?

 

[Fonebone]

UHH Boeing the defense contractor ?

DGM, you ask a good question. I posed a question pertinent to this to the aeronautics community via a post to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) online forum. No one responded in any way. Two weeks went by, but still no one posted anything. Absolute silence. Then, AIAA removed my post from the forum without explanation.

I can only guess why no one responded. My guess is that everyone who read it recognized that posting any response whatsoever would not be helpful to one’s career. For those retired, they probably would be reluctant to put themselves out there “on the record” on something that has become a taboo subject.

It could be some posts were submitted, but as it was a moderated forum, were not posted. I have no way of knowing if the moderated prohibited any posts.

I asked a good friend of mine who is high in the aerospace world to give me his explanation for the silence. He responded, the topic has entered the political realm. Once in the political realm, all becomes subjective.

Thank you for your honest assessment. Boeing is a major defense contractor
and many jobs in the defense / aerospace industries do require security clearances issued
by the government that can be revoked .
No clearance-No work .Strong incentive to keep your mouth shut. Not good for business either--
Boeing refused to respond to inquiries about the anomalies on the "Boeing" WTC2 murder weapon captured on various videos.

 

[beachnut]

Thank you for your honest assessment. Boeing is a major defense contractor and many jobs in the defense / aerospace industries do require security clearances issued by the government that can be revoked .

Deets offered zero evidence to support his claims. There is nothing stopping a 757/767 from going well past Vmo at low altitude, Boeing jets are strong and have no problem going 510 knots as seen, proved on 911. RADAR and Video verify flight 175 was going 510 knots, these are facts which Deets can't refute.

No clearance-No work .Strong incentive to keep your mouth shut. Not good for business either--

This is a false idea, there is nothing stopping anyone from revealing Boeing jets can go faster than Vmo at low altitude, the jets never got near MACH 1. I have flown over Vmo in a Boeing jet, it flew GREAT! FACT!

Boeing refused to respond to inquiries about the anomalies on the "Boeing" WTC2 murder weapon captured on various videos.

Where is the proof Boeing refused. Prove it please, with references and the source for this. Please.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Posted 19 April 2010
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 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?

Mr Deets,

Are you intending to continue this line of reasoning while it has been demonstrated to you that your original premise is entirely false? Do you not think that all can see this?

You are now aware of 5 instances of dive over speed conditions and there are probably more.

I shall repeat.

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

In light of these facts that, you admit, you were unaware of at the time of your posting are you now prepared to revise you opinion?
(you will note that I have left aside the fact that you haven’t justified, in anyway, the values you attached to your probability sum)
Woof!

Woof!

 

[DGM]

Posted 19 April 2010
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 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?

Thanks for posting this,

I can imagine other reasons why you have not received any response. In effect you have accused them of covering up what you see as obvious but showed only cursory reasononing..

I believe you need to show how your opinion has some sort of grounding in reality. Maybe if you went through the NTSB database and showed that this aircraft type is inherently unstable at these speeds. Or maybe you can find evidence of crashes due to over speed. I can say I have not found this to be the case for both the 757 or 767 (all variants).


Good luck.

 

[dadeets]

Thanks for posting this,

I can imagine other reasons why you have not received any response. In effect you have accused them of covering up what you see as obvious but showed only cursory reasononing..

I believe you need to show how your opinion has some sort of grounding in reality. Maybe if you went through the NTSB database and showed that this aircraft type is inherently unstable at these speeds. Or maybe you can find evidence of crashes due to over speed. I can say I have not found this to be the case for both the 757 or 767 (all variants).


Good luck.

Part of this issue pertains to who has the burden of proof. If a flutter engineer cited Flt 175 as evidence an airplane can fly 100 knots over its dive speed, and I were a senior manager higher up in the chain, I would send this engineer back for more background information. I would ask for any precedents where such a thing had happened previously. I would ask for an engineering analysis, in this case involving predicted flutter modes as a function of equivalent airspeed or Mach no. offering some explanation.

What I hear from 9/11 official story supporters is that I have the burden of proof. I am the one who must prove the plane couldn't fly 100 knots over its dive speed.

 

[DGM]

What I hear from 9/11 official story supporters is that I have the burden of proof. I am the one who must prove the plane couldn't fly 100 knots over its dive speed.

The thing is you are claiming that video and radar evidence is (for lack of better word) faked. That does in fact shift the burden of proof to you. You need to show your evidence is better then what has been accepted as fact.


Do you follow?

 

[carlitos]

I am the one who must prove the plane couldn't fly 100 knots over its dive speed.

Why are you approaching this as a theoretical exercise? The plane did fly at the speed measured by RADAR and confirmed by video analysis. No "proof" for actual observed events is required.

I also think that you should re-phrase your assertion that the tallest buildings in the United States were a "relatively small target" for a trained pilot. That is false.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Have engineers just looked the other way?

No, they just happen to know about a thing called a "factor of safety".....

The structural fail speed is much much higher than the allowed "safe" speed for very obvious reasons............and yes I am an engineer

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"What I hear from 9/11 official story supporters is that I have the burden of proof. I am the one who must prove the plane couldn't fly 100 knots over its dive speed. "

Correct, you are making the assertion so you must prove it. I can assert that green men live on the moon, and you are under no obligation to prove it one way or the other.............

 

[alienentity]

Weirdly the subject of the 'impossible' flight speeds of 175 and 11 were brought up by a family member yesterday, attributed to PfT.

Did some digging today, and discovered the info from R. Mackey on China Airlines 006 and EA 990. I also came across this website titled 'Airliners that have gone Supersonic', which lists TWA 841, a Boeing 727.
According to the NTSB FDR readings it exceeded Mach 1 but was safely landed, repaired and returned to service!

 

[tfk]

Mr. Deets,

Alternatively, let's turn this into a careful distinction between what we (& you) KNOW, versus what we (& you) THINK.

We KNOW that a 767 will do 410 knots safely. That's been proven in dive tests.

We KNOW that, in order to achieve a 410 knot Vd cert, it must have been successfully dived to a speed greater than 410 kits. (I believe that the Md margin is 0.07M. I don't know the Vd margin.) I'd feel very comfortable saying that it must have survived 440 kts in flight testing. (if you want a different number, propose one.)

We KNOW that we have evidence for other passenger jets (as the 4 cases mentioned above) that have exceeded their Mmo by significant margins. Including one (the DC8) that went supersonic.

We KNOW that a 767 will exceed its certified max speeds by some margin, but we don't know what that margin is.

Now, let's approach the issue from the high side.

I will readily concede that we KNOW that a 767 will not do (or likely survive) Mach 2 at sea level.

Now, I invite you to fill in the "I (we, you) think" zone between 440 kts and Mach 2 with what you "know". Fer sure.

With some supporting evidence, please.


tom

 

[Sabretooth]

What I hear from 9/11 official story supporters is that I have the burden of proof. I am the one who must prove the plane couldn't fly 100 knots over its dive speed.

I believe it's completely fair that you do provide the proof. The FDR's and RADAR data all agree with eye-witnesses...but you are the one claiming otherwise. If you are going to claim something that is outside of what has already been agreed upon, then yes, the burden of proof is on you.

Also, based on information I found that has been posted earlier in this same thread, I don't find that any of the aircraft exceeded their flight envelope to any reasonable degree. What information do you have that suggests otherwise?

 

[tfk]

Mr. Deets,

Part of this issue pertains to who has the burden of proof. If a flutter engineer cited Flt 175 as evidence an airplane can fly 100 knots over its dive speed, and I were a senior manager higher up in the chain, I would send this engineer back for more background information. I would ask for any precedents where such a thing had happened previously. I would ask for an engineering analysis, in this case involving predicted flutter modes as a function of equivalent airspeed or Mach no. offering some explanation.

What I hear from 9/11 official story supporters is that I have the burden of proof. I am the one who must prove the plane couldn't fly 100 knots over its dive speed.

What I just heard is you acknowledging that you can't do this analysis, and are dependent on a flutter engineer providing you with the answer.

Which leads me to my next observation: "Why are you leveraging your NASA credentials to assert that the plane couldn't have flown that fast, when you just admitted that you would have to ask someone else to provide you with that assessment?"


tom

PS.

Posted 19 April 2010
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 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?

Answer: (4)

 

[alienentity]

What I hear from 9/11 official story supporters is that I have the burden of proof. I am the one who must prove the plane couldn't fly 100 knots over its dive speed.

Couple of observations:

1) The term '9/11 official story supporter' is pretty loaded. Aren't we really just discussing the operating limits of aircraft? Personally I'm not even considering anything else when focusing on the issue - it's irrelevant to try to categorize data in a political way. The data should stand on its own IMO.

2) Yes, since you're making the claim that this couldn't happen, you'd have the burden of proof. It would help to have an aircraft engineer back you up in that assertion. I wish you would! And further, back it up with some mathematics which can be examined.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am very surprised that Mr. Deets took the time to state here that no one responded to his post, while failing to acknowledge that it was extremely confrontational and unprofessional. it was also grossly misinformed:

586 mph is 509 KTAS, which at Sea Level is M=.77

From the 767 TCDS (A1NM):
Airspeed Limits: VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.

As KTAS = KIAS (which is more or less KCAS) at Sea Level, they were in excess of the dive speed for the aircraft. However, aircraft are designed with a 50% safety factor on loads (Ultimate Load = 1.5 * Limit Load).

 

[dadeets]

"What I hear from 9/11 official story supporters is that I have the burden of proof. I am the one who must prove the plane couldn't fly 100 knots over its dive speed. "

Correct, you are making the assertion so you must prove it. I can assert that green men live on the moon, and you are under no obligation to prove it one way or the other.............

What burden of proof do the authorities have?

1. Positive identification of the airplane.

2. A subset of this is proof of the airplane type.

Neither of these have been done.

If you look into the four possibilities that I included in my post to AIAA, one pertained to whether the airplane type is correct. I think this is the first issue that should be pinned down.

 

[The Big Dog]

What burden of proof do the authorities have?

1. Positive identification of the airplane.

2. A subset of this is proof of the airplane type.

Neither of these have been done.

If you look into the four possibilities that I included in my post to AIAA, one pertained to whether the airplane type is correct. I think this is the first issue that should be pinned down.

It is indeed curious that you are arguing regarding legalities, while trading on your experience as an employee of NASA. You are not a lawyer, are you?

Fortunately, your claim that "neither of these have been done" is untrue:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/ST00004.pdf

http://911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_11_Crash_Evidence

http://911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175_Crash_Evidence

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

So now that we have put that behind us, why don't you get on with answering the evidence that shows that your understanding of the flight capabilities of the planes is utterly wrong.

In addition, we are still waiting for your responses regarding the South Path witnesses at the Pentagon that CIT intentionally ignores, like Frank Probst.

 

[dadeets]

Couple of observations:

1) The term '9/11 official story supporter' is pretty loaded. Aren't we really just discussing the operating limits of aircraft? Personally I'm not even considering anything else when focusing on the issue - it's irrelevant to try to categorize data in a political way. The data should stand on its own IMO.

What term would you prefer? I do think "which aircraft" is an important component of the question. Thus, I think the participants in this discussion fall into two camps. Those who aren't troubled by the failure of the authorities to provide a positive identification of the aircraft, and those who are trouble by it.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I would ask for any precedents where such a thing had happened previously. I would ask for an engineering analysis, in this case involving predicted flutter modes as a function of equivalent airspeed or Mach no. offering some explanation.

You’ve been given 5 precedents where this has happened; your pretending that you can’t see them doesn’t change this fact. If we extrapolate from these examples of dive over speed/max design dive speed we can see that 560 MPH is entirely reasonable and this in addition to the fact that we have the NIST estimates from image correlation on videos and the corroborating NTSB radar tracks.

At this point you could ask for further engineering analysis into predicted flutter modes, and whilst this may-be of some academic interest, it would not change these facts; that it has happened before 9/11 or indeed on 9/11.

What I hear from 9/11 official story supporters is that I have the burden of proof. I am the one who must prove the plane couldn't fly 100 knots over its dive speed.

No what I’m asking you to do is: support/modify or retract this statement.

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

The problem is; are you going to leave this, self evidently, false and unfounded claim laying there?

You see if you are, all we have to do is say “yes it did fly at that speed” and in that short statement we have provided as much evidence as you have. Where do we go then?

Woof!