Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Latest News _ Nasa Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The " Elephant In The Room "

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 22 2010, 10:15 AM

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"


06/22/2010 - (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:


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 "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19919" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

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 (1988)
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


It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18314.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtca_dc".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

###

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 22 2010, 04:46 PM

Excellent!

Thanks Rob and Dwain!

Is there an interview?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 22 2010, 04:53 PM

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jun 22 2010, 05:46 PM) *
Excellent!

Thanks Rob and Dwain!

Is there an interview?


I didn't record the interview. It was mainly a chat just to confirm Dwain's concerns on the information since his post here regarding his entry at the AIAA, and asking permission to publish an article on the topic.

If anyone has any questions, Dwain is a forum member and can reply in this thread. His forum name is dadeets.

Posted by: datars Jun 22 2010, 05:27 PM

Cool! Rob

Posted by: ChrisPDX Jun 22 2010, 10:02 PM

Thanks for keeping us updated. It is always a pleasure to get an email regarding a new post.

Posted by: tinynate Jun 22 2010, 11:00 PM

Rob it's about time for you to come on with charles giuliani again thumbsup.gif

I will email him if you want?


Michael Herzog is on oraclebroadcasting too, I am pretty good pals with him too if you would like to be on either, just let me know ... Would love to hear you back on with either of them.


thanks
gregg

Posted by: John Bursill Jun 22 2010, 11:15 PM

Hello all,

I agree with what Dwain has said.

Notice he did not refer to your video and he did not make any unsubstantiated claims. He simply called for the organisations that "can" to make comment and clear the air, maybe you could learn from that here at P4T?!

Boeing knows what that airframe can do, Rob Balsamo does not.

Making mileage out of what Deets has said in his well reasoned statement will lead to him pointing out the flaws in your video, so be careful now:) Good luck!

Kind regards John

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 23 2010, 01:41 AM

QUOTE (John Bursill @ Jun 23 2010, 12:15 AM) *
Boeing knows what that airframe can do, Rob Balsamo does not.


Hi John,

How about Capt Rusty Aimer, Capt Ralph Kolstad, and Capt Jeff Latas? Do they "know what an airframe can do"?

John, why do you keep suggesting I'm the sole person responsible for this information while ignoring the experts who were consulted and credited? What you are doing is known as intellectual dishonesty and may give people the impression that your arguments are personal, and not in the best interests of truth.

So you now agree the aircraft speed is "An aeronautical improbability" as voiced by Dwain above to the AIAA?

John, throughout our presentation and supplemental press release, we have been voicing the same exact concerns Dwain has outlined above. What do you think motivated Dwain to write the above entry to the AIAA?

Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves. - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed


For almost two years, you have been on a campaign of "nothing to see here folks, move along" regarding 9/11 aircraft speed. You have attempted to prove the speeds were probable and have failed, all the while attacking me personally. You did it again with, "Rob Balsamo does not".

John, it is clear you do not understand the knowledge I possess with respect to what an airframe can do. Dwain and the other experts I have consulted and credited, do.

It is why this list grows.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

With that said, it's good to see you came to your senses and you now agree the speeds are "An aeronautical improbability" and you now acknowledge the "Elephant in the room". Will you still be attempting to get people to look the other way with regards to this "Aeronautical improbability"? Are you going to now inform your past guests you now agree the speeds are "aeronautically improbable" as voiced by Dwain and other experts?

QUOTE
Making mileage out of what Deets has said in his well reasoned statement will lead to him pointing out the flaws in your video, so be careful now:) Good luck!


Dwain approved the article before it was published. Good luck to you.

Posted by: John Bursill Jun 23 2010, 03:13 AM

Hello Rob,

I agree with Deets's argument in it's essence, not that it is improbable the aircraft were 767-200 because of the aircraft speed. The aircraft did the speed and you have no proof they were not the aircraft we are told they were. We need the data which you do not have so Rob you do not know. If the speed stated officially is wrong I'm sure some one would of proved that by now by using the video footage?

What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.

The simulator does the speed Rob and your video is full of hot air! Show us the data or don't make statements about what is or is not impossible. That is what my campaign has been about, it is about being reasonable.

Your pilots that say they know what the frame could do, how do they know that Rob? Stop and think a while. Yes they may have done 360 Knots maybe 370 Knots during an over speed but they are not allowed to fly anywhere near 500 Knots...so how Rob do they know? 767's are very powerful planes and many pilots I talk to every day say they think they could do that speed. THEY DO NOT KNOW, THEY THINK!

This is a huge time waster!

Regards John

PS - My last post have fun with your beat up...

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 23 2010, 03:43 AM

QUOTE (John Bursill @ Jun 23 2010, 04:13 AM) *
Hello Rob,

I agree with Deets's argument in it's essence, not that it is improbable the aircraft were 767-200 because of the aircraft speed.


That's not exactly what Deets said. He specifically states "An Aeronautical Improbability" based on speed and aircraft type reported. Not that it is "improbable the aircraft were a 767-200". Do you understand the difference?

With that said, it appears you don't agree with Deets. Thanks for clearing that up.

QUOTE
The aircraft did the speed and you have no proof they were not the aircraft we are told they were.


Logical fallacy. Attempting to prove a negative. That is the same thing as you saying, "You have no proof Santa Claus isn't the person I was told he was by my parents". Legge tried the same tactic in his now defunct "What Hit The Pentagon" opinion piece.

A proper way to structure the statement would be, "What proof do you have that the aircraft observed is a standard 767-200, or specifically, N334AA and N612UA?"

So John, where is your proof?

So far, we have "...established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room"..."

You disagree. That's OK John. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree with you. I'm sure many of the experts consulted and credited are as well.

John, it's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?



QUOTE
We need the data which you do not have so Rob you do not know. If the speed stated officially is wrong I'm sure some one would of proved that by now by using the video footage?


It is proven based on the best data set we have and were able to obtain, Egypt Air 990, which suffered structural failure at 420 KEAS.

QUOTE
What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.


Dwain is getting at both issues. Improbable speed (Hence, "...this wasn't a standard 767-200;"), and Hijacker pilot skill, (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target."). Although the latter you will note the sarcasm in his tone.

QUOTE
The simulator does the speed Rob and your video is full of hot air!


John, are you able to make one post without attacking me personally?

John, each simulator has it's purpose. A Cockpit simulator is not designed to measure airframe stress. It is designed for training Cockpit Crew with respect to Cockpit procedures. This is discussed in our presentation. http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2503/p4290003pb5.jpg are designed to train Cabin Crew with respect to Cabin Procedure. Wind tunels are utilized to measure aircraft stress. Furthermore, the crash logic was clearly disabled on your alleged test, whether inadvertantly or intentional, as http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18114 who has thousands of hours in 757/767 Cockpit Simulators and the actual aircraft at American Airlines.

John, why didn't you get a plotted print out from your supposed sim test? All Level D Simulators have the capability to record and plot the flight. Just like a FDR, but even more thorough as it will give you an actual plot.

It would be nice to have some tangible evidence that your sim test actually took place. Regardless, we already know it isn't a very valid test.

QUOTE
Show us the data or don't make statements about what is or is not impossible. That is what my campaign has been about, it is about being reasonable.


We have shown you data and precedent. You choose to ignore it. Your campaign has been about attempting to police the "Truth Movement" and dictate to others what they should and should not research. This is all based on a conflict with me personally stemming from the fact I wouildn't boot http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Lear from our organization when you made such demands.

John, why do you continue to ignore these questions?

How about Capt Rusty Aimer, Capt Ralph Kolstad, and Capt Jeff Latas? Do they "know what an airframe can do"?

John, why do you keep suggesting I'm the sole person responsible for this information while ignoring the experts who were consulted and credited? What you are doing is known as intellectual dishonesty and may give people the impression that your arguments are personal, and not in the best interests of truth.


QUOTE
Your pilots that say they know what the frame could do, how do they know that Rob?


If you view the presentation thoroughly, you will know.

QUOTE
Yes they may have done 360 Knots maybe 370 Knots during an over speed but they are not allowed to fly anywhere near 500 Knots...so how Rob do they know? 767's are very powerful planes and many pilots I talk to every day say they think they could do that speed. THEY DO NOT KNOW, THEY THINK!


Have they viewed our presentation?

John, I agree the 767 is a very powerful airplane. But do you understand why Boeing sets limitations, even on powerful aircraft?

Give them the presentation, then let me know what they "think". Let me know if they will put their name to their claims. Hearsay doesn't mean much on the web John.

Again John,

You think we should ignore the speeds. You think they are "probable". I'm ok with that. I'm ok to agree to disagree on this issue. Can you do the same? Or will you still go around claiming we are promoting disinfo? (Granted I haven't read or listened to much of your work, but I'm sure Craig can dig it out if needed).

Personally, I think It's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?

Have you seen this article?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20048

That is right up your alley John. Why no comment?

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jun 23 2010, 05:38 AM

I remember the question of speed was the very question which led me to P4T some years ago. If you don't know something, go ask the professionals. I remember I was then asking Rob about the possibility of such a speed and he swiftly directed me to the P4T forum.

Later I was always insisting this question should be answered. I derived with dMole some groundspeed estimations from the 84Rades data, which was way above the Vne speed for B767-222, although now we know we really can't be sure the 84Rades data are authentic.

Nevertheles even later I asked achimspok if he could make another of his famous 3D simulations, and he did from the quite many available videos (http://www.youtube.com/user/achimspok#p/u/16/ClDtwOR-3wQ and further videos), which precised the "UA-175" speed estimation, suggesting airspeed maybe even a bit above 600 mph in the final phase (which almost at the sea level where the air is much more dense than at the cruising altitude is quite unheard of and even in the flight tests of civil B767 such a speed reportedly even closely never was achieved at such a low altitude and some credited professionals think it is utterly impossible because the engines would break and/or flutter would shatter the plane into pieces, and pump_it_out was calling in Boeing asking the question about speed and the technician there laughed, when asked if such a speed is possible...) and also rendering very interesting final maneuvre pattern which strongly suggests a computer was steering the plane into the building against the counterwind, hiting the south tower on all three axes exactly perpendicular to the southface ...and on the other hand the 3D simulation rendered the "no-plane theories" into realm of high improbability, because it btw. confirmed the airpaths of the plane on the many diferent videos fit each other in the simulated 3D space and so quite disprooved some of the key claims from "September Clues".
So I don't much understand, why especially in connection with the question of speed somebody tryies to play this "no-plane card" again...

So now here we are on this speed question again. Even somebody from NASA acknowledges a proboscidian in the room. Niiice. thumbsup.gif

I was also forced to delete this post immediatelly after it was written, and write it again, because the post appeared without me at all writing it authomatically rendered the word "pump_it_out" writen together as "pumpshitout", even i the text in editor wasn't anything like that. Why ????!!! (screenshot: http://xmarinx.sweb.cz//pump.jpg )

Posted by: JohnS Jun 23 2010, 08:46 AM

Where does the figure of 360 knots max operating speed come from? The max cruise speed of a 767 (according to Wikipedia -- "it must be true!") is 493 knots. I guess that's at normal cruising altitude. Is it 360 because of the altitude? Where can this be looked up?

Thanks for the help -- I'm arguing with a very skeptical pilot friend of mine, I need your help with intellectual ammo!

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 23 2010, 08:56 AM

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/a8694be7b7ac6c178625731e006944bc/$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf

It is also all explained in the presentation.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 23 2010, 09:06 AM

Hi Rob:

The naysayers continue to argue "tautologically". But they fail to apply the same standards to their own thinking. That discredits them and saves the discriminating reader time and effort, because, as we all know -- and as any good reader should; "words can be found to support any cause", therefore, if a writer continues to ignore and fails to even bother to explain, why his own discourse should be absolved of being subjected to the very same disciplines he is subjecting other materials too, then their writings are a complete waste of time.

Case in point is: (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.").

Which is an assertion, but it excludes explanation as to how this is achieved, without the necessary pilot skill sets! So that it should read: (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target, [ by a pilot who had not the required skills.]").

I'm no expert, but I have to assume that when sensitive operations are taken into "the red zone", everything about the operations then becomes highly critical as well. Such that if there are only a variable or two, acting over an instant or two, an unskilled operator could get lucky. But as the number of variables climb, in addition to the amount of time that the operator has to stay within various limits, the chance of "getting lucky" decreases very rapidly to the vanishing point.

So, what I'm taking away from these discussions is that, it is unlikely in the extreme, that while in the "red zone"[510 knots], all the necessary variables being held tightly within acceptable limits, by a pilot of less than top level experience, is so close to impossible it need not be rationally considered.

It seems to me that the less of these variables one considers at any given point in time, the chances of achieving the desired outcome becomes more and more possible. But, as the other requirements are factored in, one by one, the chances of achieving a desirable result decreases substantially.

So, out of curiosity I have to ask you, can you enumerate the list of variables, which in this case -- during the last, say 5 minutes of the flights, -- have to be held within tight limits, to achieve these results? Please add pilot skill sets and discernable time lengths to the list as well as "break points" that show when they each have to be changed, if any. It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list, just something off-the-top-of-your head will do. To let us lay people see some of the complexities that are being concealed by these shorthand statements like "beyond it's flight envelope", "was controlable"
etc. This will give us some idea of things that a real pilot would have had to deal with in that cockpit.

Thanks in advance Rob
Obwon

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 23 2010, 09:14 AM

Please all, if you havent viewed the presentation, please view it as many of your questions are answered.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18314 - Speed Scene

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732 - Full Film

Posted by: RickMason Jun 23 2010, 11:08 AM

This is great! Things seemed to be slowing down in the 9/11 Truth movement, and I'm glad to see some new, positive information!

Posted by: amazed! Jun 23 2010, 03:08 PM

I'm glad that Mr. Deet has gone on the record. Good work Rob.

But in my mind the question was settled a long time ago--if there were 2 Boeings at WTC, and I believe there were, they were right at Vmo or maybe slightly over it.

Considering how Vigilant Guardian was implemented--spoofing the radar--any radar data that day is highly suspect.

I suppose some will use Mr. Deet's opinion to support a position of no planes, but I would disagree.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Jun 23 2010, 06:28 PM

Rob,

I haven't touched on this much. But I have been watching John Bursill's behavior and it is very subversive. We have made the same effort with him and others to work together, but he seems to still want to slip attacks on us into his little Visibility shows while interviewing 9/11 Truth Movement figures. This even after Craig beat him to a pulp in his recorded phone interview which he conceded Craig won.

How long can John carry on this charade? Is it that you can't admit you are wrong, John? Because Rob has a point, you have gone from "nothing to see here, moving right along" to now agreeing that the speeds are improbable, to now shifting the blame and onus to Boeing.

I am not sure why you don't want to work with either organization and why you and a your clique are so determined to consistently attack us, undermine us, and misdirect from us? I really don't want to start thinking you are some kind of friendly Australian Intelligence op. I am sure many do not want to start thinking that, but it is beginning to become pretty apparent that you are bent on subversion.

Posted by: SlackerSlayer Jun 23 2010, 07:30 PM

So the 757 and 767 frames can not take those forces,,, but what about the 737? They found 737 parts at the site, so what about that airframe?

Posted by: tekirdag Jun 23 2010, 08:46 PM

I think you are really grasping a straws here.

Firstly, the max speed adjusted for altitude, temp and pressure will be about 370kt

Secondly a tail wind can easily increase this by 20-30 kt (and it looks like a tail wind to me) or 400 kt.

Thirdly, if you don't mind busting your aircraft, you can fly any speed you like. Normal loading requirements for airframes is 1.6 x max load, so there is plenty of excess strength available.

A China Airlines 747 did a half loop, losing some 30,000 ft in the process, and survived (full of passengers). A Bae 146 went supersonic (after the pilots were shot) and survived (until it hit the ground).


There is no mystery here - we all saw the videos of a 767 flying.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 23 2010, 10:05 PM

QUOTE (tekirdag @ Jun 23 2010, 09:46 PM) *
I think you are really grasping a straws here.

Firstly, the max speed adjusted for altitude, temp and pressure will be about 370kt

Secondly a tail wind can easily increase this by 20-30 kt (and it looks like a tail wind to me) or 400 kt.


This looks like a tailwind to you?



No, that's a headwind. (See the smoke? That is the direction of the wind)

Actual True Airspeed is closer to 520-530 knots. Surface winds at JFK, LGA and EWR were out of the Northwest at 10-15 knots. Clearly the winds were stronger out of the north 1000 feet above the surface.

QUOTE
Thirdly, if you don't mind busting your aircraft, you can fly any speed you like.


How do you "fly" a busted aircraft? When an aircraft is busted, you no longer "fly" it, you become a passenger. And then a smoking hole.

QUOTE
A China Airlines 747 did a half loop, losing some 30,000 ft in the process, and survived (full of passengers). A Bae 146 went supersonic (after the pilots were shot) and survived (until it hit the ground).


A 747 and a Bae 146 are not a 767.

The Concorde can go supersonic, does that mean a Cessna 172 can as well? I suppose if the 172 is "busted" you can fly at any airspeed you like, right? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
There is no mystery here - we all saw the videos of a 767 flying.


You need to watch the video we linked above.

Posted by: dMole Jun 23 2010, 11:25 PM

QUOTE (SlackerSlayer @ Jun 23 2010, 06:30 PM) *
So the 757 and 767 frames can not take those forces,,, but what about the 737? They found 737 parts at the site, so what about that airframe?

There are several decades' worth of B737 varieties- could you be a little more specific (as in serial number, and hopefully accompanied by a relevant B737 Flight Manual, perhaps)?

The FAA TCDS ("data sheet") for the B737 says this on page #1, 2, & 4:

QUOTE
Airspeed Limits: See the appropriate FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual listed in NOTE 2.


For several of the other B737 varieties, I found the following:

QUOTE
Airspeed Limits: VMO/MMO - 340/0.82 (KCAS)


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/8ed12cf74d43862c8625706d00718a80/$FILE/A16WE.pdf

340 knots < 360 knots (and 0.82M is also < 0.86M/0.91M [VD] ).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21&view=findpost&p=10377946

The Boeing company has tended to refine things, possibly exponentially with the advent and increased usage of CAD/CAM/CAE, over the generations (but I've read/heard several conflicting opinions on the new B787 however).

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 24 2010, 11:12 AM

QUOTE (John Bursill)
What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.


From John Bursill's alleged sim "findings"

QUOTE (John Bursill)
At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my altitude.


I'm sick of seeing pseudoskeptics making claims and then totally contradicting them on other forums.
If CIT or P4T had made such a contradictory statement, no doubt the "Visibility" crowd or their new found "friends" from all walks (the govt loyalist site to Jeff Hill) would be harping on about it.

That's the difference. CIT and P4T use hard verifiable facts and evidence against the detractors' now seemingly "acceptable" black is white bullshit.

Nice work Rob. As always thumbsup.gif

Posted by: amazed! Jun 24 2010, 03:20 PM

It is true that airspeed limitations CAN be exceeded, and it is true that the certification regulations require a structural cushion, I think around 10%. I assume those same rules apply to transport category aircraft.

If the airspeed limitations are exceeded, damage can occur, perhaps even fatal damage, but not necessarily. It's a dynamic situation. Of course g loading would have alot to do with it.

Vmo +20 would not be unrealistic IMO.

Posted by: lex Jun 24 2010, 03:34 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 22 2010, 10:15 AM) *
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"


06/22/2010 - (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:


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 "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19919" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

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 (1988)
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


It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18314.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtca_dc".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

###

Posted by: lex Jun 24 2010, 03:36 PM

all i know is that jumbo jets do not vapourize on impact. they leave wreckage when will there be a focus on this?

Posted by: elreb Jun 24 2010, 04:08 PM

Rob,

Do you have a thread for blithering idiots?

I have looked into almost every air craft crash since September 2001 and only on the 11th day of September did every single law of Physics and every grain of common sense vanish from Earth, as if we floated into “Black Matter” or some freak dimension.

Over 120 elements do not add up, yet you still have “Morons” (Maroons) clinging to the official “Government” (cover-up) story.

Isn’t there some kind of “ACID” we can dip them in?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 24 2010, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (lex @ Jun 24 2010, 04:36 PM) *
all i know is that jumbo jets do not vapourize on impact. they leave wreckage when will there be a focus on this?


13 pages of threads right here using our wonderful search engine.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=44110fd353f5aefba0bcc05ad566c0ef&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&highlite=%2Bwreckage

Posted by: JohnS Jun 24 2010, 06:16 PM

Thanks for the link, Rob. I have seen the presentation but it's nice to have a nice official FAA link to point somebody to. (It's also nice not to have to re-watch an entire presentation to locate one fact.)

So I'm confused though: There's the FAA giving a VMO of 360 knots. What's with all the sources giving a "max cruising speed" of 493 knots? E.g., http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Is max cruising speed different from VMO? Are there different assumptions about altitude? The FAA document didn't seem to mention altitude with regard to its VMO number, but the "max cruise speed" seems pegged to 35000 feet. Again, apologies if this was all explained in the presentation, I admit it's been a while since I've watched it. But I think this is an important point to clarify. Grateful to anyone who can spell it out for me!

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 24 2010, 07:37 PM

QUOTE (tekirdag @ Jun 24 2010, 02:46 AM) *
I think you are really grasping a straws here. Why not be a little more clear about 'what' exactly Rob is grasping at straws about? the fact the planes were going too fast in a straight and level flight regime without thrust augmentation or other things beyond the capability of the engines that come on those planes when they're built at Boeing? That's not a grasping at a straw, it's an AERODYNAMIC FACT, which cannot be overcome by wishful thinking, supposition, or superhuman boxcutter wielding arabs who flew around unopposed in controlled airspace for way too long without any attempt by NORAD to intercept them.

Firstly, the max speed adjusted for altitude, temp and pressure will be about 370kt THAT IS RIGHT

Secondly a tail wind can easily increase this by 20-30 kt (and it looks like a tail wind to me) or 400 kt. DID YOU CHECK THE METARS FOR NYC THAT DAY BEFORE MAKING THAT ASSERTION??? what were the surface winds in NYC that day?

Thirdly, if you don't mind busting your aircraft, you can fly any speed you like. Normal loading requirements for airframes is 1.6 x max load, so there is plenty of excess strength available. WRONG ANSWER, AERODYNAMICS WILL LIMIT THE SUSTAINED SPEED OF THE PLANE DUE TO PARASITE DRAG AND OTHER DRAG COMPONENTS

A China Airlines 747 did a half loop, losing some 30,000 ft in the process, and survived (full of passengers). A Bae 146 went supersonic (after the pilots were shot) and survived (until it hit the ground). NO, THE BAE 146 BROKE UP IN FLIGHT, DID NOT IMPACT THE GROUND INTACT. as for the B-747 IN A LOOP, AS LONG AS IT DIDN'T DO IT IN A SITUATION WHERE LOSS OF THE AIRCRAFT'S CONTROL OCCURRED DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE LOOP, THERE'D BE NO PARTICULAR REASON FOR MUCH MORE THAN MINOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT WITHOUT BREAKUP.

There is no mystery here - we all saw the videos of a 767 flying. MAYBE, but do we know for absolute certainty they were stock airliners which had not undergone extensive modifications?? we don't, do we?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 24 2010, 07:38 PM

QUOTE (JohnS @ Jun 24 2010, 07:16 PM) *
Thanks for the link, Rob. I have seen the presentation but it's nice to have a nice official FAA link to point somebody to. (It's also nice not to have to re-watch an entire presentation to locate one fact.)

So I'm confused though: There's the FAA giving a VMO of 360 knots. What's with all the sources giving a "max cruising speed" of 493 knots? E.g., http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Is max cruising speed different from VMO? Are there different assumptions about altitude? The FAA document didn't seem to mention altitude with regard to its VMO number, but the "max cruise speed" seems pegged to 35000 feet. Again, apologies if this was all explained in the presentation, I admit it's been a while since I've watched it. But I think this is an important point to clarify. Grateful to anyone who can spell it out for me!


493 knots is True Airspeed.

360 is Indicated Airspeed.


True Airspeed increases with altitude.

Google the above airspeed definitions or visit your local flight school.

The "pilot" you are debating is not very much of a "pilot" if he doesn't understand the difference.

Bring him here. We'll teach him quick.

From what I have seen, it appears the "pilot" you are debating has no more experience than flying his computer chair on Microsoft.

Feel free to quote me.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 24 2010, 08:12 PM

I don't know why no one has done a pixel trace analysis of the video at least of the south tower strike which was on several vids. Chandler manages to determine the speed of things coming off the towers. Where are the clever fellas with software to analyze the plane speed of UAL 175?

The data taken from ATC radar can be inserted by a phantom transponder located in an outhouse. Weren't we told that there was data inserted that day, or possibly inserted because of military exercises? If the technology exists, then all the ATC data is suspect.

I don't know how airframes actually fail, but I suspect that it is not catastrophic at a particular speed... different components will fail at different times as conditions move beyond spec.

We need facts.

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 24 2010, 08:33 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 25 2010, 02:12 AM) *
I don't know why no one has done a pixel trace analysis of the video at least of the south tower strike which was on several vids. Chandler manages to determine the speed of things coming off the towers. Where are the clever fellas with software to analyze the plane speed of UAL 175?


according to someone I spoke with last year, some british experts did detailed video frame by frame speed analysis, but I have not seen this personally so I cannot attest to the veracity of the claim it was done.

QUOTE
The data taken from ATC radar can be inserted by a phantom transponder located in an outhouse. Weren't we told that there was data inserted that day, or possibly inserted because of military exercises? If the technology exists, then all the ATC data is suspect.



actually with regard to the NEADS sector, the information the other sectors saw was delayed by almost 26 seconds in time, and this never took place before sept 11th, nor afterwards. the only constructive reason you would 'sample and hold' the radar feed that long, would be either to 'inject' targets, or 'delete' them, before allowing the feed to go to the other users in the air defense system. Constructively, I personally have worked on that kind of military technology and know how it works and it's very very nifty in exercises where you want to change the radar feed in any way you so choose, before the rest of the users can see it. There can be no other legitimate reason to delay radar data to other user sites by nearly half a minute in time.
QUOTE
I don't know how airframes actually fail, but I suspect that it is not catastrophic at a particular speed... different components will fail at different times as conditions move beyond spec.


what is even more important is the instability and loss of control that is inherent in flight regimes where the airplane is outside it's normal load factor limits by a significant margin, in unstable, dense air, down low.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 25 2010, 08:52 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 24 2010, 04:20 PM) *
It is true that airspeed limitations CAN be exceeded, and it is true that the certification regulations require a structural cushion, I think around 10%. I assume those same rules apply to transport category aircraft.

If the airspeed limitations are exceeded, damage can occur, perhaps even fatal damage, but not necessarily. It's a dynamic situation. Of course g loading would have alot to do with it.

Vmo +20 would not be unrealistic IMO.


That is very likely the case, but my question then would be: How do pilot skills impact the matter of planes being flown in the "red zone"? Is it likely that these planes could exceed their limitations at the hands of relatively untrained pilots and still accomplish their missions? Clearly, the experts have said that they found they could control a plane easily while exceeding limitations, but only for level flight. The WTC craft were not in level flight when the design limitations were exceeded... So, is controlling them after design limits are exceeded so simple that the unskilled pilots could get luckly? Or would they be so difficult to control that even a skilled pilot could only hope to get lucky?

Obwon

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 25 2010, 09:30 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 25 2010, 02:52 PM) *
That is very likely the case, but my question then would be: How do pilot skills impact the matter of planes being flown in the "red zone"? Is it likely that these planes could exceed their limitations at the hands of relatively untrained pilots and still accomplish their missions? Clearly, the experts have said that they found they could control a plane easily while exceeding limitations, but only for level flight. The WTC craft were not in level flight when the design limitations were exceeded... So, is controlling them after design limits are exceeded so simple that the unskilled pilots could get luckly? Or would they be so difficult to control that even a skilled pilot could only hope to get lucky?

Obwon


I transcripted the Pilotsfor911truth "Speed" video and found this section very compelling.
It is not open to detractor obfuscation regarding undocumented and unverified "sim tests" or leaching off the refusal of the withholding of vital data which pseudoskeptics live off.

Hope it's useful (particularly for laymen such as myself). Regarding "Control".

QUOTE
PILOT SKILLS - CONTROLLABILITY

27:35 IN VIDEO

Imagine parking your car at 150 mph, without hitting the side of the car off the garage walls. The operator of the vehicle has to be VERY precise.
Considering that the best alleged hijacker was Hani Hanjur, and he wasn't allowed to rent a Cessna due to the fact that he couldn't control it at 65 knots,it's highlt unlikely that a pilot of lesser capability could control a heavy jet, with zero training in type aircraft, at almost 10 times the speed with a 25 feet margin of error for each side of the wing tip.

Ever driven into a "Jiffy Lube" or similar place to get your oil changed?
Imagine driving in at 150 mph without scratching your car, however, you are familiar with your car, many hours operating it, so this scenario isn't exactly the same.
So, imagine yourself behind the wheel of a tractor trailer for the first time while attempting the same manouevre. Could you do it?


INTERVIEW WITH SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY
TRIED TO HIT THE WTC TOWERS IN A SIM
WITH OTHER EXPERIENCED COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
PILOTS WITHIN WEEKS OF 9/11

DAN GAVADO (?)

QUOTE
Dan : "After their Sim training period I said 'Hey, let's try something. Let's see if we can hit these buildings...uh..like we saw happen.
We used a 737, a smaller much more manouevreable airplane.
So, I set it up for these pilots and keep in mind these pilots have many years experience..
They all took turns trying to hit the buildings AND THEY COULDN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY SLOWED DOWN TO ALMOST LANDING SPEEDS.
THEY COULD NOT HIT THOSE BUILDINGS. AT HIGH SPEEDS THEY COULDN'T DO IT"

Interviewer: " I guess they were getting into 'Dutch Roll' and everything, right?"

Dan : " That's right, that's EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING"



Onesliceshort -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_roll



30:40 Dutch Roll shown in actual flight

QUOTE
Dan : "PEOPLE DON'T REALISE TO HAND FLY AN AIRLINER AT THOSE SPEEDS
IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT...PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE A NOVICE.
..IF YOU EXPECT TO MOVE THE CONTROLS OF AN AIRLINER AND EXPECT IT TO REACT THE SAME AS A LITTLE AIRPLANE (CESSNA), YOU COULDN'T STAND THE G-FORCES. EVERYTHING IS FINGERTIP CONTROL.
SO BASICALLY OUT OF THE TEN TIMES THAT EACH PILOT TRIED NOBODY COULD DO IT. I WAS ABLE TO DO IT AT THE LAST ATTEMPT.
THAT WAS WHAT OPENED THEIR EYES AND SAID 'SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT'

WE WERE FINDING THIS ALL THE TIME. EVEN THESE AIRLINE PILOTS, WITH THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF EXPERIENCE HAD A HARD TIME CONTROLLING..THE AIRPLANE AT THOSE SPEEDS.

EVEN WHEN I WAS MAKING THE FILM AND I WAS DOING ALL THOSE DIFFERENT MANOUEVRES TO SET IT UP TO HIT THE PENTAGON..COMING IN FROM THE TOP, COMING IN FROM THE SIDE, COMING IN FROM THE OTHER SIDE GOING INTO WHERE RUMMY WAS SITTING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND THEN I TRIED TO LINE IT UP EXACTLY HOW THE OFFICIAL STORY STATES, IT TOOK ME 5 OR 6 TRIES.."



Landing speeds are around FIVE times less than the speeds recorded at the WTC. The interviewed pilots were able to impact the WTC as seen on 9/11 on the first attempt AT LANDING SPEED.
IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL WHEN ATTEMPTING TO DO IT AT OVER 150 KNOTS OVER MAX OPERATING SPEED.

THE SLIGHTEST PRESSURE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE AN ACTUAL MOVEMENT ON THE STEERING WHEEL OR WHAT WE CALL 'YOKE'...IT PRODUCES VERY LARGE CHANGES IN AIRCRAFT DIRECTION OR EVEN PRODUCE STRUCTURAL FAILURE.

THE GOVERNMENT EXPECTS US TO BELIEVE (AS DETRACTORS DO) THAT INEXPERIENCED 'HIJACKERS' MANAGED TO PENETRATE ALL 3 BUILDINGS WITH MARGINS OF ERROR AS FOLLOWS:

ALLEGED PENTAGON IMPACT - 33 FEET MARGIN FOR ERROR

SOUTH TOWER - 25 FEET MARGIN FOR ERROR

NORTH TOWER - 25 FEET MARGIN FOR ERROR

AT OVER 400 KNOTS??

YOU DECIDE.

AGAIN, THERE IS A REASON THE MANUFACTURER SETS SPEED LIMITATIONS.

- AIRFRAME FLUTTER

- CONTROL SURFACE EFFECTIVENESS

- CENTRE OF PRESSURE VS CENTRE OF GRAVITY

- TRIM CHARACTERISTICS

To name just a few.

When design limits are exceeded, control surface effectiveness become increasingly non existent.
FOR EXAMPLE, AS AIRSPEED INCREASES THE WING GENERATES MORE LIFT, THEREFORE THE PILOT NEEDS TO PUSH THE NOSE DOWN.

TRIM IS USED TO RELIEVE THESE PRESSURES.

39:40 - VISUAL PRESENTATION OF THESE FORCES SHOW THAT THE AIRCRAFT WILL BE OUT OF CONTROL WHEN THE PRESSURE ON THE TRIM BECOMES TOO HIGH.

40:00 EXPLANATION OF EFFECTS ON CONTROL SURFACE EFFECTIVENESS.

BASICALLY THE MORE YOU WANT TO ACCELERATE, THE MORE THE NOSE WANTS TO PUSH DOWN. KNOWN AS 'MACH TUCK'



Onesliceshort -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_tuck



AGAIN,THE AIRCRAFT IS OUT OF CONTROL.

40:35 'AILERON ROLL'

Onesliceshort -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron



QUOTE
"Ailerons are hinged control surfaces attached to the trailing edge of the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft. The ailerons are used to control the aircraft in roll. The two ailerons are typically interconnected so that one goes down when the other goes up: the downgoing aileron increases the lift on its wing while the upgoing aileron reduces the lift on its wing, producing a rolling moment about the aircraft's longitudinal axis."




AT EXCESSIVE SPEEDS THE 'DOWN AILERON' GRABS MORE AIR FROM THE RELATIVE WIND AND ACTUALLY CAUSES MORE DRAG, PULLING THE AIRCRAFT IN THAT DIRECTION. OPPOSITE TO TURN. THE PILOT WANTS TO TURN RIGHT BUT THE AIRCRAFT TURNS LEFT.
THIS IS CALLED 'CONTROL REVERSAL'.
AGAIN, THE AIRCRAFT IS OUT OF CONTROL.

These are just some of the basic reasons why an aircraft manufacturer sets speed limitations for particular airframes.

EVEN IF THE STRUCTURE DID REMAIN INTACT AT SUCH EXCESSIVE SPEEDS, COULD THESE 'HIJACKER PILOTS' COUNTER SUCH FACTORS?


CONCLUSION
PILOT SKILLS - CONTROLLABILITY

SOME MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE THE WTC BUILDINGS WERE SOME OF THE TALLEST BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD THAT THEY WOULD MAKE EASY TARGETS TO HIT WITH COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT.

NAVY PILOTS KNOW THE SKILL IT TAKES TO HIT SUCH A TARGET (AIRCRAFT CARRIER), EVEN AT LANDING SPEEDS, IN HIGHLY MANOUEVREABLE JETFIGHTER AIRCRAFT. IT IS CONTRADICTORY TO SUGGEST THAT THE WTC IS SO LARGE AS AN EXCUSE FOR 'HIJACKER PILOT' ABILITY.

42:20 - COMPARISON OF WTC BESIDE AIRCRAFT CARRIER.

COMBINE THAT WITH THE CONTROLLABILITY FACTOR AT HIGH SPEEDS AND DYNAMIC PRESSURES. IT IS ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT THESE 'HIJACKER PILOTS' WHO COULDN'T CONTROL A CESSNA AT 65 KNOTS COULD EASILY HAVE
HIT THEIR TARGETS, COMPLETELY AND THOROUGHLY. THREE OUT OF THREE!

THE BLACK BOXES FOR AA11 AND UA175 ARE CLAIMED TO NOT EXIST.
THE DATA THAT THEY HAVE SUPPLIED SHOWS IMPOSSIBLE SPEEDS.

THOSE EVENTS FRO 9/11 WHICH DO NOT HAVE (OR HAVE EXTREMELY LIMITED) VIDEO OR PHOTOS AND VERY LITTLE WITNESSES, MOST CONFLICTING WITH THE GOVERNMENT STORY, DO HAVE DATA AVAILABLE FROM THESE AIRCRAFT.
UNFORTUNATELY ALL DATA WHETHER FROM BLACK BOXES OR RADAR DOES NOT SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT STORY OR IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

WRITE TO YOUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ADVISE THEM TO BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.


Peace.
OSS.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Jun 25 2010, 03:43 PM

As mentioned, it should be fairly easy to time the aircraft in the videos and use the width of the towers as a measure of distance traveled. Proffessor Chandler has replied to me several times. I suggest you email him at dchandler@ae911truth.org, Rob. Or actually it seems that there are people able to do that here.

Its great to see more and more qualified people expressing their perceptions.

I am looking forward to the fighter response analysis and hopefully interviews with the actual pilots that day.

I'm thinking about the connection methods on the twin towers between the columns and comparing the total penetration of the towers to the limited penetration of the Pentagon.
The connection systems are yet unexplained or shown in pictures, so how the towers may have fallen as they did, as well as how the aircraft knocked the perimeter columns in, seemingly all the way out to the wing tips is one area of contemplation for me.
The columns are extremely strong, but if they were only surface-welded together at their ends, then such a weak connection has to be factored into the "collapses" as well as the effect the aircraft wings had on the columns. This is off-topic, but it does have something to do with whether these were modified 767s regarding wing strength.

I don't know if the military used any 767s or if a 767 made for military use has any stronger of an airframe.

I think Saddam having WMDs or ties to Osama Bin Laden is far greater "hot air" than what anyone will find on 'Pilots for Truth', yet we've spent a $trillion to kill, maim and displace millions of people over it. I suppose to some, that's not a waste of time.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 26 2010, 04:36 AM

QUOTE (John Bursill @ Jun 23 2010, 04:13 AM) *
This is a huge time waster!


PS - My last post have fun with your beat up...


Seems instead of John remaining here to discuss the matter civilly and trying to work together, elected to find time to personally attack me and our organization at Blogger.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-24/nasa-flight-director-confirms-911-aircraft-speed-improbable#comment-234142

The following sent to All Core Members and friends of the organization, and Bursill. Feel free to post it wherever you like.


John Bursill Slamming Pilots For 9/11 Truth Due To Latest Deets Article

Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:18 AM
From: "Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>


To All Core Members,

If I were to sum up this situation with just one sentence, it would be, "You don't get flak unless you're over the target".

This notice being sent to you based on a specific critic of our latest article released on 6/22.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html

As some of you know, John Bursill claims to be a skeptic of the govt story regarding 9/11. He is a resident of Australia and claims to work for Qantas as an Avionics Tech. He also hosts a very small internet radio show yet is perhaps the loud minority in this context, hence the reason for sending out this notice. Most of you don't even know who he is and this will be the first you ever hear his name, and probably the last. However, most of his time is spent attacking our work, our organization, and me personally. I have tried to remain civil with John in hopes we could agree to disagree on certain issues, yet work together on others. You can read this here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20178&view=findpost&p=10787046

John has refused to return and discuss the matter civilly and instead is libeling you, me and our entire organization all over the web and on his little internet radio show with guests who do not have the expertise to have an opinion on the matter nor have reviewed the data or presentations. Bursill attempted to rope Bob Bowman into this argument, but Bob gracefully declined to enter any "pissing contest" between Bursill and myself. The intelligent choice.

All of you are aware of and many of you were consulted for our latest project "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". John Bursill claims that the work we perform and place our names, credentials and professional reputations somehow discredits him and others who do not have the expertise, knowledge, nor place their name on our work (or have even viewed our work). That we create "division" and are spreading "disinfo". I mostly ignore Bursill and his rants as I too do not have time to deal with any "pissing contest". Especially with those who do not understand the subject matter, but this has gotten to a point where the responsible thing to do is make the organization at least aware of this issue.

I was recently made aware our latest article being posted to another site where members claim to question the govt story with respect to 9/11. Here is just one rant of many John Bursill is writing in reply to our latest article, "NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The Elephant In The Room"

Quote -
"It's not complicated, experience has simply demonstrated that P4T are bad news for our credibility.

It is obvious to any one with their eyes open that Rob Balsamo et al are not following the scientific method.

They rely on opinion and guess work to make broad statements as if fact but support no theories?

They create division and support disinformation both indirectly and directly, they also harbour dangerous high profile members.

One question as a "layman", if you don't have the data and don't do the experiment how do you have the conclusion?

Regards John "

It appears John Bursill has not reviewed any of our work as all of our work is based on data, mostly provided by the NTSB. We are also not the organization who focuses on a particular individual or other organizations, claiming they are "making US look bad", as does Bursill.

I normally would not waste your time (nor mine) and send this out to the entire Organization and leaders of other organizations, but the libel has gone on long enough (almost 2 years). Again, the responsible thing to do is at least make you aware of the issue.

If you come across John Bursill in the future (highly doubtful for most of you), and he starts ranting about our work, specifically the reported speeds of the 9/11 Aircraft, remind him of his own words,

"...but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction." - John Bursill
(Bursill wrote this in another rant at another site before he fled from a debate challenge)

And then remind him that the airplane reported to have struck the south tower was not only changing direction right up until impact, but pulling significant G loads at such excessive speed. Then perhaps tell John Bursill to learn the fundamentals of a Vg diagram and why aircraft manufacturers set limits on their aircraft.

I have given John the opportunity to debate this topic civilly and posed a few short questions as a prerequisite to make sure he understands the subject matter, that the debate will not turn into a Ground school. John Bursill fled.

I would also highly recommend you decline any invitation to be interviewed on his internet podcast or any event in which Bursill is one of the organizers as you will only end up in a circular argument of mostly libel directed at me personally, or the organization as a whole and the debate will no doubt turn into an impromptu form of ground school. You teaching John. I would also recommend the Radio hosts included in this email to not invite John onto your program as much of the same will occur. John had his chance to debate the topic, he chooses personal attacks instead.

"Ye shall know them by their fruit."

If anyone has any questions on this matter, feel free to call and/or email.

Hope you are all doing well.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
Pilots For 9/11 Truth

BCC:
Full Core member list
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Friends of the organization
John Bursill

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 26 2010, 05:31 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 26 2010, 10:36 AM) *
Seems instead of John remaining here to discuss the matter civilly and trying to work together, elected to find time to personally attack me and our organization at Blogger.


Rob,
this is my problem with this kind of crap going on here. These non-pilots don't know anything about aerodynamics, they haven't flown anything in real life, and they have no clue that there are limitations on airplanes for real reasons, not just because someone published a max speed somewhere in a manual. the numbers come from REAL limits on the airplanes, not some suppositions about being able to fly the machine beyond physics laws and aerodynamics rules and get away with it. ANY large airplane of this type, once in very low altitude, straight and level flight, will 'decellerate' rather fast once it has leveled out from a dive, due to the drag component. And this John character has no idea what an 'accellerated stall' is, has no clue why those occur, and doesn't know what the ramifications of those are in real flight in a heavy airplane.

So, I'm going to have to say that when we let non pilots come in who are not AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS with years of design experience, then they are going to make statements in here that are flat bullshit. And when this guy had no clue 'why' the speed numbers are different relative to altitude, this told the WHOLE STORY, because that fundamental lack of understanding shows that even simple things about AIR DENSITY aren't kicking in with him, or the fact that IAS is a function of altitude as well as speed. Just about any moron knows that air molecules at altitude are further apart and air density is less, and therefore, IAS numbers will always vary with altitude due to this density difference.

to not know that accelerated stalls occur in any high speed flight regime, is also inexcusable and indicative of NO CLUE.

so my recommendation is to not let non-pilots, in particular, non-pilots without any idea how airplanes have limitations, come in an post about speed issues, is a good one to follow. When they have no idea that airplanes have these limitations and that infinite thrust doesn't mean INFINITE SPEED, due to drag components that are not overcome, then they have no business being in here posting anything.

I hate to be an asshole about this, but jesus christ, this gets old, debunking GARBAGE assertions by NON PILOTS!

it's one thing to have a question, but to be argumentative when you are not a pilot. Get the fuck out of here, go back to spanking your fucking monkey! Don't come in and argue aerodynamics with people who've spent more time in flight than you've spent playing with your pitot tube!

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 26 2010, 05:55 AM

QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jun 26 2010, 06:31 AM) *
it's one thing to have a question, but to be argumentative when you are not a pilot. Get the fuck out of here, go back to spanking your fucking monkey! Don't come in and argue aerodynamics with people who've spent more time in flight than you've spent playing with your pitot tube!



laughing1.gif

Dennis Cimino everybody!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html#Cimino

handsdown.gif

The even more hilarious part is that Bursill thinks the article is the sole product of myself, that i "spun" Dwain Deets words, unfortunately Bursill missed the fact I http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20178&view=findpost&p=10787043 Dwain approved the article (and in fact helped write it to clarify some points), not to mention the fact Dwain and i chatted on the phone for about 2 hours prior.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jun 26 2010, 07:06 AM

QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ Jun 25 2010, 04:43 PM) *
The columns are extremely strong, but if they were only surface-welded together at their ends, then such a weak connection has to be factored into the "collapses" as well as the effect the aircraft wings had on the columns. This is off-topic, but it does have something to do with whether these were modified 767s regarding wing strength.

The curtain wall columns were not welded, they were only bolted together. For a building that was designed to sway, I would say this was not a very good idea.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 26 2010, 11:08 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 25 2010, 10:30 AM) *
I trnascripted the Pilotsfor911truth "Speed" video and found this section very compelling.
It is not open to detractor obfuscation regarding undocumented and unverified "sim tests" or leaching off the refusal of the withholding of vital data which pseudoskeptics live off.

Hope it's useful (particularly for laymen such as myself). Regarding "Control".




Onesliceshort -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_roll



30:40 Dutch Roll shown in actual flight

Peace.
OSS.


Thanks a bunch! This is exactly the dissertation I was looking for. I'm also quite sure that this is a "quick and dirty" representation of the problems, a skyjacking pilot would face.

Some time ago on usenet, someone posted an analysis of the time, the skyjacker pilots, would have had to line up their planes for their finals. I believe he mentioned it would be like trying to hit a pencil from some 3 to 4 miles out (the distance from where the tower view became large enough to take a general aim), then to the 1 to 2 mile distance, where a precise aim would HAVE to be taken with no margin for error. Turns out that closing that last distance yields approx. 20 seconds. A magical feat, to take aim, if the plane is operating within it's design parameters, an impossible feat if it's outside it's design parameters -- AND IN THE HANDS OF AN INEXPERIENCED PILOT! Because even an experienced pilot would be overwhelmed by the complexities of the variables that must be kept under fine control.

----------

Thus this reduces the need for skyjacker pilots to mere ideological fare, they could not have supplied anymore than a "target for blame". That being their only utility in these events, it's hard to believe they would even be trusted to be aboard such aircraft, if they existed at all and were to be used for this purpose. A remote or computer driven control scheme yields substantial more utility, but that can't happen either, remote controls cannot be utilized on this mission, because they'd be detectable and no such chance could be taken.

That would leave on board programing, but there's not sufficient time and/or information available to any would be programmers/operators to accomplish such a task. So the only pratical solution is not to employ any planes at all, or; limit their use to merely supplying visuals.

The "planners" would realize that they cannot get the planes to the buildings, so they have to devise elaborate plans to "get the buildings to the planes". Thus the explosions must come from inside the buildings and that fact covered up and papered over with noise.

Oh, and btw, of the 19 skyjackers, one died a year before the attacks and another 9 were found alive in the aftermath of the attacks. Leaving only 9 to be distributed among 4 planes.
Sweeney has 5 or six aboard her plane, leaving only 3 or four to be distributed among the other three planes. I sincerely doubt that one single skyjacker on board a plane is going to easily overcome the flight crew. Which means, of course, that whatever anyone wants to think about the 9-11 attacks, at least one plane has to be completely eliminated, unless they want to explain why the flight crew decided to carry out the attack on their own.

So, if one plane can be eliminated, because it could not be manned, why not eliminate all four? After all, they couldn't be flown.

Obwon

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 26 2010, 11:16 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 26 2010, 12:08 PM) *
Thanks a bunch! This is exactly the dissertation I was looking for.



Obwon,

Please watch the presentation so people do not have to type out a transcript for you.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 26 2010, 12:03 PM

Maha

The USAF took delivery of about 25 Boeings back in the mid ninetys, at McDill AFB. They were part of a program to replace the aging KC-135 aircraft, refuelers.

There are other more interesting angles to the story....

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 26 2010, 07:22 PM

Email sent to me from Ted Muga in reply to this whole Bursill issue.

(posted with full permission from Ted Muga)


QUOTE
--- On Sat, 6/26/10, "Ted Muga" wrote:


From: "Ted Muga"
Subject: Re: John Bursill Slamming Pilots For 9/11 Truth Due To Latest Deets Article
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 7:31 PM

Rob, I agree with you completely. And thanks for all of the great work that you are doing with P4T.


Ted


Ted Muga credentials and experience:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Muga

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots#Muga

San Diegans For 9/11 Truth
http://sdcgj.netrootz.com/web_pages/view_web_page.asp?group=30&page=109

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 27 2010, 12:25 AM

First, I have read the blog at 911blogger.com, and found it to not be too very forthright and or fair to Pilots For Truth's assertion to support Mr. Deets in his statement that the speeds that these planes striking the towers, allegedly had achieved, were not too very likely or were they too very possible.

I read Robin Hordon's fairly thorough dissertation there, and I have problems with it from a number of valid places. First, I want to say that I find it quite ludicrous to support the utility of a B-767 at low altitude or 'sea level' flight at speeds anywhere near 510 knots. My fundamental reason for this is that the drag coefficient of this airframe, like any other airframe, goes up by the square, with every knot beyond normal operating speeds, and therefore requires unusually high thrust levels and fuel burn rates for sustained flight at these speeds, so low to the earth. In addition, there are control issues that become very apparent in overspeed realms of airplanes of this size, strictly because the pre mach shock waves begin to form on sections of the near sonic wing, and manifest themselves not at Mach penetration, but before you get there. Such things can cause 'aileron buzz' like early Lear Jets would experience hen they went beyond their normal limits in dense air at low altitudes, as well as a phenomena known as 'mach tuck' where the nose abruptly drops in flight regimes in some jet airplanes which are not intended to be operated for ANY periods of time beyond normal MMO limits, due to the potential loss of control and or loss of the aircraft at these speeds so low to the ground in dense air. To even remotely theorize that there would be an application of a B-767 at near sea level at 510 knots either is, on it's face, totally 'goofy' but kind of goes in the direction of not just foolhardy, but lies in a realm called 'flat hatting' by naval aviators who are intentionally flying their machines in a careless and reckless fashion down in the nape of the earth where the airplane was never intended to be flown at these speeds, by any design engineer, ever for a number of good sound safety reasons, the least of which is merely structural integrity.

For this reason, I have a problem with Boeing or any other test pilots, for data collection purposes, operating any B-767 during certifications phases of flight training, down low, at 510 knots or beyond 400 knots, for ANY REASON. This would be a 'destructive' or potentially destructive test, and for what purpose? For data collection? I have never seen the wing of any B-767 ever outfitted with the instrumentation to collect drag coefficient data of the wing itself, as this is normally done with scale models in wind tunnels, not in real airplanes for the obvious reasons.

And I will go even further here with my argument about the Hordon assertions about the 'impossibility' of knowing whether a B-767 can be maintained in sustained flight at 510 knots at near sea level altitudes, strictly because on the face of that assertion, one can state that a B-767 can be operated at these speeds in a 'side slip which is 90 degrees with the relative wind', and safely so, because Boeing would have, during certification of the airplane, had to have explored this flight regime as well, and incorporated that data in the flight simulator algorithms they use to program existing fleet training flight simulators world wide. If you believe this, I think I have a problem with you also taking the other statement for granted as wholly genuine and hence, also very valid.

And here's my issue with it. First, Boeing does not operate their airplanes in these flight regimes during normal flight tests, for the reasons stated. They can derive enough baseline data in a WIND TUNNEL to intentionally take a plane and subject it to structural failure during certification. Have they ever done 'structural failure' in flight during certifications?? Absolutely they have. Intentionally?? No, not with first item airframes which are so critical for F.A.A. certification work to sacrifice them to irreversible or severe structural damage that either destroys the machine altogether, or renders it 'useless' until it can be returned to use after extensive reconditioning and repair work has been done to 'undo' the wholly unnecessary damage done to it.

My point being that to lambaste Pilots For Truth for supporting the Nasa Flight Director's statements about the probability of these speeds being achievable, is, on it's face, a problem for me, strictly because even as I found Hordon's dissertation to be pretty thorough, he makes statements about aircraft certification work and data collection that are not wholly factual or true, and then summarizes that 'we' at Pilots For Truth cannot make the determination about the maximum speeds that any B-767 can sustain in straight and level, non thrust augmented flight regimes, without truly making a cogent and thorough case as to 'why' a law of aerodynamics that deals with PARASITE DRAG suddenly no longer are in any flight equation any longer, and with that, the assertion that parasite drag components do not increase by the square root for every extra knot the aircraft goes beyond the designed structural limit speed versus thrust availability, at a low altitude where the drag component makes such speeds not only not likely, but entirely not in the possible realm without changing air density numbers or thrust numbers, and yes, even parasite drag coefficients on that airframe and wing, or the total aircraft itself, for sea level flight beyond 370 knots.

Not unlike a ship, an airplane cannot 'undo' drag without fairly exotic tapering of the fuselage to get rid of some of this parasite drag the plane itself has no way of escaping as it moves thru heavy, dense air down low. A ship with a hull limitation or max speed cannot exceed that speed in water, no matter how fast you turn the screws beyond the normal efficient speed they are optimized for, or increase the available power to the engines that move the screws, for the same reasons. The hull drag in the water is a coefficient that not unlike airfoil or form drag or parasite drag, without changing the shape of the rather tubular fuselage to overcome this, the increase of thrust in and of itself is not necessarily the magic solution to get the plane to go faster in a given density of packed air molecules down low. It is for this reason that airplanes are intentionally operated in the UPPER REGIONS of our atmosphere, to reduce this drag coefficient and increase the forward speed by drag reduction that comes with lesser air density and the drag that is inherent in much more dense air.

For Hordon to flatly state we cannot know this is true, that the airframe itself has a speed limit, in and of itself is a statement that flies in the face of aerodynamic facts of life you cannot avoid in airplanes. If you take his statement for truth that we cannot know, and in essence, there is likely to be no real speed limit for the B-767 in dense air down low, then you also should be able to buy that Boeing routinely flew these airplanes sideways in sustained sideslips at 500 knots as well, to obtain data during flight testing. Neither statement is correct, but to allow it to stand that we don't know what we are talking about by making a very correct maximum low altitude speed of approximately 370 knots, is almost as bad as making a statement that the Pilots for Truth airmen never ever in all of their years of cumulative experience, would have to laugh at that and say that it sounds good to a layperson, but to an airman who's been around a bit, he or she knows that airplanes do have limits, they are not mere numbers, and they are based on physics, not someone's supposition or a statement by the N.T.S.B. that 'xx' airplane was clocked going into the towers at 510 knots. That's very very incorrect.

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 27 2010, 01:31 AM

I didn't want to come in here and beat up anyone. I just have a big problem with either 'non pilots' making suppositions about laws of aerodynamics that experienced pilots don't just learn in books or in classrooms, but in real life flying of aircraft of various types and capabilities. Nobody can possibly know it all, none of us do, but I am going to go out on a limb here and state that most 'experienced' pilots with 20+ years of experience in props, jets and whatever, balloons even, know the difference between a lot of verbosity and reality.

Hordon I personally know and have drank coffee with on occasion, and done C.I. work with in the past, and hence, for that reason, I am kind of hard pressed to nail him to any cross in here for making statements I cannot and WILL NOT ever agree with, regarding airplane certification and or laws of aerodynamics and flight regimes of airplanes. I've never flown with him, and probably never would get that chance, but I can tell you that it's very strange that suddenly 'we' here in P4T are a bunch of ignoramus' who have no flight experience in our decades of flying all sorts of equipment for each of us, but collectively, and hence 'cannot know' or state that we support Flight Director Deets in his statements about the improbability of these B-767's ever achieving these speeds in a sustained or accellerating fashion down so close to the ground, without having significant issues from any number of aerodynamics rules that never go away, ever.

So, I'm not going to machette Hordon, but I will not even go anywhere near this other gent's claims that he knows from a simulator ride that the airplane can easily breach the 370 knot realm and sustain it in straight and level flight so low to the earth like that without something very odd going on with the machine.

What I think is more likely, is that the non-pilot, did his theoretical run using computer software, not a bona fide simulator, which though totally is possible, is hard to accept because of the costs involved in operating them, and who would then just grant him time in one when I know that most are booked solid for months in advance for flight checks and training reasons, and seldom sit idle for some 'non pilot' to walk in and play with. If he has done this truly, why not tell us which facility, what simulator instructor can validate it, and let us then accept this as a fact and not worry about the claim any longer?? I'm willing to go that route.

As for Hordon coming at us, as I told you, Rob, I think there's more to it than what meets the eye. To spend so much time trying to discredit this organization, without also providing information you asked him to provide, is kind of not too very fair to us, in return. If Robin can state where he got the airplane certifications experience at, and how many airplane certifications he's participated in, once again, we are willing to allow that into our forum and not get testy about it. To come in here and just state we cannot know the speed limitations of a B-767 airframe with the engines it had on that day, on it's face, is pretty untoward and quite nasty given the fact that with all of us, I think we have the cumulative, and individual experience in a bevy of aircraft, that give us all the ability to make these statements. I have been flying airplanes of all sorts, for more than 3 decades, and I have not just operated them inside of their safe flight regimes, but flown many of them right up to their limits, not out of being irresponsible or a test pilot, but because I have long felt that for a pilot to not know his machine he operates as best as he can know it in all known flight regimes that make sense to explore, then that airman is going to someday find himself in a machine he no longer is pilot of command of, by accident.

But I can tell you that thought I am far from all knowing and all seeing, I am also quite aware of a 'chop job' thrown at us by Robin Hordon, and I truly don't know why he is so compelled to do this without making a stronger case that we all are neophyte's and therefore lesser qualified than he is in any airplane we might fly. I kind of like to think that as a community, as airmen, as pilots with years of experience in all sorts of weather, all sorts of machines, and all sorts of situations over the years, that I know that we here at Pilots For Truth are much more professionally experienced and knowledgeable than a person who either hasn't flown for so many years in so many machines as all of us have, and who have had extensive airplane certification backgrounds, inclusive of major research and development work with aviation platforms, to know that there ARE SPEED LIMITS for any airframe, and these are not some number you breach by as much as 150 knots in these cases here, and do without some form of controllability issue or loss of aircraft structural integrity due to accellerated stalls and loss of control issues that can occur when you take such a machine well beyond it's intended design envelope and run it there.

If Robin Hordon has the experience under his belt that makes the rest of us morons and idiots, unknowing, and unable to do research and get facts, then I'd like him to show how we at Pilots For Truth know absolutely NOTHING and he and this other guy, John, know it all, and are vastly superior to our combined years of flight experience in a whole lot of real flying airplanes of all types and propulsion systems.

Then we can accede to him he is all knowing and we are mere bozos here at Pilots For Truth, which we are not.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 27 2010, 01:38 AM

QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jun 27 2010, 02:31 AM) *
I didn't want to come in here and beat up anyone. I just have a big problem with either 'non pilots' making suppositions about laws of aerodynamics that experienced pilots don't just learn in books or in classrooms, but in real life flying of aircraft of various types and capabilities. Nobody can possibly know it all, none of us do, but I am going to go out on a limb here and state that most 'experienced' pilots with 20+ years of experience in props, jets and whatever, balloons even, know the difference between a lot of verbosity and reality.


This is a great point.

The reason why I say you bring up such a good point, is that Bursill et al claims "...how could Capt Kolstad and Capt Aimer claim the airspeeds "impossible" if they never flown such a speed?"

Well, for one, they both have, but not on the same aircraft type.

Imagine yourself in a car on a wet surface (or not). You are going around a turn at high speed, hugging that corner, or even on a straight highway at high speed. You know you are right on the edge of out-of-control. If you give it a bit more gas, or if you tweak that steering wheel a bit more, the car will spin and you will be 'in the wall'.


Would you take a corner in a Hyundai at the same speed you would a Corvette? No.

How do you know such limitation differences if you never lost control of a car before?

Because you have experience in your machine and can feel the forces. Add decades of education and experience in your machine, and you are an expert.

This is a concept people like Bursill and Hordon cannot grasp.

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 27 2010, 01:55 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 27 2010, 07:38 AM) *
This is a great point.


This guy Bursill also had an 'agenda' when he came in here. He wasn't just a 'non pilot' who has no flight time in any real airplane of any kind, but the kind of insidious 'LURKER' who waltzes in here and then defames actual pilots of real airplanes like we're a bunch of crash test dummies he can cold cock and not get a reaction out of.

We're not! I don't want to drive all 'non pilot' participation out of here, but in light of this, I think that truly, if you're not an experienced pilot with more than say, 1500 plus hours as 'pilot in command' time and real hard IFR flight time, and years of experience in the airspace system of at least one country, not necessarily ours, but somewhere, then you shouldn't be in here telling us about airplane performance and characteristics. Not only is that 'rude' but it's also 'asinine' to think we won't call you on it. We are real pilots, with real experience, in real airplanes of all sorts of types, weight ranges, and descriptions, and though we all are not 45,000 hour pilots, many of us are quite experienced and certificated, not just with some bench tech certification as an avionics black box jockey.

When guys like Bursill come in here, or over at 911blogger, and, not unlike Hordon, 'just hatchet job' us and claim we don't know what we're talking about, it's now time to say to those individuals; "okay, xerox your flight logs, and send them to us for examination" at the very least. If you don't have any, don't be in here maligning and attacking us. We neither deserve that crap, nor will we put up with it, when you clearly, obviously, do NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE with regard to airplane flight regimes and hence, their aerodynamic limitations.

It's that simple. If you don't have the credentials, don't swing a broad axe at people who forgot more about airplanes and systems on them than you will ever in your wildest dreams ever, ever learn or know!

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 27 2010, 02:32 AM

QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jun 27 2010, 02:55 AM) *
This guy Bursill also had an 'agenda' when he came in here.


Correct. And he admitted as such.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19288&view=findpost&p=10787160

Again, this all stems from the fact Bursill wanted to join our organization years ago, if only I boot John Lear.

When I replied to Bursill, "Who are you?"

His pride/ego took over his emotions, as described by Bursill himself in the above link.

Bursill isn't about "truth". He is about himself.

Bursill never recorded the FBI nor NTSB as we have done.

Bursill has never stood up to any govt agency in the USA, and instead attacked those who do, claiming it discredits him/Bursill.

Bursill refuses to acknowledge his http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-24/nasa-flight-director-confirms-911-aircraft-speed-improbable#comment-234180.

Agenda? Bursill has been on an "agenda" for more than 2 years.

I have taken a 'time out' from my research on "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20143" to address this issue with Bursill as the libel has gone on long enough. I will spend not more than 3 days exposing him and placing the final nail in his coffin for those who wish to inform themselves thoroughly. Bursill is already loosing support at Blogger for his personal attacks and inability to discuss the evidence, from those who regularly support him. (Blogger mods are deleting his posts, and no one is running to his support. Bursill isn't even able to construct a coherent sentence on most of his posts)

Bursill is done.

Posted by: aerohead Jun 27 2010, 03:30 AM

Can someone please give Bursill a helmet.

If a pilot who has flown the type Acft says that the
plane cannot do what they say it did, you should believe
it. There are some things that happen in aviation that never make
it to "public consumption" . Most pilots (and mechanics) have a bit of "hidden"
experience of the "super pucker factor" variety.
A pilot knows his plane.

Same goes for mechanics.
I dont need to trash an engine to know that if i dont cut fuel
at max EGT im gonna smoke a turbine wheel.......its a certainty.
Ailerons, rudders and elevators begin to depart the plane
when emergency max speed is breached. And breached it
was, by a long shot.
We dont do overspeed inspections for nothing, and this
was beyond anything ive ever even heard of.


Thanks for the hard work brothers.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 27 2010, 08:16 AM

QUOTE
When guys like Bursill come in here, or over at 911blogger, and, not unlike Hordon, 'just hatchet job' us and claim we don't know what we're talking about, it's now time to say to those individuals; "okay, xerox your flight logs, and send them to us for examination" at the very least. If you don't have any, don't be in here maligning and attacking us. We neither deserve that crap, nor will we put up with it, when you clearly, obviously, do NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE with regard to airplane flight regimes and hence, their aerodynamic limitations.

It's that simple. If you don't have the credentials, don't swing a broad axe at people who forgot more about airplanes and systems on them than you will ever in your wildest dreams ever, ever learn or know!


handsdown.gif

Posts like this put more fuel in my tank.

Cheers!

Posted by: Obwon Jun 27 2010, 08:54 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 26 2010, 12:16 PM) *
Obwon,

Please watch the presentation so people do not have to type out a transcript for you.


While I appreciate your cause for admonishing me, you should know that I had viewed
the video. Even so I still had no choice but to either post my own rendition of it, which could be seen as a self serving extract designed by me to make my points, or ask for some one to post their own summary.

I hope you can appreciate that by doing so, I'm actually elevating the video for many who might not otherwise watch it, without having a specific question in mind.

Remember, the answers to lay people questions seem distressingly obvious to you pros. biggrin.gif

Obwon

Posted by: SanderO Jun 27 2010, 09:29 AM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 26 2010, 08:06 AM) *
The curtain wall columns were not welded, they were only bolted together. For a building that was designed to sway, I would say this was not a very good idea.


The twin towers were not curtain wall construction. A curtain wall is non structural. The facade of the twins WAS structural and contained the columns to support the outboard ends of the floor trusses.

The facade "columns" were fabricated as panels consisting of 3 "box" columns and 3 spandrel panels. All of this was welded together and they spanned 3 floors and were 36' high x 10.04' wide. These assemblies were bolted together as most steel framed buildings are. The spandrels had "splice plates with minimum 24 bolts for each splice. Spandrel steel was 5/8" plate x 52" high.

Column wall thickness for the facade panels were as thin as 1/4" at the top and as thick as 2 or more inches at the bottom. The columns were bolted together with 4 bolts

The 3 story facade panels were arranged in a staggered pattern and in the aggregate the facade acted as a huge "steel" web and the four facade became rigid tube which was also intended to resisted wind loading as well as floor loads.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 27 2010, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 27 2010, 09:16 AM) *
handsdown.gif

Posts like this put more fuel in my tank.

Cheers!


As a lay person, never flown anything at all, I came here knowing that things have limits and looking to learn what those limits were. But there is no excuse for laymen making the mistake that they can figure things out exactly, from simply reading. Anyone who has ever gained any hands on expertise at anything, learns very quickly the differences in knowledge of hands on experts and those who have merely read somthing about that field of study. Those differences apply whether it's Adobe Photoshop, Stock Car Racing, Boating, Painting or anything else. The person who has done it is going to have special knowledge that no reader can ever gain.

That rule apples no matter how simple the matter under study happens to be, and only increases as the number of variables, and the chance to experience their effects grows.

When reading, I always keep in mind that; "Words can be found to support any cause!"
Which in this case means that, it can be said that planes can easily fly, at any speed with any level of skill available. Of course we know this cannot be true, so we have to listen and look for the why's and wherefores, which we can only get from the people who have actually done it. Otherwise, we're going to leave our readings, believing that anything, even the impossible is possible, which itself, defeats the purpose of reading.

Before I saw Rob's video, I had no ideas about "flutter". Why? Because I have never been in a position where flutter was a concern to me. I have never had to be concerned about "trim", "pitch", "yawl" or dozens of other things I've read about here, and I sincerely doubt that many lay people have either. But most especially, they've never ever had to deal with countering the effects of these things, even if they knew they existed. Because countermeasures are only of concern to those who actually need them. thus the readers will note that there is very little written here about countermeasures except perhaps in passing.

So it is that I enjoy seeing that plainly incorrect assertions, furthered in the name of supporting failing theories, effectively countermanded.

Obwon

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 27 2010, 09:53 AM

NPT conversation split and merged here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18096

Posted by: SanderO Jun 27 2010, 09:59 AM

I have trouble with the term "dis-information agent". I think this is tossed out way to cavalierly and this is, in itself a mechanism for de legitimizing the debate about what happened on 9/11.

The idea of a "disinformation agent" brings to mind an organized effort directed by "higher ups" who disburse these agents into the "truth movement" to sow seeds of confusion and cause disunity. While such activity might be taking place by the "leaders of the 9/11 conspiracy", I tend to doubt it. I do suspect that there are "conservative" people who support the "America was attacked by AQ" and then naively support the conventional official line not bothering to look at all the contradictions in that story.

Having been inside the truth movement and accused by some very high up folks in the truth movement of being a "disinformation agent" and someone who was "sent" in to destroy the growing and gathering movement, I can say that at least in my case, this charge is completely baseless. I have no handlers, and no contacts with anyone whatsoever informing me of what to think, say and write about 9/11.

I have expressed what I see, based on my experience as an architect of 40 years and my own examination of the structures and the videos etc that is in the public domain. While I don't accept the official theory, neither do I accept all the conclusions of the truth movement. And I certainly don't accept the idea of a conspiracy of moles and disinformation agents.

There is nothing wrong with honest, open spirited debate based on science, and observation. People can disagree a bit on observation and interpretation, but not on the basic science and engineering. When I use the phrase "a bit" I am referring to describing what we see. A case in point is the collapse of the twin towers. Some see the facade panels ejected and interpret it as they being exploded off the building, while others see them peeling away forced outward by the collapsing debris of the upper stories. These interpretations can be and should be subjected to scientific analysis. That is precisely what forensic science is about.

Likewise, there are many problems with the air speeds and accuracy of the flight paths reported. On the face they seem to defy what we know about the planes and the pilots. We only have observations and reported data. And we don't have the black box data. But we do know for certain, that digital data can be falsified, inserted and so forth. A found black box, might even be one pre programed and planted on the site for example. How would be know? We would be left to trust the government reports on what that data shows. The same for RADES data etc. How reliable is it? If there was a conspiracy, how difficult would it be to plant false data?

So we are left with analysis of the video evidence and eyewitness reports and in some case the absence of eyewitness reports or video evidence. We don't have the videos of the pentagon. Multiple videos would settle a lot of the dispute. So why aren't they being released? One obvious answer is that they would expose the official story as a lie and reveal a far more sinister conspiracy. Can you think of any other reason that this information has not been released to the public? Certainly if there was conclusive video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon as claimed, they would release it.

So much of the story of 9/11 is speculation and narratives built on assumptions which may or may not be true. The narrative needs to be internally consistent and the conventional one is not when examined.

So how much real evidence can be teased out of the videos and eyewitness accounts? After the first and certainly the second plane strikes the entire nation should have become "eyewitnesses" and certainly those at the location of the events. There should be hundreds if not thousands of witness reports. Where are they?

So in the end the speculation and fighting over theories is having the effect of destroying the real search for the truth. I suppose it turns many away who lose patience. I am often wasting my time trying to "debate" people who haven't a clue about structure and who even question my experience as an architect.

The 9/11 truth movement unfortunately has degenerated into a rather chaotic movement with all sorts of bizarre stories and theories put forth and in the aggregate is looked on as a collection of nut jobs despite the fact that there are serious investigators trying to assemble the facts.

Posted by: aerohead Jun 27 2010, 01:51 PM

What is true and what is not........

Yes the truth movement has "cooled" a bit due to
yet another crisis of historical proportions and disinfo
agents dispatched to do just that. And that my friends
is how you cover up the biggest fraud and murder in
US history.
In 2004 the FBI warned that there was an epidemic
of mortgage fraud by the banks. Nothing was done.
That (and astronomical oil prices by the same powers)
were the push over the cliff for the American people into
what will be the greatest depression, its coming.
Now we have the largest oil spill known to man, that has the
capability of destroying 1/3 of the worlds oceans. And this was
absolutely convenient for Obama's (but really his elite handlers)
agenda for Global Governance through carbon taxes and a world
currency. The economic collapse and the oil spill are being used
hand in hand to destroy our country and bring in the new world
order. One crisis covers up the last crisis and brings in opportunities
to pass legislation that furthers the agenda of the psychopaths
controlling our government and wish to control the world.
Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) knows all about the
opportunities that crisis can bring for them and their bosses.








-Norad stood down, for the first time in US history, fighters did
not intercept rouge aircraft, 4 of them.
-The Speed of the aircraft was beyond controllable flight for the
standard airframes and amateur pilots.
- The explosives HAVE been found in the WTC debris.
- The flight path at the Pentagon has been proven by many
eyewitnesses including police officers as introduced by CIT.
- Over 50 videos of the pentagon are being with held and the 5 frame
video we were shown shows nothing.
- the list is endless, the proof is all there.

Will we ever get a new investigation? Will patriots within the
government ever stand up to these bastards ?
It doesnt look like it. They will start WW3 with IRAN before they
let that happen. The ultimate crisis to cover up them all. These
men need to be brought to justice, eveything else be damned.
And the world needs to know that it wasnt America that did this,
it was the mega-rich, psychopathic bastards that hijacked our beautiful Republic
that did this. They've used our military, they've raped us through taxes
and fraud, they are destroying us from within............the only way America
could be destroyed. This disturbs me to my core. Our beloved America
is being dismantled and burned to the ground right in front of our eyes.
The world hates us because of what these men have done. I hate them also,
with a deep loathing that is beyond description. They have no concept of
Liberty for anyone but themselves, they have no soul, they have no concept
of morality or a free market. Competition is their enemy. Consolidate and
dictate is their philosophy. These men are globalists, America means nothing
to them in the big picture of things. The world is their goal and they are using
America to take it. My countrymen have become cowards who refuse to see
the truth and refuse to stand up and be counted among the Free and the Brave.
Even as their rights and Liberties are being stripped from them. These are
dark times indeed for America, and it completely breaks my heart.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 27 2010, 03:24 PM

SanderO, I know what you mean by throwing the accusation "disinfo agent" about, but when somebody is actively promoting statistics or stating that what they say is fact, even though they have been pointed to the correct information, ie the truth, and continue to promote the same "information" in the knowledge that it is such beyond any doubt, they are promoting "disinformation".

Whether the reasons are nefarious, coordinated, based on ignorance or purely for egotistical reasons, it is still disinfo.
When the term "agent" is added, that is a direct accusation of coordination.

The recent spate of attacks on CIT and P4T, has mainly been, IMO for mainly egotistical reasons but there are those who are actively coordinating this campaign at all levels.

One thing is a government controlled disinformation campaign, but when somebody actually promotes crap to score personal points over individuals at the cost of that "break" which could finally get to the truth, warts and all, I find it even more disgusting.

As for government disinfo agents, they are having the easiest of times at the moment adding to the paranoia and feeding off the discord that much of the planted and ambiguous "evidence" was designed to create. For years down the line.

It's not CIT or P4T that is actively pursuing this "infighting". They (they know who they are) are the ones who plant the seeds yet haven't the balls for direct, live debate.

BTW, this wasn't directed at you mate, just having a controlled rant.

ETA typo

Posted by: SanderO Jun 27 2010, 08:49 PM

Establishing what is an indisputable fact is the issue. Most of this is driven by observation and occasional measurements made from the images.

If we try to establish what are the facts in the collapse of the twin towers we need to begin with honestly describing what we saw. We can use software to analyze images to help us. In the case of the twins the collapse was largely hidden by the canopy of falling debris and some of it was at free fall and reached terminal velocity. If the destruction or collapse was slower (and it was) we couldn't possible see most of it because of the cover provided by the debris.

But we can see various object emerge from the debris canopy and we can measure the size of the debris canopy and compute the energy which might create it. We all observed the top of the south tower tilt and then disappear into the debris cloud and the top of the north tower tilted a bit and it's antenna seemed to plunge through the building as the top was being destroyed at about the crash zone. We observed material being ejected through the windows, leaving the facade columns intact all around the building for a few seconds before the canopy of debris covers it all. Were we seeing a gravitational collapse or a simulated one made by a precise sequence of explosions top to bottom? It's apparently one or the other. One is fact and the other is an "illusion" or a fiction.

Most of the truth movement seems to see the destruction as a timed top to bottom sequence of "explosions" and disparage the idea that once initiated the collapse could be gravity driven. Some (me included) see the collapse as gravity driven but question the cause of the initiation - fires and plane strike damage and suspect that there may have been some foul play to get the collapse going using the cover of fire and plane strikes. This is a legitimate debate and this is not about disinformation.

If it turns out that the destruction was a gravity driven collapse initiated by explosions and incendiaries with got the tops dropping then those such as AE911Truth would have been spreading "disinformation" by their assertion of explosive demolition from top to bottom or it could be characterized that they simply were wrong. But what happened after initiation has not been conclusively agreed upon and the debate rages on. I don't think those on either side of this debate are disinformation agents. But it would help if there was more "engagement" and discussion about this matters as opposed to taking sides and name calling.

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 27 2010, 08:57 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 27 2010, 02:16 PM) *
:handsdown:

Posts like this put more fuel in my tank.

Cheers!



I think that the earmarks of an 'agenda' are pretty obvious to most of us. First, anyone coming in here and personally attacking a member, for whatever reason, not their information but going after 'them' in person, isn't just some nimrod who's badly informed. The information that is out there about the tactics used by COINtelpro persons of the F.B.I. when they defamed and discredited people they had issues with, pretty much go down the line of laying it on thick and heavy in the personal character assassination gig. They have no valid stuff to really offer the forum in support of their positions, so they come in and character assassinate. In 911blogger, same difference. Not too very long ago I tried to be the 'peacemaker' or 'go between' when it broke out here and it nearly got me tossed off the listing, for sure, not because I was trying to engender the divisive behavior, but because I stepped to the fore and tried to STOP IT in it's tracks. For any of us to get into pissing contests over stuff in public forums where people who are not aviators, read it, it does a major job on our credibility no matter who comes out on top of the argument. This in and of itself doesn't mean; "oh yeah, acquiesce when a turd has been floated as reality" but it does say, "look boys, we don't have to be doing WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE, which is divisive behavior, ad hoc attacks on each other for sport, or gratuitously character assassinating each other. We are better than that.

Not too many years ago, I underwent a lot of unjust attacks because I was amongst the first to say the flight 77 FDR data load was 'bogus' because it was lacking '2' identity data fields in the core dump that always are there on a certificated fleet airplane..the discrete airplane identity number (not the N-number, by the way) and the fleet ID number. When I saw those were blanked out, then I pretty much knew from personal experience that this is not reality in that file. Anyway, I began to digress too much there, but the hour and ten minute audio interview of mine garnered a lot of right wing assholes coming at me and calling me a 'liar' then. I told Rob that any day he wanted to go to BUPERS and pull my service record and look at it, we would do that, and then the asshole attacking me would have to then suffer the consequences in a court of law for essentially slandering and libeling me in this forum. I am not a public figure, and therefore, publishing hit pieces about me in here with nothing to substantiate them would in fact lead to a legal battle where the other ass whould be on the financial hook for damages. Well, that kind of put that crap to bed, because it's one thing to infer that a person is
full of crap about an airplane parameter, but to say things about their character in here that you cannot substantiate, is another matter. That has legal ramifications and I am not too bashful to find the I.P. of that poster and have them served with a subpoena to appear in court for that crap.

So, the point being, is that personal attacks, demands that members be 'removed' as was the case where this guy demanded John Lear be removed from the P4T list for his UFO studies, calling a person a liar and otherwise defaming them, all come from COINTELPRO scum, not just ignorant tools who have no clue what they're up to in here.

That's the way they operate. That is their modus operandi. The government uses it as something you all know as 'divide and conquer' when they intentionally politicize a debate in LEFT vs RIGHT terms and then let the fur fly. People at each others throats seldom ever stop to wonder who benefits (qui bono) for their being that way. If they did, they'd rethink their tack in here.

The purpose of this forum is to get to the truth about the false flag attacks on Sept. 11th. We're not here to pull out our dicks and compare sizes. This is about serious stuff that to be quite frank about it, means members of the U.S. government, with Mossad help, committed TREASON and MASS MURDER that day, and so far have kind of gotten away with it. Well, we don't have to be at each other's throats to get to the bottom of that TREASON.

so, attacking Hordon or this Bursill guy is not my forte. If they can back up their assertion we are stupid, moronic, and ignorant fools with no idea what's going on, let them bring it on. But they better do it with more facts, and less bullshit, because some folks can really see the difference between shit and shinola.

non-pilots with zero flight experience touting they know everything, really chap my goddamned hide. But what bothers me the most is when on 911blogger, they get away with it unchallenged. We need to make sure that never, ever happens. We can never let that crap stand. Ever.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 27 2010, 09:49 PM

911 Blogger is controlled by people with an agenda and they silence anyone who they decide is not towing the party line. It appears to be an open resource, but it's not. It's propaganda just the same.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 27 2010, 11:32 PM

Hi All,

I am glad to see this article is sparking lively discussion, but please, lets try to stick to topic. Bring the WTC collapse discussion to the appropriate forum section.

Thanks.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 28 2010, 06:25 AM

Continued WTC Collapse discussion split and moved to here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20198

Please stay on topic.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 28 2010, 06:49 AM

Now, as Rob suggests, back to the topic at hand:

I don't see a mention of a duration for the excessive flight speeds! Does anyone know
when each flight began to exceed it's design limitations?

Also, when a craft exceeds it's design limitations, how long can it be expected to survive?

As a lay person I get the general impression that, even if these unskilled pilots managed to somehow exceed the speed limits, they would not be prepared for what happens next.
Since, unless I miss my guess, the flight characteristics of the aircraft become very different from what is normally expected (not that the skyjackers would even know "normal" from special).

So to my mind, an 'x' or an arrow and/or a number of minutes or seconds, during which the aircraft were flown past their design parameters, would be most helpful.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 28 2010, 08:11 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 28 2010, 07:49 AM) *
Now, as Rob suggests, back to the topic at hand:


Thank you.


QUOTE
I don't see a mention of a duration for the excessive flight speeds! Does anyone know
when each flight began to exceed it's design limitations?



I am so glad you asked.

Those who make excuse for the govt story love to claim, "The aircraft was only at this speed for a few seconds and then crashed. It can sustain this speed for a few seconds you idiot!"

Of course they offer zero proof for their claim. Not to mention the fact they are wrong.

I cut some scenes from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" due to the fact it was technical enough. I have calculated the speeds based on radar data for the last minute, a full 60 seconds.

The average speed over this straight line path is 501 knots. The average speed over the last 2 radar sweeps (24 seconds) is 509 knots. Remember, this is groundspeed. True airspeed will be a few knots higher due to a turn into a headwind. This is also straight line distance measurement over time. Actual speed will also be a few knots higher as the path is curved (the aircraft was changing direction), covering more distance (again, I don't want to get too technical when the simple measurements will serve its purpose. K.I.S.S.)

During this time, the aircraft is changing direction and pulling out of a dive, ie. Pulling G loads.

As pointed out in the presentation, please familiarize yourself with a Vg diagram.

Here is a basic Vg diagram.



Now, the above diagram is for a primary aircraft used to instruct student pilots. But it gives you a good idea of what to think about when an aircraft exceeds its design limits.

It is not so much "duration" as it is a hard limit of combined stress on the airframe, speed and maneuvering.

As stated many times, we have been pressuring Boeing to release Wind Tunnel data (which would include the above Vg diagram for a specific aircraft). We hit brick walls.

Now, I just noticed this diagram pop up on the web the other day when I did a search (it wasn't available when I made the film). It is a Vg diagram for the P-51 Mustang.



Notice the structural failure shaded area occurs in the P-51 at roughly 505 mph/438 knots.

Notice the "Limit Dive Speed" in the above diagram. The "Limit Dive Speed" (Vd) for the 767 is 420 knots. 425 KEAS is when Egypt Air 990 broke apart in flight.

The govt expects us to believe a 767 with its bulky airframe can pull G loads and maneuver to stike a target with a 25 foot margin for error each side of wing tip -- almost 80 knots faster than the structural failure limit of a slick P-51 airframe?

I dont think so.

That is why you see so many experts speaking out.

http://pilotsfgor911truth.org/core

The list grows.


QUOTE
Also, when a craft exceeds it's design limitations, how long can it be expected to survive?


Again, it's not so much duration rather that when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period. (Edit: This statement needs clarification as duhbunkers are trying to spin it... They love to cherrypick and spin... This does NOT mean that 1 knot over Vd and it breaks, there is a difference, we are speaking in terms of a "design limit" of anything... note the quotation marks. If you bend a pencil, when does it break? At it's "design limit". When anything breaks, it is safe to say it hit it's "design limit". This is why I put "design limit" in quotation marks. This was clarified with my original statement below, but duhbunkers apparently weren't able to comprehend the meaning of the language in context. Hopefully this clear it up for them, but I doubt it. The duhbunker most responsible for this type of cherrypicking is trebor/pinch/sweetpea/streetxcar + 15 other socks. His real name is Bill Paisley. He is a Military flight school washout who couldn't make it to the front seat nor obtain an FAA pilot certificate and now works for the Pentagon as a Blogger cyber-stalking our work and me personally. It wasn't until I threatened to report him for cyber-stalking that he stopped sending harassing emails. Now all he can do is attempt character assassination through his daily obsession. Learn http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21115&view=findpost&p=10803766)

Keeping it simple, how long can you hold a pencil at its breaking point? You cant, because it already broke. Its called a breaking point for a reason.

American 587 lost it's tail during a wake turbulence upset, losing control, killing all on board.



I think it's safe to say it hit it's "design limit"?

This happened well below Vd, at departure speeds.

Edit2: As expected, duhbunkers still don't understand my edit above and are in full spin mode http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21888&view=findpost&p=10803797. Let me see if I can further clarify.

Note in my original post I stated "Notice the "Limit Dive Speed" in the above diagram. The "Limit Dive Speed" (Vd) for the 767 is 420 knots. 425 KEAS is when Egypt Air 990 broke apart in flight."

Now if I thought an aircraft "breaks apart at 1 knot over Vd", my original statement above based on the analysis found in http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732 contradicts such a premise as EA990 did not suffer structural failure at 1 knot above Vd. It happened at 5 knots above. This was it's "design limit" in the context of this post. Other aircraft http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html knots over their Vd (Dive speed), some well before (as is the case with AA587). This was their "design limit", again, in the context of this post. Not one positively identified aircraft in the history of aviation has EVER exceeded Vd (Dive speed, end of flight envelope and beginning of the structural failure zone on every V-G diagram) by more than 150 knots and maintained control, stability and/or structural integrity. We are still waiting for the duhbunkers to provide one.

It is also interesting to note that duhbunkers like to call me a fraud, yet I can be verified in the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163. Meanwhile, every single person they source who claims to be a pilot (maybe three total.. .as not many more will endorse their crap), do not know the difference between http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21888, cannot determine the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20979&view=findpost&p=10793515, and are all anonymous.

Now, since the duhbunkers still won't comprehend what was just written...

If Obwon had asked - "Also, when a craft exceeds Vd, how long can it be expected to survive?"

I would have told him - It depends on conditions and aircraft. But if comparing apples to apples, based on EA990, the aircraft reached 425 knots before suffering structural failure. This is 5 knots into the structural failure zone of a 767 V-G diagram. This is 85 knots less than the speeds reported for the South Tower aircraft. As speed increases, flight conditions become http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21115&view=findpost&p=10803767. Also keep in mind that the South Tower aircraft pulled more G's than EA990 as well.

Duhbunkers still won't get it, or will try to spin it, but layman and real pilots will be able to understand.

Bottom line, I never claimed an aircraft "instantly breaks apart at 1 knot over Vd" or "as soon as a plane passed the red zone on [the] diagram then it would instantly break apart". Our own analysis proves we never would make such a statement based on EA990 analysis alone. Duhbunkers have nothing but strawman arguments, character assassination, are obsessed with our work yet will never confront us... and will certainly never debate the facts. As usual.

Again, you don't get flak unless you're over the target.

Posted by: aerohead Jun 28 2010, 03:34 PM

There is no doubt in my mind what this was.
Nothwoods reborn, with militarized drones and
mid-air plane swaps. A plan so extravagant that
it has laughable deniability and awesome amounts of
propaganda to cover it up.

The fact that this 767 exceeded flight 990 by 85 knots
should awaken the educated to what this was.
Denial is a powerful mechanism that drives people to
blindness, and to accepting the propaganda of their
brutal masters. Instead of standing up for what they
know is right, and facing their fear, they cave in and crumble
like a weak little slave. A cowards way out.
Im glad our founders werent cowards.


Funny how we didnt see even a shake or flutter of the wings
of those birds going into the towers. Amazing.
Supersonic 767's !! Who would have thought ! haha


Drones are now being actively used in the middle east.
Wonder how long it will be before they patrol all our cities
and enforce the new world order agenda ?

Posted by: elreb Jun 28 2010, 05:01 PM

Personally, I do not see any plane “Swaps”. We know the two AA flights never existed!

The twin tower flights appear to be remote controlled from the get go.

The third non- existing flight was intended to hit #7. Oops…something went wrong.

These planes were specially modified and tested by the good old boys. (Perhaps at Edwards AFB?)

I was wondering if it would be necessary to plant a honing device, in the towers to insure a perfect target or does external control work as well?

Posted by: SanderO Jun 28 2010, 05:53 PM

If the planes were not the claimed ones and they were remote piloted drones, they likely had some explosive cargo or delivered some other hi temp incendiary which destroyed enough core columns so that the upper structure collapsed down and upon falling on the lower sections they too collapsed. That is... assuming the drones carried more than fuel.

Posted by: elreb Jun 28 2010, 06:32 PM

I want to stay as close on subject as possible and not be deposed to never-land by Rob but these planes seem to have been provided only as distractions, rather that objects of destruction.

The “Real” question is could a specifically modified 757/767 under computer control travel up to 501 knots then put the hammer down to 509 knots?

The original claimed planes with seasoned pilots admit, they could not pull it off.

As drones, I would have kept them under fueled to gain speed.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 28 2010, 08:54 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Jun 28 2010, 06:01 PM) *
I was wondering if it would be necessary to plant a honing device, in the towers to insure a perfect target or does external control work as well?



Check this out...

Less than 1 Meter accuracy.

See attached.

 FS_OPATS.pdf ( 124.67K ) : 305
 

Posted by: elreb Jun 28 2010, 09:35 PM

Rob, things just happen…

Anne Tatlock found out about the collision of a plane with the North Tower while en route to the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt AFB in Omaha. The 62-year-old chief executive of Fiduciary Trust Co. International was one of a small group of business leaders at a charity event hosted by Warren Buffett.

Military officers boarded the bus she was on, and escorted her to an officer's lounge and a television, just in time to see the second plane hit the South Tower between the 87th and 93rd floors--right where 650 of her employees worked.

Offutt AFB is, coincidentally, where President George W. Bush flew to on Air Force One later in the day for "safety."

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 29 2010, 01:36 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 29 2010, 02:54 AM) *
Check this out...

Less than 1 Meter accuracy.

See attached.



No homing device needed. laser illumination of the target if the drones used IR homing, as I felt they did for the 'terminal phase' could have been done from a number of locations around the city, from any number of heights. It'd be interesting to see if anyone had any 'valid' IR photo's of the area, say, an hour or two before this happened? Not likely but worth a thought.

One thing I wanted to point out is that the GPS systems out there with WAAS augmentation would have made target illumination wholly not necessary, it
would be nice as a terminal phase augmenter to the GPS stuff out there, for a false flag op of this type, you'd want to make sure you had a plan 'B' just in case of the freak accident that day that GPS was locally 'jammed' somehow, which requires very low power to effectively and locally 'jam' the system (who would jam is also a good question, but you wouldn't want to take the chance that it wasn't possible, is what I am getting at).

but the final ballistics trajectory final course changes would be far better handled by a high speed processor doing the job of keeping the plane on the
mark than a human brain. We're good, but not nearly as good as a computer that's got good solid accelerometer data being fed to it, to compensate for side slipping and low level wind shear.

but back to the speed thing, the ONLY constructive reason you'd want to go 'faster' into the buildings with these drones, is to minimize the amount of time that a camera could get good clean shots of the airplanes before impact. As it is, we don't have good clear pics which show that there is NOBODY IN THESE MACHINES on the other side of the oval cabin windows.

one last note I have spoken extensively about, is that the FMS systems on the stock airplane would have to be 'locked out' to prevent the airplane from trying to protect itself from structural overload from overspeeds and high roll rates in the final phases of the flights. if that wasn't done, it's unlikely that a human pilot could command the kind of speeds and roll rates demonstrated by at least one of the '2' airplanes just prior to impact with the WTC towers, and the FMS system not override that. What I am stating is that these airplanes have flight limits built into the flight managment systems that are there as SAFETY FACTORS, and they trump pilot imputs in circumstances where a command by the pilot actually threatens the structural integrity of the machine. Without this being locked out, extreme agility, way out of tolerance airspeeds, are not too very real. The plane's FMS computers won't allow
the planes to go intentionally to these realms of overspeed and roll / pitch which would result in structural failure of not just control surfaces, but the
wings and engine pylons which hold the 7 ton powerplants on the wings. Once an airplane begins to structurally fail, the failures aren't necessarily going to happen in a predictable, redundant system keeps you flying fashion. Boeing would have programmed the FMS systems to 'self preserve' the airframe and powerplants but not taken all the control away, just limited 'actual' control surface movement versus 'commanded' control surface movements at high speeds. Remember, load factor goes up very fast as a function of speed, and even a momentary 'stop to stop' rudder or elevator command at 510 knots would have consequences such as horizontal stabilizer deformation and possible separation, as well as vertical stabilizer failures like the Airbus off of New York suffered while well below Va (maneuvering speed) when the pilots tried to compensate for wake turbulence from a heavy jet they had just flown thru before the vertical stabilizer (rudder) came off the machine.

Posted by: aerohead Jun 29 2010, 02:04 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 28 2010, 09:54 PM) *
Check this out...

Less than 1 Meter accuracy.

See attached.


Yep.

I turned down the opportunity to go work on the UAV program in 96
when my squadron closed because i thought it would be boring to
work on pilotless, model scale aircraft with small recip engines.
Im glad i didnt, i thought they were going to be recon only, not
offensive video games for kids to kill the enemy from a safe room
thousands of miles away from the battlefield.
Didnt know they had been experimenting with them since the early 80's.


Homing device ? Absolutely and no doubt coupled with a manual back up
to hand fly it. Redundancy is an absolute. 3 separate systems would be
my guess.


And how bout a little laser guidance.......................since atleast 1991.
If they can build a Bunker buster that can hit the hole in your chimney,
they can certainly build a "tower buster" that could fly at 510 Knots and
detonate at a predetermined time after slicing the outer columns of the
Twins. Then the countdown to the fireworks.




Commons sense seems to be in short supply these days,
but I have plenty if any skeptics would like to borrow some.

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 29 2010, 02:33 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 26 2010, 05:08 PM) *
Thanks a bunch! This is exactly the dissertation I was looking for. I'm also quite sure that this is a "quick and dirty" representation of the problems, a skyjacking pilot would face.

Some time ago on usenet, someone posted an analysis of the time, the skyjacker pilots, would have had to line up their planes for their finals. I believe he mentioned it would be like trying to hit a pencil from some 3 to 4 miles out (the distance from where the tower view became large enough to take a general aim), then to the 1 to 2 mile distance, where a precise aim would HAVE to be taken with no margin for error. Turns out that closing that last distance yields approx. 20 seconds. A magical feat, to take aim, if the plane is operating within it's design parameters, an impossible feat if it's outside it's design parameters -- AND IN THE HANDS OF AN INEXPERIENCED PILOT! Because even an experienced pilot would be overwhelmed by the complexities of the variables that must be kept under fine control. If you can imagine the relatively short period of time these alleged hijackers had to get 'comfy' in these planes, exceptional control would 'not' be one of the apparent traits they'd exhibit on the final phase of the flight into the WTC towers. If you can imagine the cacophony of the overspeed audio and the sounds of the stick shakers kicked in, plus the unusually high sound of noise as the planes now are at 510 knots, making the sound level in the cockpits unusually high due to slipstream over the nose, it'd almost be borderline 'horrifying' to be piloting these machines thru all of this. Add to this the fact that even if you're prepared psychologically to 'die' that day, you sure would have a lot of misgivings about it as you see the buildings rushing up at you like that, particularly at 510 knots! So much so, you might 'freeze' and be unable to put in any further control inputs at all. The whole thing is preposterous on it's face anyway, but this 'incredible' flight skill level shown by not just 'incompetent' but lower tier aviators is such that it flies in the face of what we saw that day, which was exceptional precision and unusual airmanship to control these planes with such precision at such extreme and difficult to maintain control, speeds.

----------

Thus this reduces the need for skyjacker pilots to mere ideological fare, they could not have supplied anymore than a "target for blame". That being their only utility in these events, it's hard to believe they would even be trusted to be aboard such aircraft, if they existed at all and were to be used for this purpose. A remote or computer driven control scheme yields substantial more utility, but that can't happen either, remote controls cannot be utilized on this mission, because they'd be detectable and no such chance could be taken. That's right, and furthermore, to remotely control these aircraft using datalink control, most likely at around 440 mhz or thereabouts as the military is so in love with, someone with a receiver would have seen the unusual telemetry link and thought; "hmm????" for sure. Secondarily, for these things to have been flown with optical camera links, the liklihood of the video even if encrypted, being intercepted, would be fairly high, as there has to be any number of geeks with fairly nice scanners out there in NYC even in the year 2001, looking at the radio spectrum and wondering what's 'new' that they hadn't seen before. The one drawback of a video link, is that it has no peripheral or pan vision for the reason stated you want to stay boresighted on the longitudinal axis of the drone plane so you can always see the intended target area. Your field of vision is moderately restricted to an arc of not much more than 120 degrees or so, max. At 510 knots, you know you don't get a 'do over' if per chance, you 'miss' on the first pass...because by now, every camera in NYC is focused on your fuselage, no matter how fast you are booking around in a circle to re-attack a second time. So, the drone would likely be 'self controlled' and totally without need of any human intervention due to the lack of ballistics precision that the 510 knot final flight phase requires.

That would leave on board programing, but there's not sufficient time and/or information available to any would be programmers/operators to accomplish such a task. So the only pratical solution is not to employ any planes at all, or; limit their use to merely supplying visuals. NO, NO, remember now, these planes were configured to be flown as drones, no 'sufficient time' argument here at all. In all liklihood they were not airliners, but military planes with drone control equipment retrofitted well in advance.

The "planners" would realize that they cannot get the planes to the buildings, so they have to devise elaborate plans to "get the buildings to the planes". Thus the explosions must come from inside the buildings and that fact covered up and papered over with noise. Navigation into the airspace wouldn't be too very hard for a 'competent' and 'well trained' hijacker to do. It's just problematic for a 'bozo' or a 'neophyte' not even a good 'wannabe' pilot getting there and then flying with such precision to the targeted buildings in such a way as we saw was done that day.

Oh, and btw, of the 19 skyjackers, one died a year before the attacks and another 9 were found alive in the aftermath of the attacks. Leaving only 9 to be distributed among 4 planes. The 'alleged' hijackers were never valid passengers on these 'alleged' flights any more than were Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The F.B.I. knows this. They have never ever charged a single person allegedly who was on these planes, even post mortem, with any crimes, and they have produced ZERO samples of any hijacker DNA to analyze. Why do you think that may be?? Oh, I forgot, Saudi Arabian nationals don't have DNA, and they also have fireproof passports that flutter down to the street afterwards in PRISTINE CONDITION. :)
Sweeney has 5 or six aboard her plane, leaving only 3 or four to be distributed among the other three planes. I sincerely doubt that one single skyjacker on board a plane is going to easily overcome the flight crew. Which means, of course, that whatever anyone wants to think about the 9-11 attacks, at least one plane has to be completely eliminated, unless they want to explain why the flight crew decided to carry out the attack on their own.

So, if one plane can be eliminated, because it could not be manned, why not eliminate all four? After all, they couldn't be flown. Though we cannot prove that all '4' planes were never ever who the U.S. govt says they were (which is the occams razor solution) it's kind of unusual that though we have people that were on the ground at the complexes that were eye witnesses to the recovery of the FDR's of both of these planes, for the F.B.I. to out and out LIE TO US and say the data was not useable at all, and that the boxes were too badly destroyed, and then later to assert as they have that the FDR's and CVR's were NEVER RECOVERED at all. How do you erase the memories of the eyewitnesses without killing them??? They saw what they saw. Firemen saw the FDR's and CVR's recovered. I have a very hard time buying that the CPM modules were obliterated by the post crash fire, that's not too very possible nor is it likely. One of two would, by odds, survived and been unencoded. More out and out LYING by the F.B.I., clearly, in an incredibly obtuse and unbelievable effort to cover-up the acts of a government and the Israeli Mossad who did this, by virtue of the 'moving company' of Dominic Suter being on the other side of the river, high five-ing each other and jubilantly cheering the events that day. One has to wonder why these same 'let go by the F.B.I. mossad agents would be so emboldened to declare on Israeli Television that they were sent 'in advance' to document the event.

Dominic Suter, by the way, got nearly half a million dollars from the U.S. Treasury (thanks, Aidan Monaghan!!) and is currently back in New Jersey.

Obwon

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 29 2010, 04:38 AM

Re 'the flight crew deciding to carry out the attacks themselves' idea :)

if you remember in 'Catch-22' how Milo Minderbinder got the contract from the German's to bomb and strafe the airfield for them, so, in right wing apologist land, this is possible!!! I can hear it now; "listen, here is da deal, if you carry out these suicide attacks..I mean....high speed runs for us...ahem...we'll give you a piece of the ackshun...say, a million bucks, paid out after you flutter down in near pristine fashion to the ground.."

we're digressing way off the path here, and I apologize to the forum for it, but shit, guys....if we listed every one of the not only nonsensical things about the official story and then add the 'absolutely impossible' things to that list, then clearly by the time you get the whole thing compiled, it starts to look like a bunch of amateurs did this, certainly not top echelon mossad zionists who with assurances from our F.B.I. and our DoD, that nobody would ever in a million years ever be allowed to ever see the recovered parts for examination for SERIAL NUMBERS that would be TRACEABLE TO the N-Numbers of the planes that are alleged to have been destroyed that day.

The 'impossible speeds' thing is one more thing to toss on the pile of; "sorry, we can't buy this" list of things they have thrown at us.

It's almost so amateurish and so blatantly bogus, it's like; "catch us, catch us if you can!!" taunting us, and taunting the dead from that day, making a mockery of the very tenets of what this nation says it was founded upon.

We're now almost a decade later and with all the evidence that supports the MOSSAD involvement, and NORAD complicity, and F.B.I. assistance in COVER UP, with Congressional NON OVERSIGHT and PURPOSEFUL OBFUSCATION OF FACT by Philip Zelikow, you'd think that by now, we'd have gallows built to hang the perpetrators from, and grand juries convened to indict them. Not so.

If a dead American Airlines crew can get indicted by the N.T.S.B. for 'rudderdance' as I call it, in an airplane several knots below the designed maneuvering speed of that Airbus they died in that day, then they cannot have it both ways. They cannot assert here that speed doesn't create issues down low, with structural integrity and over-stressing of airframes, unless they're going to exonerate that AA crew from the 'oops, you danced on the rudders too hard' schlock job the N.T.S.B. handed down in their ruling on that fandango.

Why bother having a 'Va' speed for any airplane if you can drive them as fast as you want to, with no consequences??

clearly there are indeed consequences, not because Airbus builds cheap crap that should never get certificated to fly in U.S. airspace, with no structural spar from the vertical stabilizer into the empennage as Boeing always has had (until maybe recently), and then that airplane falls apart when the pilots use moderate force on rudders to correct for yaw encountered in a wake turbulence episode, you have to ask yourself; "gentlemen, what made you think you could float the 510 and 440 knot HELL BENT FOR LEATHER final approaches to the WTC buildings as 'not a problem' then??

They can't. because that assertion is crap. Just like their bogus recreations they cranked for FLT-77 into the Pentagon that day, is CRAP!

and it's also TREASON. HIGH TREASON. Capital T, capital R, capital E, capital A, capital S, capital O, capital N..that kind of TREASON.

Posted by: Obwon Jun 29 2010, 06:29 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 28 2010, 09:11 AM) *
Thank you.

I am so glad you asked.

Those who make excuse for the govt story love to claim, "The aircraft was only at this speed for a few seconds and then crashed. It can sustain this speed for a few seconds you idiot!"

Of course they offer zero proof for their claim. Not to mention the fact they are wrong.

I cut some scenes from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" due to the fact it was technical enough. I have calculated the speeds based on radar data for the last minute, a full 60 seconds.

[sniped]


Ah, live and learn! So "design limits" are breaking points, not merely "red zones", because the "red zones" are the yellow caution zones, where within which the aircraft is stressed, but does not immediately break (unless it's already weaker than expected, by say age or previous usage)

So, then, how well these craft are likely to hold up in the caution zone, is credibly impacted negatively by their age? I must guess that as aircraft age, they become less tolerant of stress.

My best guess is that such a plane could never last long enough to hit the tower, even with a robot, remote controller or anything else "at the wheel".

I also took another, cursory, look at the skyjacker distribution claimed. So, with 9 of them found alive, one dead a year prior, that left 5 or 6 on flight 11 with Madeline Sweeney, and 3 or 4 on the flight with Bremmer, total 9 or 10 and we have only to account for 9.

So two of the planes in the 9-11 attacks had no skyjackers on board, and yet all the evidences of them being skyjacked, flown to targets and crashed, exists! Oh my! I say "oh my" because what this means is that all of the evidence from all four flights, it is now demonstrated, can be faked. Because two of these flights had to be faked, and it was done just as well for them all.

If the official story were true, then there would be aircraft parts littering lower Manhattan and the towers would still be standing. Or destroyed like WTC 7, without explanation there for.

But like I said, they knew that the risks of trying to fly planes into the towers was way too high a failure prone operation. They could not risk failure, they would not get another chance, and they could not keep the prepped buildings both secret and ready for long. They had to have the towers struck by planes, because that's the only way they could blame the affair on Islamic extremists and initiate their intended wars. So, the only way to ensure the greatest measure of success, is to dispense with reality and focus on creating the illusions needed.

Same old stuff, different century! tsk tsk tsk.

Posted by: elreb Jun 29 2010, 02:28 PM

One minor fact that I found interesting is that the WTC 1 plane and WCT 2 plane were flying towards one another but with a comfortable 8 floors of separation and a 15 minute delay between them.

How convenient!

It’s almost like WTC 7 was a command center with a “Birds eye” view of everything.





Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 30 2010, 03:27 AM

You guys really astound me with your stuff, and it's been a good experience for me in the forum recently because so many of you are not moron's, idiots, govt. shills, or COINTELPRO fuck sticks (pardon the japanese there).

If an Airbus can have structural failure at significantly lower speeds than 440 or 510 knots IAS, at nearly ground level, break up in flight, and end up with it's vertical stabilizer being fished out of sheepshead bay for a little bit of rudder compensation at a speed well below MANEUVERING SPEED for that machine, then just imagine what kind of issues a B-767 might have, boogeying along at 510 knots IAS, and then the plane suddenly banks sharply, and then there's some yaw going on in the recovery, so the rudder is jumped on a bit to correct, and 'voila' instant aluminum confetti land on the streets of NYC, and a building doesn't get hit, (like WTC-7 wasn't hit) and then half an hour after the failed attempt, the building implodes in on itself and falls into it's own footprint at freefall speeds. I can just hear the whining from the Right Wing SHILL echo chamber now;"oh, you don't understand, mind waves from Osama were being projected at the buildings, and as everyone knows MUSLIMZ all are super human beings with looks that can inflict pain and suffering and bring down tall buildings..you have to believe my story..

Well, I think that WTC-7 was an intended target of a plane that didn't make it into NYC airspace, is what I think. They had it rigged in advance, it was supposed to be OBVIOUSLY HIT BY A PLANE that NEVER SHOWS UP, but it then implodes on itself several hours later and nobody sees the obvious
'screw up' in that all these years later. Obwon has a good thought process going on about the; "what if none of the planes made it, and then the buildings fell in on themselves???"

We know that we weren't that far off on a scenario like that when WTC-7 was not struck by airplane wreckage, and yet it still imploded into itself at freefall speeds.

One more broken airplane that didn't quite cut the mustard, and either WTC-1 or WTC-2 'not hit' by anything, and still collapses, and THEN WHAT??

well, if ONE of the three targeted buildings they needed to destroy is NOT HIT and still implodes and NOBODY CARES, then I will go so far as to say that then, you and I know they would have concocted a story about Osama's super invisible guys sneaking into the buildings and whilst invisible for a long long long time, managed to put the charges in the buildings and detonate them with MIND CONTROL afterwards.

You know where I am going with this. One building was clearly 'not hit at all' but was intended to be, and that plane never made it into NYC airspace for whatever reason. Because it was a 'no show' for the pyrotechnics gig, the building still came down, much later in the game, because someone screwed up on the timer sequencing of the buildings. They almost could have gotten away with WTC-7 going down with the other '2' buildings, had that happened, but that's not what took place. WTC-7 imploded and came down at 5:20 p.m. in the afternoon. Nothing hit it. Nothing.

anyway, what I am getting to here is with '2' planes who didn't have hijackers on board, that means you had to count them out altogether, because without a hijacker in the cockpit, it's another Milo Minderbinder dream, isn't it?

I would have loved to have seen the looks on faces in Tel Aviv at Mossad HQ, had no planes shown up in NYC, and the three buildings then came down without being hit.

MIND CONTROL waves from Afghanistan's caves at Tora Bora?? American's are so gullible and essentially ignorant of concepts of reality and what makes sense and what does not, I'm not so sure that this crap would have been sold by MSM as the proof that Osama had planted explosives in the buildings in advance of the day and then detonated them somehow...all with Marvin Bush's SECURACOM boys in there during the rigging.

All evidence is that the F.B.I. never expected guys like Gerard Holmgren to research the 'victims' on the planes and find that a lot of them were 'fictional' and 'identity rip offs' of people dead long before the dirty day came around on the calendar. And, the F.B.I. never ever dreamt in a million years that people would find out that cellular phone conversations of the duration and efficacy could NEVER TAKE PLACE from the altitudes these planes were at just before they moseyed on down at impossible speeds and hit the buildings. They also never counted on someone actually digitally comparing the one phone call from the 'victim' to a later call to his 'mommy' and in that, the timing is so identical that it couldn't have come from a human being.

There are so very many critical, nasty, gaping wounds in the Government's story about that day, that truly, only a complete, utter MORON could buy their fiction, lock, stock, and box cutter superhuman airman b.s.

In reality, like Obwon said, the NYC streets would have had all sorts of structural failure pieces scattered on them, and the buildings more than likely would still have been standing UNTIL the demolition charges began to take them down, as we know is what really took them down (looking at all the nice ANGULAR CUTS in the support columns, evident in lots and lots of photos of the building wreckage).

and then, there's the Pentagon. The case of airplane vaporizes, virtually no meaningful wreckage in front of the building, and no engine entry points in the building facade, and clearly a case of a missile strike and possible Global Hawk impact. Take a good hard look at Peggy Elgas' 'wreckage found' picture, and tell me that came off a B-757 then!!!! You know that's a Global Hawk vertical stabilizer part, and so do I know it. There is no corresponding fiberglass piece on a B-757!!!

Barbara Honegger says the clock's stopped at 9:32 a.m. and seismic data shows that charges started to go off there, as well, six full minutes before any alleged FLT-77 arrival and impact occurred, too! So do people in the building. Ahem!!!!

Posted by: Obwon Jun 30 2010, 06:51 AM

QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jun 30 2010, 04:27 AM) *
You guys really astound me with your stuff, and it's been a good experience for me in the forum
<snips>



Found this: http://www.911closeup.com/

It sums up some of my thinking on the matter of real planes vs no planes quite well, even though it misses a few of my points which tends to illuminate matters just a wee bit more.

Oh yes, and about the floors that were "struck", they were precisely the floors that were leased by banks, that had new construction work done on them in the year prior to 9-11. In the south tower the bank installed a data back up center. The entire floor was filled with server cabinets, which were kept locked. Techies who know say that managing the keys would be a logistical nightmare, considering how they have to work on projects in such areas. Which makes that entire cover story strange at the least. While in the north tower, where the plane "struck" that floor was raised three feet and covered entirely with batteries, to be a back up power supply.
These batteries were never tested, never switched on.

Funny how Jets, which could not be relied on to precisely hit the towers, could be relied on to precisely strike the floors where preparations had been made, large scale enough to have concealed explosives, eh?

In any event, there's the cost of actually using real aircraft or even missiles. Even with missiles there are risks, associated with launch sites, obtaining the missiles etc., But hey! If you're going to lie about their even being planes in the first place, why bother with missiles? Your media effort is going to be able to "paper over" any real eye witnesses, so you don't really need any planes or missiles, just put the explosives on the floors of the buildings, configured to create the proper illusions [after all the damage is going to be persistently visible by all, both on the ground and via video], that's going to hold public attention and cause any pesky eye witnesses to stifle themselves. After all, these eyewitnesses aren't going to be a cohesive group.
They are going to be scattered here and there and virtually alone in a sea of millions of teevee believers, much like they were themselves. So as not to appear to be raving lunatics, insisting the media is telling one big gigantic lie, to people who will refuse to listen, best they stifle themselves which ever way they can.

In any event, the "costs" matter, as well as other artifacts, reveal that the perps do not have either unlimited funds or unlimited power at there disposal. But they do have pervasive media control and they are very near the peak of the American power structure, even if they can't pull the levers with impunity. The power to punish detractors appears to have been enough.

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 30 2010, 12:25 PM

Actually, Obwon, you do hit some things on the head, and bring to light stuff most of us in here hadn't really focused a lot of energy on yet.

First, in the "Pandora's Black Box: FLT-77" video, it begins with exposing the 2.3 trillion bucks that Dov Zackheim (a target on wiretaps the JUST US dept. had in place looking at Israeli Spies in the U.S., by the way!) and Donald Rumsfeld had 'spirited' out of the United States, and during the presentation, it points out that the precise point of impact on the Pentagon was 'investigation related' to the missing 2.3 Trillion that Cynthia McKinney was grilling Donald Rumsfeld over on Sept. 10th., 2001. Which truly brings to mind that 9/11 had a 'dual purpose' role for Israel, not just to expand wars in the Middle East and keep the lid on for zionism, but to hastily and in an EMERGENCY FASHION destroy evidence contained in WTC-7, and in the Pentagon.

So the precision targeting, as perhaps almost 'irrelevant' as it was to the final result of CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS which utterly pulverized the buildings, seems kind of moot, nothing is, in fact, a 'moot' point here. For people to not understand the reasons why WTC-7 may have been the 'primary' target on Sept. 11th., 2001., is to also not understand why 'The Catcher's Mit' portion of the Pentagon had to be obliterated by a missle and embedded demolitions charges put into the building during the 'reinforcing' work, which was so very nicely called out in Barbara Honegger's white paper on the 6 minute discrepancy between the internal explosions in the Pentagon, and the missile strike.

So, yes, Obiwon, you aren't barking up any wrong tree here. These precision targetings that didn't work out to be precision at all for the plane that didn't make it into New York airspace that day and strike WTC-7 as was intended, for whatever the reason, were in fact the 'raison d'etre' of the whole thing in the first place. The Israeli intelligence service HAD TO DESTROY the WTC-7 totally, and they tossed in an added 'bonus' or 'bone us' to Silverstein in the taking out of the WTC-1 and WTC-2 towers, which were essentially 40 percent vacant due to ASBESTOS, and hence, a huge demolition job that would have to be done in the future at tremendous cost, anyway!

In any case, this is why I theorize that had not a single plane made it into the New York airspace for whatever reason, those '3' buildings would have imploded on themselves, and then; "Lucy, you got a lot of splainin to do" would have ensued. I can just see Wolf Blitzer (mossad) over at C.N.N. talkng about how Blind Mellon Muslim somewhere in Paramus, New Jersey, was the Imam in charge of Al Qaeda's 'precision demolition team that is so small and tiny they work in the buildings with nobody seeing them.." (in real life, the Israeli Moving company that did this under Dominic Suter's supervision, was very very visible in the buildings, living in pitched tents on one floor we know of, busily rigging the buildings for demolition.

This is way off the discussion for the 'speed' thing we're supposed to be talking about, but I think it's a relevant 'side trip' into the Twilight Zone of 9/11, because David Ray Griffin has done so much work, as well as Professor Steven Jones, and Richard Gage, on the evidence that supports that the demolitions people not only were 'known' to be in the building and seen by many, but that they left a paper trail all the way back to the U.S. Treasury, who paid them for their murderous job they did, to the tune of nearly a half a million bucks. Hell, I'd have thought to bring down those buildings, our friends in Langley could have passed the hat and upped the ante, to say, what...a nice even number, like One Million Shekels, I mean, dollars...

So I wonder who in U.S. Dept. of State authorized Domiic Suter to get his visa renewed to come back here?? Did they think the heat was so 'off' on the heinous crimes he aided and abetted on 9/11, to think nobody would know he'd come back here??

You know, someday, Obiwon, we're going to find out that the F.B.I. has 'destroyed' all of the evidence and files for this 'mass murder' and some piece of crap like Eric Holder will stand at a podium and prounounce; "We did it for the good of the Nation.."

uh huh. Just like Arlen Specter helped Gerald Ford change the Warren Commission report so their magic bullet could zig and zag and make more holes in two people than a spaghetti collander has, all fired by one lone assassin and CIA stooge, known as Lee Harvey Oswald, who probably didn't even touch that rifle in his life, let alone fire it in Dealey Plaza that day. With that kind of 'good for the Nation' going on, and intentionally sealing the files for so many years, as they'll do with this mass murder by Israel and the U.S. on U.S. soil, they hope that someday, way off in the future, someone might say; "Sept 11th?? what are you talking about, what was that???"

We're already getting close to that now. Though people instinctively know the government is LYING about it, blatantly, bold faced and with a great deal of chutzpah, in ten years if there is a United States, which I sincerely doubt at this point, anyone left here will blink at each other and not know what the hell you're talking about when you reference that date in conversation.

And that, unfortunately, is the sad part of all this mass murdering done by Israel and the U.S. on U.S. soil. That in time, just like the U.S.S. Liberty murdering done by Israel, so will be Sept. 11th., 2001. After all, it's much more important that we know who is up for an Oscar, or who's doing well in American Idol, for sure!

Posted by: paranoia Jun 30 2010, 01:04 PM

QUOTE
'The Catcher's Mit' portion of the Pentagon had to be obliterated by a missle and embedded demolitions charges put into the building during the 'reinforcing' work, which was so very nicely called out in Barbara Honegger's white paper on the 6 minute discrepancy between the internal explosions in the Pentagon, and the missile strike.


please see:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16449
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15499

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 30 2010, 01:07 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jun 30 2010, 02:04 PM) *
please see:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16449
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15499



Thanks my friend... you saved me some time..

I'll add to that by saying once again, please stay on topic!

wink.gif

Obwon, I'm tired of moving your NPT posts. Please take NPT discussion to the Alt Theory forum.

Take any missile discussions to the appropriate threads linked above by paranoia.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jun 30 2010, 02:49 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 26 2010, 12:11 PM) *
Now, I just noticed this diagram pop up on the web the other day when I did a search (it wasn't available when I made the film). It is a Vg diagram for the P-51 Mustang.

And it isn't only Mustangs that have to behave at low level as I indicated some while back WRT Concorde:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18051&hl=Concorde

I'll drop the diagram here to save traffic



Well said Dennis, I have just caught up on your posts.

From a lowely aircaft engineer but one who sometimes got off the ground in fast heavy metal.

Posted by: aerohead Jun 30 2010, 02:56 PM

Heres the thing.

Even if the standard plane could achieve 510 knots, (which it cant)
it would not be controllable by even a seasoned veteran of the airframe,
and absolutely not by a Cessna flunky wannabe.

A smooth bank into near center mass at 510 Knots ? laughing1.gif

When excessive overspeeds are reached, the wings and flight
controls begin to flap and twist like a bird having a seizure as seen
on Robs video of the 747. At that point, on large aircraft, the the yoke controls
you and would begin to throw you around like a rag doll tied to a bulls ass.





It would be a cockpit rodeo for sure.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 30 2010, 03:08 PM

QUOTE (aerohead @ Jun 30 2010, 03:56 PM) *
When excessive overspeeds are reached, the wings and flight
controls begin to flap and twist like a bird having a seizure as seen
on Robs video of the 747. At that point, on large aircraft, the the yoke controls
you and would begin to throw you around like a rag doll tied to a bulls ass.



It would be a cockpit rodeo for sure.


Excellent video aerohead.

From the description:

Flutter is a dangerous phenomenon encountered in flexible structures subjected to aerodynamic forces. This includes aircraft, buildings, telegraph wires, stop signs, and bridges. Flutter occurs as a result of interactions between aerodynamics, stiffness, and inertial forces on a structure. In an aircraft, as the speed of the wind increases, there may be a point at which the structural damping is insufficient to damp out the motions which are increasing due to aerodynamic energy being added to the structure. This vibration can cause structural failure and therefore considering flutter characteristics is an essential part of designing an aircraft.


This is one of the many reasons manufacturers set a Vmo for an aircraft and test pilots stretch the envelope to determine a dive speed.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 30 2010, 04:56 PM

Here is a short interview I did today with Dwain Deets. I always meant to do a recorded interview with Dwain before publishing the article, but I didn't record the first interview. Since there seems to be some confusion out there after this article was published, Dwain was gracious enough to do a second interview, this time recorded.



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/interviews/Dwain_Deets063010.mp3

10mb download, approx 22 mins runtime.

If you don't feel like listening to the whole 22 mins, just scroll to the last 2 minutes, it sums up the conversation.

Rob Balsamo - "There is no one within our organization who claim the speeds are probable."

Dwain Deets - "I mean, anyone who says that, I would say... are in denial.... of what the issues are..."

Posted by: elreb Jun 30 2010, 07:48 PM

In western history, I rarely let Wikipedia get away with a big mistake.

They get the most hits and get to spread a lot of incorrect data that anyone is allowed to correct.

They have Flight 175 at 473 Knots/545 mph and Flight 11 at 404 Knots/466 mph.

Just changing the speeds is a good start…then give a citation as to how something is wrong.

I do not have the expertise to correct them but a Pilot could.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 30 2010, 07:52 PM

Seems wikipedia doesnt like to source govt provided data when such data doesn't support the govt story...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf (9mb pdf)

Not surprised...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Wiki_Disinformation

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jun 30 2010, 08:04 PM

Looks like some of the structures can withstand quite a lot.


Question remains how exactly would behave our B767 at the given altitude, speed and trajectory.

Posted by: elreb Jun 30 2010, 08:08 PM

The NTSB data should be good enough to submit as an add-on of information.

Where exactly did the NTSB get their information from. (ASR Newark)

During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6000 feet ground speed from 500 to 520 Kotts...thats 598 mph...WTF

Didn't someone say, it's max speed was 568 mph at 35,000 feet?

Note: Every time I correct Wikipedia...it sticks.

To some degree it is about presentation and/or how you word things.

If someone is removing your corrections, then I would go nose to nose with them.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 30 2010, 08:40 PM

Some great conversation here! salute.gif

I agree with Aerohead that this is Northwoods, version 2001.

And I know I must have read it here at PFT, but can't remember exactly where, that one of Dov Zakheim's several companies was very involved in remote control technology. My bet is that a few of those 767s he delivered to McDill were involved here, with the remote control technology.

Posted by: Dennis Cimino Jun 30 2010, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jun 30 2010, 08:49 PM) *
And it isn't only Mustangs that have to behave at low level as I indicated some while back WRT Concorde:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18051&hl=Concorde

I'll drop the diagram here to save traffic



Well said Dennis, I have just caught up on your posts.

From a lowely aircaft engineer but one who sometimes got off the ground in fast heavy metal.



from dennis: I liked that diagram!!! I think that the whole point being is that even 'lead sled' MiG-25's, made almost exclusively out of stainless steel and titanium alloy, can't handle the deformation without stress cracks and 'iireversible' damage due to all sorts of ugly things that happen at very high speeds down low. I've seen Citation 500's with all their cabin windows blown out at FL-310, due to improper speeds entering storms, causing the fuselage to deform into a flattened oval shape versus a tube, with the pressurization there to pop the plexiglass out like it's a wine cork. :)

almost any line pilot who flies heavy metal will tell you the 'prudent' thing to do prior to entering turbulent air, is to make a significant speed redux prior to actual storm penetration to lessen the stress loads in the shear. if speed didn't have a part to play, you can rest assured the pilots would not dial up a much lower turbulent air penetration speed, recommended in the flight manual. anyway, thanks for the feedback!

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jul 1 2010, 05:23 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 28 2010, 11:40 PM) *
And I know I must have read it here at PFT, but can't remember exactly where, that one of Dov Zakheim's several companies was very involved in remote control technology. My bet is that a few of those 767s he delivered to McDill were involved here, with the remote control technology.

Here you are Amazed, a couple of threads I searched on using Zakheim and restricted to my user name as I recalled making comments:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=13606&hl=Zakheim

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15724&hl=Zakheim&st=0

There were a number of other threads where remote control cropped up. Remote control of aircraft has a longer history than many realise. All through the 60s and 70's I saw such in action as target drones, some converted obsolete war planes old Meatboxes (Meteors) were used for some time as there were comparatively large numbers produced, these replaced things like Fireflies. Even Sea Vixens were converted and flown but never actually used as targets.

But the history in Britain goes back before that to radio controlled Tiger Moths (Queen Bees) used for gunnery practice in the 1930s. The gunnery was crap on a slow moving target - the Germans should have been warned that the Swordfish would present a more significant threat than appearances suggested.

The Germans themselves used radio controlled aircraft in the shipping strike role, with some success and were building up to use air launched V1 (Buzz bombs or Doodlebugs as we knew them) modified to offer more than simple inertial guidance.

EDIT.

PS I agree with you and Aerohead WRT Northwoods and that is as far off topic as I will go.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jul 1 2010, 07:13 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 28 2010, 07:08 PM) *
This vibration can cause structural failure and therefore considering flutter characteristics is an essential part of designing an aircraft.[/i][/indent]

Indeed. And when things go wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I-BkpWvwGc

My father was there on a works ticket being a design draughtsman in the industry and by chance my future wife was there as a small girl with her father.

The DH110 morphed into the Sea Vixen of my intimate acquaintance.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 1 2010, 02:41 PM

Thanks for the links, Omega.

Systems Planning Corp is the name I must remember. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Obwon Jul 1 2010, 03:46 PM

Ah, Northwoods = PNAC no surprise.
Like the prose here though, rag doll tied to a bull etc., gives an incredibly accurate picture of something I also did not know. If I had known that the controls were so rigidly tied to the control surfaces, I probably wouldn't have asked the questions i did. Instead I'd have asked: Is it really possible for a "robotic" or computer control to function effectively under such conditions?
My guess is, I don't think so. It made me sick just to watch those wings, with those heavy engines underneath, flapping along like a bird in heat. I didn't have to even bother imagining what was happening to the controls and control surfaces. Clearly the aircraft was being tortured.

But something I just read begs another question. Someone sees, in the frame by frame of their video, of the craft hitting the south tower. The plane contacts the building without making a hole. The hole only appears after the plane disappears, they say. I don't know which vid they're looking at, but I thought I'd ask if anyone else has seen this phenomenon?

Obwon

Posted by: panthercat Jul 1 2010, 05:13 PM

Alas, I wasn't the one who got to break our flying machines, just fix them. The airframe is primarily aluminum and having seen blobs of molten aluminum after a fire, if large twin engine transports did in fact crash into those buildings, where was all of that aluminum debris? Aluminum can't be picked up with an electromagnet, so where did it go? They hauled off the steel, and after digging through the concrete debris, there should have been a lot of aluminum blobs laying around. There was no mention of it and since it melts and does not disintegrate like we were told, around 140,000 pounds should have been strewn about WTC1&2. Fire is capable of a lot of things, but it doesn’t do what we were told it did that day.

As for the videos, something like that could have been manufactured in a studio. A good video editor can make anything appear real. The initial emotional impact clouded a lot of minds.

Posted by: elreb Jul 1 2010, 05:53 PM

This was one of my old points that even if the planes were made of “Gold” or “Lead” the melt would still remain.

I almost believe if the official report claimed that “Bozo the Clown” and “Howdy Doody” flew said planes at supersonic speeds…most people would believe it.

Has anyone watched the “Rubbish” that the History Channel spreads?

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jul 2 2010, 04:57 AM

QUOTE (panthercat @ Jun 29 2010, 09:13 PM) *
Alas, I wasn't the one who got to break our flying machines, just fix them. The airframe is primarily aluminum and having seen blobs of molten aluminum after a fire, if large twin engine transports did in fact crash into those buildings, where was all of that aluminum debris? Aluminum can't be picked up with an electromagnet, so where did it go? They hauled off the steel, and after digging through the concrete debris, there should have been a lot of aluminum blobs laying around. There was no mention of it and since it melts and does not disintegrate like we were told, around 140,000 pounds should have been strewn about WTC1&2. Fire is capable of a lot of things, but it doesn’t do what we were told it did that day.

Absolutely. My aviation engineering background and front line military, naval, experience leads me to concur with your statement.

As for iron and steel I would like OCT believers to consider how the firebox of a steam locomotive operates. Yes I know about firebricks and arches - BUT...?
QUOTE
As for the videos, something like that could have been manufactured in a studio. A good video editor can make anything appear real. The initial emotional impact clouded a lot of minds.

Which of course Hollywood has been doing for decades.

Posted by: Obwon Jul 2 2010, 07:27 AM

QUOTE (panthercat @ Jul 1 2010, 06:13 PM) *
Alas, I wasn't the one who got to break our flying machines, just fix them. The airframe is primarily aluminum and having seen blobs of molten aluminum after a fire, if large twin engine transports did in fact crash into those buildings, where was all of that aluminum debris? Aluminum can't be picked up with an electromagnet, so where did it go? They hauled off the steel, and after digging through the concrete debris, there should have been a lot of aluminum blobs laying around. There was no mention of it and since it melts and does not disintegrate like we were told, around 140,000 pounds should have been strewn about WTC1&2. Fire is capable of a lot of things, but it doesn’t do what we were told it did that day.

As for the videos, something like that could have been manufactured in a studio. A good video editor can make anything appear real. The initial emotional impact clouded a lot of minds.


Now that I think about it, it doesn't seem that the final flight paths are achievable so quickly, requiring a change of direction of the huge aircraft in so little time, to actually be lined up to penetrate the towers completely. If the paths were the least bit off perpendicular, when the planes hit, the crafts should have begun to rotate. That's got to yield a vastly different debris configuration than that shown. No?... Then what say ye all?

But that aside! Most people today, unlike people of yesteryear when movies were new, we've learned to watch movies and videos and almost automatically suspend disbelief to allow ourselves to be entertained by them. In the long lost time, people had no such reflexive reactions, thus did they give producers and directors the nightmarish tasks of trying to closely parallel reality as close as they could. Resulting in much expensive film hitting the cutting room floor, I'm sure.

Then too there's the matter of a general level of trust, that people tend to give to their news agencies. They don't expect to see blatant lies put on screen by the news people. But they do forgive "dramatizational" fare. I remember seeing something almost impossible on a tv news program long ago, I reflexively put it down as a dramatization, until the nooze people said it was an actual video. It was flt 800 climbing 8,000 feet, after the nose of the craft had come off! Even with my small store of lay persons knowledge, I knew that was impossible, since the center of gravity was no longer over the center of lift -- and that has to yield rotation instead. But some people brought it, even a person, or two, on usenet who claimed to hold several degrees. Of course, in the end the NTSB claimed they didn't produce the video, and the CIA announced it wasn't their doing, so the FBI stepped forward to take the blame for it, saying they were only trying to help with a dramatization. Ha!

But, with 9-11 things were kept moving at a very fast pace, new things were being claimed as being discovered almost daily, so there wasn't much focus on what had actually happened, and the President and his merry men were out their whipping up a formidable patriotic fervor, easy for things to get "lost in the sauce" as it were. The few of us who were asking questions, found ourselves marginalized by suffocating ignorance and the deafening media trumpet blare. If a chorus arose around any question, the media quickly stepped in, restated the question in a non-critical way, so that it could be answered with easily made-up nonsense, then quickly moved on. Making the questioners look silly, in the eyes of the many who thought the question was either silly and/or that it had been answered adroitly.

Well, way back then, I was the only one I knew who was asking "but... where is the debris?"
I watched the fireball emerge from the south tower on teevee, I waited breathlessly for the much heavier than air and burning fuel, pieces of plane, to exhibit the wake vortexes of solid aircraft debris to come trailing flames down through the fireball. It never happened. And that was funny because... Neither were pieces of furniture, chairs, desks, tables, computers etc., that should have been on that floor, coming through the fireball either. So the fuel that was being ejected from the tower, had to leave after the outer wall had been breeched otherwise it's pieces would have made wake vortexes, which they didn't. Nothing solid came through that fireball and I thought that was extremely odd. Oh yes, if you look you can see trails of burning liquid coming down, but no wake vortexes for anything solid. Go figure!

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 2 2010, 07:54 AM

QUOTE (Obwon @ Jul 2 2010, 08:27 AM) *
Well, way back then, I was the only one I knew who was asking "but... where is the debris?"
I watched the fireball emerge from the south tower on teevee, I waited breathlessly for the much heavier than air and burning fuel, pieces of plane, to exhibit the wake vortexes of solid aircraft debris to come trailing flames down through the fireball. It never happened. And that was funny because... Neither were pieces of furniture, chairs, desks, tables, computers etc., that should have been on that floor, coming through the fireball either.





I see lots of solid objects coming through the fireball, particularly the engine found on Murray St which reflects the distance traveled based on horizontal speed and gravity.

A solid aircraft hit the south tower. Whether it was N612UA remains to be proven. The data provided does not support the govt story of a standard 767-200.


Again, please take NPT/TV Fakery discussion to the Alt theory forum. Please stay on topic! I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 2 2010, 10:24 AM

Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996
Release: 96-10
Printer Friendly Version
Mr. Dwain A. Deets has been appointed Director, Aerospace Projects Office at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, Center Director Kenneth J. Szalai announced recently.

Before this appointment, Deets became Director, Research Engineering Division in March 1994 and served as acting division chief from 1990 to 1994. In that position, he directed the research and engineering aspects of the flight research programs at Dryden.

Deets has had several special assignments since September 1994 that took him away temporarily from the Research Engineering Division responsibilities. He led the preparation of the Dryden response to the NASA Federal Laboratory Review. He was Chairman of the NASA Non-Advocate Review of the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program in 1995, and will again serve in the capacity for the 1996 review. Among the programs Deets has been associated with at Dryden during his NASA career are the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, the X-29 Forward Swept Wing technology demonstrator aircraft, the F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) aircraft and the Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft.

In 1986 Deets completed a special assignment at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., where he led an effort to define the needs for flight research and flight testing within NASA. He then headed development of a flight research strategy for what was then NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, now called the Office of Aeronautics. This effort led to a major increase in emphasis on flight research by NASA.

In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.

He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995.

He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978.

Source - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html



Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 2 2010, 12:09 PM

I guess we now have one dot connected as to how the 767-200 could have been "beefed" up to achieve such excessive speeds.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20240&view=findpost&p=10787357

Posted by: IslandPilot Jul 2 2010, 12:57 PM

WHOA!! WHOA! Now we have "a rag doll riding a bull's ass" in the Room with the ELEPHANT???

Where's the Pony in all this horseshit??? In the Thrid ring of this circus??

Yes, I must agree when I first became aware of a 911 Aircraft AIRSPEED issue; it was a RED FLAG ELEPHANT for me too. And for me the probability of a B-757/767 exceeding it's max airspeed by 100kts (or mph?) would have to be very much less than 1%. And of course I would expect that NO TRANSONIC passenger carrying transport category aircraft built since the B-707 would be capable of airspeeds significantly greater than the Maximum limits established by the manufacturer.

And of course there are several reasons for this improbability, and almost ALL of them have been covered in great detail in this thread. But how can all this information be summarized, so it can be understood more easily. to PROVE that someone deliberately gave us INCORRECT data, so we can DEMAND a REAL INVESTIGATION, to find the TRUTH, and demand JUSTIFICATION for these terrible crimes.

Do we really expect some kind of JUSTICE, from our exististing Judicial System; if we can supply enouth Proof to challenge existing AIRSPEED information?? I'm not counting on that.

But, we may be able to collect enough "Preponderance of the Evidence" which might be useful for Lawyers to become interested in.

Let me begin with the "rag doll riding the bull's ass". I am sure that was one of the tailplane, elevator "flutter" videos that generated that comment. The comment is not entirely inappropriate, if you happen to be in Piper Comanche instead of a B-767. Aerodynamic flutter of control surfaces is one limiting factor in the determination of a maximum airspeed. The forces causing control surface flutter are very similar to the castoring wheel of a shopping cart, or the "shimmy" in nosegear of light aircraft. The "fix" for this problem is to add a counterweight in front of the hinge line and/or to make the control surface LIGHTER Behind the hinge line. And this is why you'll find the "all metal" DC3 has a cloth covered elevator..... Newer aircraft like the 767 may use DEPLETED URANIUM instead of LEAD to balance the control surface, ahead of the hinge line.

On aircraft that have control cables running between the Pilot's yoke and aircraft control surfaces, some of the "flutter" at the tail will find its way forward to the Pilot's yoke.

I believe the B-757 & 767 aircraft are "FLY BY WIRE" aircraft. If this is true, it means there is NO MECHANICAL connection between the pilot's yoke, and the aircraft control surfaces, just a few wires, a black box, and a servo mechanism near the control surface. And usually there will be some kind of redundancy in the wiring, black boxes, and servos. These servos are capable of PRECISELY multiplying the FORCE of Pilot control imputs by Thousands OF TIMES. And the "Flight Control System" in such an aicrraft is capable of "SAMPLING" many aircraft inputs, including a few from the pilot from 10s to 1000s of times Per second, processing them and applying appropriate control surface movements. If the electronic flight control system detects an anomoly it can RESPOND in several different ways. First-it will continue to fly the airporne, then it may choose to activate the Stick shaker, to get the pilot's attention. there are also BUZZERS, HORNS, and Pleasant Female Voices that say "Pull Up, Pull up,...

The Stick Shaker is a small motor with an off-balance weight on its shaft, and it works the same way as your cell phone does when in "vibrate" mode. So, a rag doll sitting on a Bull wagging his tail might be a more accurate description.

Several experimental aircraft have been built which are aerodynamically unstable by design, difficult if not impossible for a pilot to fly, with out the computerized flight control system.

So now, if we go back into the cockpit of a suicide terrorist, who wants to fly into a building, what is he going to do with the autopilot/electronic flight control system as he begins his "final dive" to his rondevious with the 100 virgins? [if we assume he is aware of this choice, and knows how to accomplish it.; and further; if we assume that he is in control of the aircraft heading/alt at this tiime. (no remote control)

If the electronic flight control system (integral with autopilot Yes? NO?) remains engaged and functional, it will not allow that aircraft to exceed several parameters concerning airspeed limits, engine power settings, EPRs, Turbine/Compressor overspeed, Egt... etc.. That airplane is SMART enough ALL BY ITSELF to MOVE its own power levers back so that the "barber pole" speed indicated on the aircraft airspeed indicator will not be exceeded.

Leaving the electronic flight control system/ autopilot engaged will only delay his arrival with the 100 virgins.

If he is able to disengage some parts of the aircrafts built in safegards against exceeding its limitations... most of the limiting controls would still be operational and functioning... at least on the engines.... Overspeed governors have MAX settings, set by maintenance or manufacturer on the ground. etc etc..

If he attempts to fly that aircraft 10 to 20 mph beyond its max limits, he would lose control of the aircraft a couple of seconds after initiating that final manuever. If the aircraft doesn't break apart in mid air, it wont make a very big hole in the ground either because that guy wasn't no CHUCK YEAGER..

Posted by: Ringwind Jul 2 2010, 01:31 PM

The FBI polygraphers will clean-up this mess.

Google "Quadri-Track ZCT"

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 2 2010, 01:46 PM

The 757/767 Flight Control System is not fly-by-wire.

It is hydraulic.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/plane/boeing/B767/instructor/B767_Flight_Controls.pdf

But you are right, if the AP was engaged, it would not let the aircraft exceed its limitations unless of course programmed otherwise.

Posted by: IslandPilot Jul 2 2010, 01:54 PM

FLY BY WIRE, Rob

"FLY BY WIRE" is a good DOT to connect with if you INSIST "BEEFED UP" B767 actually made contact with towers that day.

As you posted the last Bio about Dwain.... which includes the X-29 forward swept wing aircraft which is the "experimental" aircraft I was referring to in my last post. The FORWARD swept wing aircraft has some posibilities as a relatively more "efficient" aircraft configuration... it tends to have the possibility of greater LIFT generation per aircraft size/speed than conventional configuration. Somehow the wing tip vortices help to generate some additional lift to the main wing aft of the wing tips... also this design can use a forward canard configuration.

There is a Blakik sailplane and also the Hansa Jet HFB 320 that had forward swept wings.

The "problem" with the forward swept wing is when you increase the wing loading by manuevering or turbulence... you increase the aircraft angle of attack... the wing "g" loading increases... and as it does this... the wing will "twist" the WRONG WAY... ie the angle of attack at the wing TIPS will increase at a greater rate than closer to the c/l of the aircraft. The result is an aircraft with poor dynamic longetudenal stability... and dangerous stall/spin charistics.

So the X-29 program involved the development of an "active computerized flight control system" to mitigate this degree of dynamic instability, allowing it to be controllable at airspeeds outside of the envelope of what could be obtained without the FLY BY WIRE Computerized flight control system.. and if I recall correctly.... this active fly by wire flight control system, was hopefully going to be able to allow this aircraft to achieve true supersonic flight....

I have NO IDEA what the outcome of that program was... but obviously Dwain can tell you.

What the development of this FLY BY WIRE technology means.... is that an aircraft's flight control system consists of a number of input parameter sensors feeding a CPU with memory, programming, software, and output servo devices... with feedback loops...

And I imagine it has been possible to modify some of the flight charastics of the B757 &767 acft with changes in software in the aircraft flight control system... and is that enough to account for an increase of 100mph .... I don't know... I would'nt think so... but I dont know...

Eventually we will have "SOFTWARE DEFINED AIRCRAFT" in the future...


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 2 2010, 11:24 AM) *
Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996
. Among the programs Deets has been associated with at Dryden during his NASA career are the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, the X-29 Forward Swept Wing technology demonstrator aircraft, the F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) aircraft and the Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft.

In 1986 Deets completed a special assignment at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., where he led an effort to define the needs for flight research and flight testing within NASA. He then headed development of a flight research strategy for what was then NASA's Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, now called the Office of Aeronautics. This effort led to a major increase in emphasis on flight research by NASA.

In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.

He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995.


Source - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html



Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 2 2010, 04:05 PM

The 757/767 Flight Control System is not FLY BY WIRE nor fly-by-wire.

Even if FLY BY WIRE, a simple software "upgrade" would not achieve the performance exceeding a slick P-51 airframe.



The actual airframe of the 767-200 would have to be modified (not nevessarily visible in the poor quality videos), or if you prefer, the NTSB data complied by incompetent employees, in which case (as we point out in our film), you should think twice about getting on your next flight.

Which brings me to the question, what are your credentials and experience IslandPilot?

Posted by: amazed! Jul 3 2010, 10:16 AM

I'm no expert on transport category aircraft, but I think Rob is right on this fly by wire question.

Boeing might have introduced that with the 787, but I don't think even the 777 has it.

75 and 767 did not have it.

Airbus was the first with it, but Boeing passed.

It was software problems with the FBW system that led to the spectacular accident at the Paris Airshow years ago. They were filming the flyby of one of the Airbus series, with pax onboard, and it crashed slow motion into the ground because the pilot could not get it to pull up because of the aircraft configuration at the time.

The F-16 is aerodynamically unstable by design, and cannot be flown without the computer. It is FBW

Posted by: tnemelckram Jul 3 2010, 12:10 PM

Hi Rob!

Great work by you, Dennis and everybody else at PFT. Great comments and discussion too.

I've always suspected beefed up, souped up, and/or remotely guided. That seems to be an essential insurance measure after going through the trouble of rigging the buildings as noted by others above. You guys are are making the best case possible, given that the actual plane wreckage that would prove it conclusively was spirited away almost nine years ago.

I only know as much as your average Airplane Fanboy, but its always been my clear understanding that 757s and 767s were hydraulic, not FBW, and that Airbus was the first to go for FBW big time while Boeing eschewed it. Moreover, there's two schools of thought on it, with the anti-FBW argument being that hydraulics give the pilot with more feel and other sensory input while FBW tends to disconnect the senses while reliance on it dulls pilot skill. There was a great article in the Economist about 10 years ago about this argument.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 3 2010, 01:48 PM

Thanks for that info Tnem! The Economist is truly a unique magazine. handsdown.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 4 2010, 06:24 AM

QUOTE
...fly by wire question.
Boeing might have introduced that with the 787, but I don't think even the 777 has it.

B777 apparently has FBW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777, here is a discussion how it differs from the one at Airbus: http://www.askcaptainlim.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=631:how-does-the-fly-by-wire-in-boeing-777-differs-from-the-airbus-system&catid=37:airplanes&Itemid=39 A quote from that:
QUOTE
"I think it is fair to note that, 5 out of the 6 A320 crashes were because, in the beginning, pilots did not understand the fly-by-wire system well. So there were 5 accidents due to that. Since 1993, there has only been one such crash."

About B767:
QUOTE
Boeing's conservative approach was illustrated in the 1970s and 1980s when it decided not to include in its 767 more advanced systems such as fly-by-wire, fly-by-light, flat panel video displays, and advanced propulsion systems (Holtby, 1986). Even though the technology existed, Boeing did not believe it was mature enough for the 767.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b767.htm

But do I understand it well the FBW question (now probably answered - no FBW in standard B767 - the N612UA was manufactured in 1983 -http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N612UA - so the FBW is most probably out of question in case of this aircraft) has not much to do with the question whether the plane was hijacked by RC with possible lock out of pilots - as discussed http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20048 or steered by a homing computer through autopilot system and hydraulics anyway (- whether there was FBW or most probably not) as the very unusual properties of the final trajectory at the hardly believable speed with the hardly believable precision against the headwind - especially the almost perfect perpendicularity of the hit - seem to suggest?

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jul 4 2010, 06:48 AM

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jul 1 2010, 03:10 PM) *
Moreover, there's two schools of thought on it, with the anti-FBW argument being that hydraulics give the pilot with more feel and other sensory input while FBW tends to disconnect the senses while reliance on it dulls pilot skill.

Only aircraft with direct mechanical linkages, whether push-pull rods and cranks or cables and or chains, between cockpit controls and flying controls have any direct feel. Even with hydraulic controls (with what we called hydro-boosters, jacks to some) artificial feel has to be incorporated. This is one of the problem areas in the transonic region of flight. Because of the importance of redundancy on flight safety this was the reason why hydraulic flying control systems were duplicated or triplicated, there was also provision of hydraulic accumulators which were cylinders charged to a high pressure with air which became compressed storing hydraulic energy once the engine driven hydraulic pumps were running. Pressure checks and charging of hydraulic accumulators was one of the tasks called for during Daily Inspections (DIs), with sometimes additional checks on Before Flight Inspections (BFIs).

Some aircraft, e.g. the Sea Vixen had deployable ram air turbines (RATs) that used the airstream to drive a hydraulic pump in the case of a double engine failure. The RAT on an F4 drove an electrical generator.

The Hawker Hunter was unusual in that it had a manual reversion capability for lateral flying controls in the event of hydraulic failure.

I recall carrying out modifications to our F4Ks hydraulic systems during 1969 to increase the redundancy in the stabilator controls because the US was losing many in Vietnam due to AAA damage at the tail end with loss of longitudinal control.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 4 2010, 08:26 AM

Just a bit OT here, but this should be mustwatch for all who still play the no-plane card:

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 4 2010, 09:48 PM

NPT/TVF and off topic discussion moved here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20266&st=0&#entry10787425

Posted by: Maha Mantra Jul 4 2010, 10:52 PM

So, does it look like the videos were sped up to fit the radar estimates ?

My experience with computer-controlled hydraulics on wind-turbines gives the edge to turbulent wind, every time. Planes, I don't know.

I believe stall requires a significant change in airspeed for a significant time so the air can re-adhere to the surfaces, so surfaces experiencing stall must be quite hard to be second-guessed by computer-hydraulics. So even hyped-up computer-driven hydraulics would have a hard time guiding an aircraft if you think any of the surfaces would be getting into stall at those speeds and manuevers.

Also air density due to temperature and moisture content has to be considered, these also affect the air resistance. One would think the air was fairly warm, which makes it less dense, but moist which makes it more dense.

Oh, here is a link that shows the perimeter column assembly. The bolted ends were staggered, in at least this photo (scroll down), so there were probably a lot of welded joints, as well as bolted joints to be broken. Also the large areas of mending plates had concrete floors behind them sandwhiched between the perimeter and core columns. So it may indicate to those who know the strength of airframes whether a standard 767 wing can go right through this kind of obstacle.

The thicknesses become thinner as the columns went higher, from what I've read the thicknesses at the two different tower heights would be somewhere between .5" and 1", and the floors were all 5" thick concrete with rebar. The sides were thicker than the fronts/backs on the columns.

The perimeter columns were made of a high-strength alloy also, not a mild steel.

http://stj911.org/blog/?p=325

Posted by: Maha Mantra Jul 5 2010, 01:01 PM

I have a 'Loose Change 2nd edition' dvd and they have a time marker on the collapse of one of the towers and my remote in pause advances 1/30th of a second per click, and I get somewhat roughly 6.5 clicks for the second plane touching and going completely into the tower. So I divided 30 (frames per second) by 6.5 and got 4.6, and multiplied 160 (feet long - 767) by 4.6 and got 763 feet per second or 501 MPH. Its a bit crude, and I'm sure someone could get a more accurate measurement, but its fairly close.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Jul 5 2010, 03:45 PM

One last thing (for now),
It appears that the Boeing had 767s designed for radar and refueling missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767#External_features

Posted by: elreb Jul 5 2010, 05:02 PM

If you believe them, NASA’s “Glenn Research Center” claims that their KC-135 was in flight with a team of scientist from the Johnson Space Center the entire time 911 was going on.

Could not be (N930NA) that was retired. Could have only been N931NA.

The plane was said to have had a history in assisting several research projects at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base.

Posted by: aerohead Jul 6 2010, 03:30 AM

Rob and Omega are correct.


What do you think the yoke was doing in Robs 747 video as the cables
were being stretched and yanked by the fight controls and wings/tail twisting ?
What would a pilot look like if he were trying to hang on to it ?


Hint..........







767-200 is cable, linkage and hydraulic power actuators.
No fly by wire here.

Posted by: Rickysa Jul 6 2010, 10:11 AM

I'm fully on board with the work P4T has done on this...but have wondered....why would "the hijacker" fly so fast anyway?

Really a rhetorical question I guess, since there wasn't one on board...but if I was in the cockpit, flying a heavy and trying to hit a building, I sure as hell wouldn't be firewalling the thrust.

I mean, knocking off a few knots, you are still gonna make a dent in the building...

Hell, I have a hard time lining up the runway in a 172

Rick

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 6 2010, 11:43 AM

QUOTE (Rickysa @ Jul 6 2010, 11:11 AM) *
I'm fully on board with the work P4T has done on this...but have wondered....why would "the hijacker" fly so fast anyway?

Really a rhetorical question I guess, since there wasn't one on board...but if I was in the cockpit, flying a heavy and trying to hit a building, I sure as hell wouldn't be firewalling the thrust.

I mean, knocking off a few knots, you are still gonna make a dent in the building...

Hell, I have a hard time lining up the runway in a 172

Rick


Agreed.

Those who make excuse for the govt story claim these so-called "hijackers" had training and pilots certificates, yet don't understand the meaning of Max operating speeds?

Primary pilots are trained to never exceed red line in the aircraft they fly. They avoid it like the plague and are taught the aircraft may rip apart if exceeded. If there were truly "trained hijackers" on board with their primary goal of flying into buildings, they would stay under red line speeds as they have been taught the aircraft may fall apart at any speed exceeding redline. It is counter intuitive for a trained "hijacker" to exceed redline in order to achieve the primary objective as they would be thinking the aircraft may fall apart before getting to it's target.


In other words, the duhbunkers can't have their cake and eat it too.. .although they try.

Posted by: aerohead Jul 6 2010, 11:58 AM

In my opinion the speed was used as cover.
The higher the speed the less chance you have of
someone getting a really good picture or video of
it. Low and fast like a guided missile. But much slower
than the many fighter planes charged with protecting
our country. "Funny" how none of them intercepted
these planes, especially when their top speed is
well over Mach 2 (over 1300 Knots, 1500 mph).
Hell my old F-4s were rated at Mach 2.2 and were built
in the 60's. Guess the new F-16's and F-15's werent up
to the task.

The 767-200 is no fighter plane.

I guess we're all supposed to sit here and act like
nothings wrong. whistle.gif

Theres one problem with that. Many of us swore an
Oath to protect this country and our constitution from
all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. And history has
proven that governments, without fail, become the
the enemies of the people they promised to protect and
serve.

Posted by: aerohead Jul 7 2010, 12:43 PM

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government
those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted
it into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson



Seems Mr. Jefferson knew a little about Government.


Vote out all incumbents.
Then maybe we can have a new
investigation and stop the madness.

Rob and everyone, thank you for all your hard work and
your love for this country. Keep diggin' brothers.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 7 2010, 01:08 PM

I'm with you Aerohead, all the way! thumbsup.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 7 2010, 08:48 PM

911 is not just about US. Most of the world was deliberately lied to and hypnotized into the support of the neocon compellence doctrines, many countries sucked into neverending wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing), into the unprecendented hypocrisy and servility to certain ruthless elites. The ongoing grassroot research into the truth about 911 gives us hope, the people will ultimately learn the truth how deep the power is corrupted everywhere and will do something about - not just in US, but elsewhere too - because there are many analogies to 911, although maybe not so spectacular ones. So lets keep the good job. thumbsup.gif I think the people if they see at least some of the Americans doesn't want to let this criminals get away with it will realize they can do something about their own things too.

EDIT: I was just again looking into BTS to find out what the N612UA was doing. This I've found:
DATE FltNo orig-dest. W/O time
Sat 9/1 0020 SFO-JFK 7:10
Sat 9/1 0011 JFK-LAX 16:48
Sun 9/2 0010 LAX-JFK 7:09
Mon 9/3 0011 JFK-LAX 16:48
Tue 9/4 0010 LAX-JFK 7:13
Tue 9/4 0005 JFK-SFO 16:39
Wed 9/5 0022 SFO-JFK 8:12
Wed 9/5 0029 JFK-LAX 17:56
Wed 9/5 0018 LAX-JFK 22:25
Thu 9/6 0017 JFK-LAX 10:11
Thu 9/6 0014 LAX-JFK 14:29
Fri 9/7 0845 JFK-SFO 9:35
Fri 9/7 0170 SFO-BOS 14:18

Mon 9/10 0845 JFK-SFO 9:40
Mon 9/10 0170 SFO-BOS 13:44
Tue 9/11 0175 BOS-LAX 8:23

Maybe I missed something, but I can't find where the plane was between 9/7 and 9/10 and how it got from BOS to JFK. Has somebody an idea?

Posted by: dadeets Jul 8 2010, 02:57 PM

I just posted this message to 911Blogger thread on this topic:

Levels of Improbability,

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

Posted by: dadeets Jul 8 2010, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (dadeets @ Jul 8 2010, 02:57 PM) *
I just posted this message to 911Blogger thread on this topic:

Levels of Improbability,

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


Guess I goofed. Those faces should be B's followed by a closed paren.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2010, 04:08 PM

QUOTE (dadeets @ Jul 8 2010, 04:00 PM) *
Guess I goofed. Those faces should be B's followed by a closed paren.



Fixed...

Thanks Dwain... good assessment.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Jul 11 2010, 12:40 AM

Then there is the mathmatical probabillity against no tangible fighter response, no one was found to be blamed or reprimanded, instead all were promoted, destroyed flight controller tapes, three differing official stories from USAF, NORAD, FAA, confusion over Flight recorders being found or not, etc etc. Most every aspect of 9-11 is more improbable than probable regarding the official story. And if its all true, then our "leadership" is so screwed-up, we are facing something just as dangerous through stupidity, as any conspiracy or terrorist plot, and I would have to say that the Government put more into twisting the official account to cover asses and promote cold war stratedgies than give a truthful account to the public.

But then again, there couldn't have been any planes at all, because there weren't any vortexes......

Posted by: SanderO Jul 14 2010, 06:12 AM

In order to know what happened with those planes we can only look to recorded data. This includes the actual performance profiles for the planes which were allegedly involved. There are several places this information can or has been "tampered" with. And without several sources to corroborate the data there is little that can be done than point out things don't add up with the information supplied.

Is the performance described possible for some other air frames which look close enough to the 767 to "fool" eyewitnesses included what is on video footage? If so what planes / airframes might they be? And it was a 767 could it be modified to perform as described by the data?

Could this plane's performance be manually flown by a pilot of nominal skill? Presumably if this type of flight required test pilot experience this would rule out the pilots who were were told flew the plane(s). Can we rule out luck... ie an inexperienced pilot got lucky at the controls?

If the flight path was outside the skill set of manual control for the alleged pilots, could they have used some sort of homing device or autopilot to hit their coordinates. Is this something within the capability of those pilots on those planes?

Is it possible that the air frame was failing, as predicted, in the final moments of flight as it was pushed beyond it's flight profile but continued to strike the target? How long does it take for the plane to fall apart when it exceeds it flight profile? Was there enough time to still hit the target even though is was flying outside its profile?

Can the air speed be coaxed out of the videos of 175 hitting the south tower as a means to confirm or deny what the RADES data reported? Does that plane shown in the video look like it is moving at 510 knots? If trace data can determine the speed at least in the last second, why has this not been done?

If the RADAS data - digital is transmitted and / created isn't it possible that this data was inserted after the fact? Does the destroyed ATC tapes indicate that there may have been other data which shows something very different? What possible explanation could there be of destroying those tapes? Who actually did it and who directed this and who directed him and so forth? Do we know?

Since the building did not collapse from the plane strikes directly, what is the implication of the air speed? Are we to believe that the higher speed caused more penetration and damage to the core columns and that normal speeds would not have done this?

WTC 1 tipped away slightly from the side of the damage indicating that the plane strike may not have directly undermined the top section and caused it to descend. Like felling a tress the top should have tipped toward the wound. Even the south tower tipped to the South East and there was no direct destruction of the east facade by the plane strikes, though there is the suggestion that the SE section of the core was taken out by the plane fuselage and port engine.

Do we know that accurate and reliable remote control and/or homing in technology existed at the time? Even if these were commercial flights, was it possible that they were "electronically" taken over or flown like drones after take off and after some presumed hijacking.

If plane speed was not an issue, that is, in taking the towers down, why issue fall performance data in the first place?

Why are not more eyewitnesses coming forward in one of the most densely populated areas of the world - lower Manhattan to an event which occurred with on a day with unlimited visibility at rush hour when there are 5 (?) traffic helicopters in the sky?

Why is there not more outrage about all the plane anomalies on that day as reported in the OCT?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 14 2010, 09:24 AM

SanderO,

Every single one of your questions (aside from your off topic collapse questions) is answered right here in this thread. Please read it.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 14 2010, 02:26 PM

QUOTE
"why would "the hijacker" fly so fast anyway?"


I would think to be not too late.

To recap what we have:

1. We have the BTS data which show the plane N612UA was consistently and without any unaccounted for flight flying on UAL lines up until 9/07 late evening http://xmarinx.sweb.cz/N612UA-BTS.txt; then the plane disappears from the record and reappears on 9/10 at JFK flying to SFO at 9:40 wheels off.
It is important to note there is NO BTS arrival record to JFK since 9/07 late evening of ANY unacounted for UAL plane whatsoever. So the plane disappeared from schedules in BOS for 2+ days and reappeared at JFK without any record af any unacounted UAL plane landing there or N612UA anywhere else on normal line throughout BTS database - which is rather very suspicious, because other "BTS disappearance periods" one could at certain point find for all the 9/11 planes.

2. There is the record in BTS database wheels off time for N612UA flight 0175 BOS-LAX at 8:23 - , corroborated by the witness Steven Miller an US Airways pilot http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-flight-175-taking-off-from-boston.html EDIT: There actually were acording to 84RADES two planes taking off from BOS around 8:23 - one to Toronto code 3440 landing there at about 9:36; and other with code 1451 flying then to White Plains NY (HPN) landing there at about 9:01 - there is no arrival record of any plane of any airways landing at HPN around 9:01 on 9/11 in BTS.

3. We have the 9/11 Omission report which insists the wheels off time 8:14 - which is partially supported by 84Rades data - not fully, because there actually the radar record begins at 8:16:03,985 in the middle of the Boston Bay at the height 9200 which would suggest average climb rate 70+ feet/sec = 4200+ feet/minute! - EDIT: the Mode C altitude is 6200 - which would mean the climb rate 3000+ ft/min and there I've just found this mysterious 2 objects in one sweep of one radar (one of them being "UA175":


4. Then the 84RADES radar shows the plane makes weird maneuvers - see http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=9179&view=findpost&p=10274079 - although we don't know if it is not just problem of being too far from the RIV radar...
- but what is absolutely beyond my comprehension is the fact the NOR radar (which could corroborate the RIV record) which is much closer and sees all the planes taking off the BOS - didn't recorded the "UA175" takeoff, although it WAS in service during that period of time which can be easily proven* in the 84RADES rawdata - where it have seen other planes between 8:14-8:16.04 in the Boston area - so all the reports the NOR radar was offline during the period due to maintenance are patently false - and this fact alone is one of the direct proofs the 84RADES data were at least tampered with and it alone implies possible criminal investigation against John Farmer who allegedly obtained them on FOIA and subsequently diseminated them and/or against USAF and FBI respectively - as the purported origin of the data - for the federal felony under 18 USC 1001**.

5. and then the plane very quickly attains consistent OVER Vmo speed under 20000 feet - and one must note the plane does this while continuing the climb and long before the alleged hijack - http://xmarinx.sweb.cz/UA175_V_SpLC_chartupdated.pdf.

8. Plane squawks all the way to the WTC, unlike the other 9/11 planes, although changes the code twice at 8:47 never sending hijack code.

7. The flightpath from BOS to WTC2 is according to the 84RADES approx 385 miles which if were flown during the time of 8:14 - 9:02.59 = 49 minutes - would mean the average grondspeed of the plane was 400+ kt - including takeoff and the climb to the cruising altitude.

So they were quite in a hurry. The plane was at least 14 minutes late at the takeoff - 14 minutes in terms of possible intercept in the area of NJ-NY after the first plane crash to the WTC1 would - if all was normal - mean eternity.

*


**18 USC 1001 reads:
"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both."

Posted by: GroundPounder Jul 15 2010, 06:40 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jul 12 2010, 06:26 PM) *
5. and then the plane very quickly attains consistent OVER Vmo speed under 20000 feet - and one must note the plane does this while continuing the climb and long before the alleged hijack - http://xmarinx.sweb.cz/UA175_V_SpLC_chartupdated.pdf.


if i'm reading dMole's graph correctly, the plane is actually accelerating as it's climbing between 8:24 and 8:31 and like you said tume, over vmo the whole time.

the 'elephant in the room' got a mention over at cryptogon.com yesterday...

Posted by: amazed! Jul 15 2010, 01:54 PM

Well, it's safe to say that 18USC1001 has been violated many many times in furtherance of the events of 11 September. whistle.gif

Posted by: Obwon Jul 15 2010, 03:04 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jul 14 2010, 07:12 AM) *
In order to know what happened with those planes we can only look to recorded data. This includes the actual performance profiles for the planes which were allegedly involved. There are several places this information can or has been "tampered" with. And without several sources to corroborate the data there is little that can be done than point out things don't add up with the information supplied.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon
We have to, at some point in time, look at other parts of the story and see how these discrete findings mesh with the overall story. This is because, while certain things, taken
by themselves, could be true, for the narrow situation being examined, we may find that there is no room for it, or it's consequences, to flow naturally into the entire concept of the
story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

Is the performance described possible for some other air frames which look close enough to the 767 to "fool" eyewitnesses included what is on video footage? If so what planes / airframes might they be? And it was a 767 could it be modified to perform as described by the data?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon
Here is a question directed solely at the possibility of modification, that might have allowed
this instant possibility. But in the totally of the story, several questions emerge that make such theorizing impractical, to say the least.

Try to imagine the necessary situation: That two aircraft undergo very expensive preparations, that will enable them to fly faster than sound(?)or close to it, and still
maintain their maneuverability.

What are the chances that two such "experimental" aircraft, will be deployed to carry regular airline passengers over the Boston to LA route on the same day, at the same airport, just a few gates apart, and with departures separated by just a few minutes? Most especially on a day of the week, where statistics show that one plane will not be profitable in these time slots, because there simply is no demand?

So that now you need a proactive reason for these "coincidental" events. There has to be a real and tangible explanation, as to why something not normally done, was actually done. That provided, in a timely fashion, to properly prepared aircraft, loaded with civilian passengers, to be delivered into the hands of the skyjackers who needed them.

Clearly pre-preparation is not the way to go, because it raises more, ever unlikely occurances than it explains. And that's without supposing that these planes underwent the weeks of testing required to certify the modifications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

Could this plane's performance be manually flown by a pilot of nominal skill? Presumably if this type of flight required test pilot experience this would rule out the pilots who were were told flew the plane(s). Can we rule out luck... ie an inexperienced pilot got lucky at the controls?

If the flight path was outside the skill set of manual control for the alleged pilots, could they have used some sort of homing device or autopilot to hit their coordinates. Is this something within the capability of those pilots on those planes?

Is it possible that the air frame was failing, as predicted, in the final moments of flight as it was pushed beyond it's flight profile but continued to strike the target? How long does it take for the plane to fall apart when it exceeds it flight profile? Was there enough time to still hit the target even though is was flying outside its profile?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

Rob has answered that question before, I believe he said that the limits are THE LIMITS!
Once they are exceeded the aircraft has failed. So, it is not a range or a "red zone" where anything might happen, it is in fact a "hard failure end point". If I understood him correctly.

Also, if I understood what has been said so far, by the experienced pilots here; The flight surfaces twist and contort and stall. Lose the needed laminar airflow, which takes quite a bit of time to recover. Time any pilot, human or computer, would not have, in a plane whose flight path must be adjusted in milliseconds. The plane can't be steered while it's flight surfaces are inoperative because they have lost their laminar airflow.

If that is so, and I've read right, then the only possibility for a computer control system, would have been to line the aircraft up with it's target, before there was any loss of control, so that momentum could carry it to target. But, since this was clearly not done, control was exerted throughout the excessive flight portions, then computer control could not be the case.
Most especially because if it were to be, we're right back where we started with the early flight testing regime, that is highly unlikely to produce these aircraft on carrier routes for commercially operated passenger airlines, where they could be skyjacked as necessary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

Can the air speed be coaxed out of the videos of 175 hitting the south tower as a means to confirm or deny what the RADES data reported? Does that plane shown in the video look like it is moving at 510 knots? If trace data can determine the speed at least in the last second, why has this not been done?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

I believe they said they got their speeds from frame counts. Where these are the only speeds
that produce the needed frame to frame displacements. These are the supposed "real time" videos of the events people claimed to have witnessed, at the very time it was being
recorded. They are officially accepted as the critical evidence that we are told can be
relied upon, in determining the truth of the matter. After all, the 9-11 Commission relied
on them in formulating it's conclusions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

If the RADAS data - digital is transmitted and / created isn't it possible that this data was inserted after the fact? Does the destroyed ATC tapes indicate that there may have been other data which shows something very different? What possible explanation could there be of destroying those tapes? Who actually did it and who directed this and who directed him and so forth? Do we know?

Since the building did not collapse from the plane strikes directly, what is the implication of the air speed? Are we to believe that the higher speed caused more penetration and damage to the core columns and that normal speeds would not have done this?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

I would believe that the higher/highest speeds, would be needed to explain why the
aircraft were completely absorbed by the buildings, without leaving stray peices outside, to be observed fluttering to the ground. But that alternatively, if the films were mere
animations, in the time allotted to create them, the speed of the planes was just too
difficult to control for. Remember, any video would have to be created using footage
obtained contemporarily with the state of the area as it was at that time. So, footage
would have to be obtained with whatever was going on in the vicinity at that time, then
quickly edited and prepared for release, in the intervening 18 minutes. Because the second
strike had to be shown live. A helicopter could have crashed into the towers for example or a cloud could have formed, and it wouldn't do for the "live" shots to have missed it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

WTC 1 tipped away slightly from the side of the damage indicating that the plane strike may not have directly undermined the top section and caused it to descend. Like felling a tress the top should have tipped toward the wound. Even the south tower tipped to the South East and there was no direct destruction of the east facade by the plane strikes, though there is the suggestion that the SE section of the core was taken out by the plane fuselage and port engine.

Do we know that accurate and reliable remote control and/or homing in technology existed at the time? Even if these were commercial flights, was it possible that they were "electronically" taken over or flown like drones after take off and after some presumed hijacking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

Now that would be a pretty sight indeed, to have both the flight crew and the skyjackers
fighting together to regain control of the plane. See what I mean about the "totality of events"? To assume that remote control was applied after the skyjackers took over, would be to make them unnecessary. They would no longer be in control of their destiny as it were.
They'd be unwilling passengers trapped in the web themselves. Then why should they be on board at all? Just to remove the flight crew from the cockpit? What if they couldn't succeed?
What then? The planes are on a tight schedule, if remote controls are to fly the planes, they have to be in irremediable control of the aircraft. If so, then there's no real role for the skyjackers, they're just five or six useless men along for the ride.

Worse yet, some skyjackers were "pilots" and some were "muscle", and the "muscle" did not know what the mission was, least of all that it was a suicide mission. So it'd be reasonable to assume they'd side with the flight crew, in trying to regain control of the plane. I couldn't think of a less predictable scenario.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon

If plane speed was not an issue, that is, in taking the towers down, why issue fall performance data in the first place?

Why are not more eyewitnesses coming forward in one of the most densely populated areas of the world - lower Manhattan to an event which occurred with on a day with unlimited visibility at rush hour when there are 5 (?) traffic helicopters in the sky?

Why is there not more outrage about all the plane anomalies on that day as reported in the OCT?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obwon
As we saw in the background stories written about what happened that day, most people, who were eyewitnesses were confused and struggling to stabilize themselves, those who had
a story to tell, were ignored by the media, who had quickly turned their focus to the more sensational parts of the story. Once the televisions began playing and replaying the videos of what happened, nobody who saw anything different, could really be sure of themselves. Least of all they wouldn't want to tell a conflicting story on their own, too great a chance they'd be held up to ridicule by people who had "seen it all themselves" even if only videos of it on television. Let's say if you had seen something different than two jets crashing into the buildings, would you want to argue with those people who will say they were watch in real time on tv? Who would have noticed a five, ten or twenty second delay?

The "waters" are further muddied by the endless replays. Even the people who believe they were watch "real time" events, taking place "live" on tv., would not know, to the second, what replay they actually saw. People who saw their first replay at 10am, would still later claim they were watching "real time live" tv.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 15 2010, 08:35 PM

QUOTE
"if i'm reading dMole's graph correctly, the plane is actually accelerating as it's climbing between 8:24 and 8:31 and like you said tume, over vmo the whole time."

To me from the chart it looks like the plane keeps altitude of 25000 ft 8:24-8:27 and then continues to climb until like 8:32 and getting to 34000ft.
Actually from the Avg5 speed - the yellow dots (average for the period of five radar sweeps) it looks like the plane consistently exceeds the Vmo 360 kt already slightly before 8:19 - after just 5 minutes into the flight - at the altitude about 15000 ft and continues to climb until 8:24 with the little keeping of altitude for 3 minutes. Then after the plane climbs higher above 20000ft, we maybe cannot talk about Vmo exceeding anymore, because for higher altitudes there is Mmo 0.86 Mach, because the speed of sound is considerably lower at higher altitudes than at lower altitudes due to low temperature and air pressure - for example at 35000ft the speed of sound is almost 100 mph lower than at the sea level.
Just for a hint the pressure at 35000ft is 3.7 times lower than at 1000 ft, the air density close to sea level is 2+ times higher than at the cruising altitude, so is the aerodynamic resistence of the air, so the plane faces much more aerodynamic stress at lower altitudes flying fast than at the cruising altitude, so therefore there is the Vmo limit -beyond the fate of the airframe integrity is uncertain, although I'm not sure if the plane would fully fall apart if flying 500+ kt at low altitude, because we have no test data and about the tunel tests.
What I would be interested in is what will happen to a normal 767 pilot if he flyies with the plane over Vmo - would there be some checks of the TAS and any repercusions against such a pilot exceeding consistently Vmo by the airlines if they find out? Pilots, anybody?

To me it looks the consistent high speed of the aircraft right from the take-off - before the alleged skyjackers taken over the plane - right to the target looks like it wasn't a normal flight. Especially when I consider other circumstantial oddities as missing NOR data, missing BTS data for 9/07-9/10, conflicting take-off time, no record of the alleged hijackers at BOS, missing ATC tapes, no aircraft parts positive identification, missing FDR and CVR but passengers allegedly identified by DNA even some hijackers ID's, missing FAA radar data, failed intercept even the plane transponder still on and another plane just crashed into WTC 15+ minutes before...other planes oddities, no proper fully subpoenated and adequately funded investigation but names of the hijackers and bogeyman known next day even the OBL initially denied involvement and later not wanted for 9/11 by FBI, John O'Neill, Silverstein getting away with "two separate attacks" and "pull", conflicting accounts of president and the cabinet members, Afghanistan planned before 9/11, false Iraq pretexts, PNAC doctrine exactly answering cui bono...

Posted by: Ricochet Jul 16 2010, 02:53 PM

I found the transcrips to the NORAD tapes. Speed 387 knots.


QUOTE
ChZMCCUpsi deDRMlDAT220031219[1]
22 BACKGROUND FEMALE: We have a mode 3. He does
23 have a mode 3. (inaudible) JFK?
24 MALE SPEAKER 1: Where's the (inaudible)?
25 BACKGROUND MALE: (inaudible) 15.
0006
1 MALE SPEAKER 1: 40 miles North.
2 BACKGROUND FEMALE: 115 North.
3 BACKGROUND MALE: Reason (inaudible).
4 BACKGROUND FEMALE green (I ) center. Hello.
5 BACKGROUND MALE: (inaudible) 190.
6 BACKGROUND FEMALE: 190.
7 BACKGROUND MALE: 387 knots.
8 BACKGROUND FEMALE: 387 knots.
9 BACKGROUND MALE: Last known altitude is flight
10 level 290, but we cannot confirm that.
11 BACKGROUND FEMALE: 290. 09 you have time to
12 give me any other amplifying information on it?
13 BACKGROUND MALE: You want the type and stuff?
14 what do you mean? what do you want for information?
15 BACKGROUND FEMALE: Yeah, like passengers on
00:10:00 16 board, where it came from.
17 (simultaneous background conversations)
18 MALE SPEAKER 1: Okay.
19 BACKGROUND MALE: 767, 200 series.


http://911depository.info/NORAD/Tapes/Transcript%20NEADS%20Channel%2002%20MCC%20Op.pdf

Also as a side note someone does say no passengers. page 5

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 16 2010, 04:22 PM

QUOTE
I found the transcrips to the NORAD tapes. Speed 387 knots.


Isn't this rather about flight AA11? Seems to me they are talking about "American 11" (0003-20 and many times later) and "Mode C 1443" (0011-8,20)

There actually is about such a speed in RADES just about the time we can estimate in the transcript from the approx positioning of the plane inm the transcript. Here's the dMole's AA11 http://xmarinx.sweb.cz/AA11_Vel42NChart.pdf

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 16 2010, 04:28 PM

Yes, thats AA11, its also at altitude 40 north.

Posted by: elreb Jul 16 2010, 05:09 PM

Where are pages 11 to 16?

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 16 2010, 05:26 PM

QUOTE
Where are pages 11 to 16?

What pages from where, I don't understand?

Posted by: elreb Jul 16 2010, 05:34 PM

11 to 16 are missing!

From Ricochet http://911depository.info/NORAD/Tapes/Tran...%20MCC%20Op.pdf

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 16 2010, 06:06 PM

Weird, I see there the pages 11-16 without problem - how can any pages be missing in continuous pdf ? - I still don't understand. Elaborate.

http://911depository.info/NORAD/Tapes/Transcript%20NEADS%20Channel%2002%20MCC%20Op.pdf

copy/paste from pdf
Ch2MCCUpsi deDRMlDAT220031219[1]
6 MALE SPEAKER 2: Okay, thank you, sir.
7 BACKGROUND MALE: (inaudible) copy that.
8 BACKGROUND MALE: MCC is Major Nasypany.
9 BACKGROUND MALE: All right, thanks.
10 MALE SPEAKER 2: Yeah, he was calling with the
11 airborne (inaudible).
12 MALE SPEAKER 1: Sure.
13 BACKGROUND FEMALE: (inaudible).
14 MALE SPEAKER 1: I just needed to see far out
15 for that.
16 BACKGROUND MALE: No. They've got all that
17 stuff back there.
18 (Phone dial)
19 BACKGROUND MALE: 20 miles South (inaudible).
20 BACKGROUND MALE: The world Trade Center's right
21 over there.
22 MALE SPEAKER 3: They say he just crashed into
23 the World Trade Center. That was the last call.
24 BACKGROUND MALE: We know.
25 MALE SPEAKER 1: Right there. .-
0026 (J
1 MALE SPEAKER 3: All right. This is what I ' / (-
2 want. That's what supposedly is on it.
3 BACKGROUND MALE: That one's going into
4 (inaudible).
5 MALE SPEAKER 3: Okay, good. All right. Our
6 last actual reported position if he didn't crash into the
7 world Trade Center was 20 miles South of JFK.
8 MALE SPEAKER 1: okay. Our last z-point.
9 MALE SPEAKER 3: So I want you to, take h.ijn down ,/\/v
10 into this area. -• ft \N r/o^^N *V ^ I 5
11 MALE SPEAKER 1: Puts him in "(inaudible) .
12 MALE SPEAKER 3: Hold as needed, whatever
13 altitude they need to go for Center to make that work is
14 fine with me.
15 BACKGROUND MALE: (inaudible).
16 MALE SPEAKER 3: But -- well, that's the area I
17 want him to go in hold.
18 MALE SPEAKER 1: We have my pri -- I
19 (inaudible).
20 MALE SPEAKER 3: Right in that little gap there.
21 MALE SPEAKER 1: That last z-point, making sure
22 FAA clears out a route.
23 MALE SPEAKER 3: All right. This is what we're
24 doing, we're taking him down into this area.
25 MALE SPEAKER 1: (Inaudible},105.
0027 LW/\'hW/
1 MALE SPEAKER 3: He'll hold for now.
2 BACKGROUND MALE: Right.
3 MALE SPEAKER 3: whatever altitude Center needs
4 for them to do that is fine. But --
5 BACKGROUND MALE: so you want me to (inaudible)
6 Center to have him hold.
7 MALE SPEAKER 3: Their weapons team shouldn't
8 have to. The fighters should be talking to Center.
9 They're going to pass that through the fighters exactly
10 what we want them to do. Now --
11 MALE SPEAKER 1: FOXV?
12 MALE SPEAKER 3: Yeah.
13 BACKGROUND MALE: we're not going to mess with
14 (inaudible).
15 MALE SPEAKER 3: No, no. Because if he's still
16 airborne -- okay, right past us anyway.
Page 11
...etc...

Posted by: elreb Jul 16 2010, 06:50 PM

OK,

I move to another computer and it worked...guess you can delete my comments.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 16 2010, 10:53 PM

QUOTE
I move to another computer and it worked...guess you can delete my comments.

Yeah, it was most probably a glitch in the SW, I see the pages without problem.

Posted by: panthercat Jul 21 2010, 05:11 PM

Whatever the airspeed, there should have been one hell of a lot of FOD left at 4 supposed crash sites. Where in bloody hell is it? 4 large twin engine transports don't crash without a trace of their ever having existed. Disintegration is not an option! There isn't just an elephant in the room, the room is full of elephant poop. A little bit of kerosene could not have been responsible for all of that damage to buildings 1 & 2, so that was a farce. There are those who believe the WTC was nothing more than an exercise in insurance fraud made to look like an attack. Anything is possible.

Posted by: elreb Jul 21 2010, 06:03 PM

Quote from Elreb:

“This was one of my old points that even if the planes were made of “Gold” or “Lead” the melt would still remain”.

This statement was not intended to agree with the no plane theory but to point to a cover-up.

911 set a world history record for the lack of an investigation. Even the simple fact that it happen on 9-11 is an elephant because the Hijri calendar does not match western humor. Only David Addington could of thought of this!

No one person could “Con-Trap” this unless they worked in cooperation with a structure in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by wealth, family ties, military control, or religious hegemony.

The “Bad” guys are still winning.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Jul 21 2010, 09:24 PM

If this was a sort of 'Northwoods' scenario, we might have totally developed flights complete with fake people (aliases) and perhaps nobody on the planes.
Is it possible that stripped planes devoid of cargo and passengers, seat etc. could acheive greater aerodynamic performance ?
I've looked at the frames of the second plane hitting the tower a couple more times and its right at 6.5 frames out of 30 in one second which I calculated once to be about 501 MPH.
Some of the 767s used for refueling planes or radar planes may have been structurally beefier, I don't know. Possibly beefier and lighter at the same time ? Or just as light as possible ?

I have great respect for the pilots here, but there is some question, since obviously none of you have pushed a 767 to the point of structural failure or to the maximum low altitude speed potential.
I'll take your word based on your experience, but kind of like it comes down to the witnesses and the light poles at the Pentagon, it comes down to the videos and the pilot's expert testimony regarding the Trade Center.

And as far as off topic theory goes, it could also be that the government isn't stupid and knows very well it was the Saudis who did it, allowed and helped it to happen, then made up a story and used it to move into and control Mid East oil. Sorry Rob. Then real physics questions and every other question comes up again.

I'm liking lightened aircraft to get somewhere in the middle between videos and known flight characteristics/ pilot experience. It would lean heavily towards computer controlled flight over untrained people, in over-the-top flight manuevers.
I think we've been talking about unusual climb/acceleration speeds here lately, that might indicate stripped planes.

I was joking about the vortexes, I had some personal messages....

Posted by: aerohead Jul 22 2010, 02:43 AM

The plane that was proposed in Northwoods
was to be an unmanned drone, via a mid air
plane swap in Florida. The real plane lands with the
CIA operator passengers who boarded under fake names
posing as college students, and the drone proceeds south
and as to be remotely detonated near Cuban airspace,
and sold as a Cuban Mig attack to start the chiefs war.

That was 1962.
Is there any doubt that a 4 plane Northwoods
was possible by 2001 ?

Only if your colossally ignorant of the
facts and the capability of the military industrial
machine that has seized the reigns of our country.



This IS the very definition of false flag terrorism.
Read plan #8 and see if you see any similarities to 911.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods








The question here is............do you have the courage to see
and face Truth, even when it reveals your most horrifying fears.

Or do you shrink into the comfort of denial, and the false security
of propaganda.



Either way, the truth remains, and its nothing new.
The history of this would is littered with tyrants and
psychopathic elitists. And thats precisely what our forefathers
fought to escape from and why they created this Republic
and a Constitution that protects the citizens from
all forms of government tyranny.

"a Republic ma'am, if you can keep it."
We are a breath away from losing it forever.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 22 2010, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ Jul 21 2010, 10:24 PM) *
I have great respect for the pilots here, but there is some question, since obviously none of you have pushed a 767 to the point of structural failure or to the maximum low altitude speed potential.


We already have data which shows the 767 cannot reach such speeds.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

....and of course a Vg diagram with the speeds set by Boeing.



The speeds are impossible --as reported-- based on data collected from EA990 which suffered structural failure at 425 KEAS in a dive, hijacker "skill" reported, and the collective statements made by those with extensive expertise. It is all explained in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Posted by: elreb Jul 22 2010, 08:22 PM

Just a thought...


Since 1991, 254 Phantoms have served as unpiloted flying targets for missile and gun tests conducted near Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida and Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. The use of F-4 drones (designated QF-4s) is expected to continue until 2014.

When an airframe is needed for target duty, one is pulled from storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in the Arizona desert. The airframe is given refurbished engines and instruments, then sent to Mojave Airport in California. There, BAE Systems turns the aircraft into remote-controlled drones, installing radio antennas and modifying the flight controls, throttles, landing gear, and flaps.

It is said that each QF-4 carries a self-destruct device mounted on their wrist computer.

Just wondering about the Boeing KC-767 the military aerial refueling and strategic transport aircraft developed from the Boeing 767-200ER. The tanker received the designation KC-767A in 2002.

Posted by: RickMason Jul 23 2010, 01:13 PM

The last paragraph of your comment is

QUOTE (elreb @ Jul 21 2010, 07:03 PM) *
Quote from Elreb:

“This was one of my old points that even if the planes were made of “Gold” or “Lead” the melt would still remain”.

This statement was not intended to agree with the no plane theory but to point to a cover-up.

911 set a world history record for the lack of an investigation. Even the simple fact that it happen on 9-11 is an elephant because the Hijri calendar does not match western humor. Only David Addington could of thought of this!

No one person could “Con-Trap” this unless they worked in cooperation with a structure in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by wealth, family ties, military control, or religious hegemony.

The “Bad” guys are still winning.

exactlyThe last paragraph of your comment is what was at work here. One other thing, a lot of people seem to believe that large numbers of players are required to pull it off and cover it up, when the opposite, in fact, is the truth. In this case, the fewer people involved, the better the chances. To make this happen, as few as four strategically placed "directors" caused enough confusion and chaos for just the right amount of time to pull this off.

Posted by: Obwon Jul 24 2010, 07:22 AM

QUOTE (RickMason @ Jul 23 2010, 02:13 PM) *
The last paragraph of your comment is

exactlyThe last paragraph of your comment is what was at work here. One other thing, a lot of people seem to believe that large numbers of players are required to pull it off and cover it up, when the opposite, in fact, is the truth. In this case, the fewer people involved, the better the chances. To make this happen, as few as four strategically placed "directors" caused enough confusion and chaos for just the right amount of time to pull this off.


Okay then... S.P.N.O.O.T.S. (Smallest Possible Number Of Operatives To Succeed). Instead of NPT.

Either way, such theories better account for the totality of the evidence, not just the evidence concerned with the planes themselves, but with the planning, the planners, the training and travels of the skyjackers, the missing evidence(s), the trails that missing evidence leaves or leads to. The banking and bankers involved, the players like Jack Dekker, Jack Abramoff, Huffman Aviation and a whole host of other players who have some role in this entire conspiracy mess. So, when you look at the planes and the flight paths and speeds, and you listen to the tapes and the content of the "calls from the planes", you listen to the firemen, first responders, the pagers, the building collapse analysis. Any theory of how it happened, has to encompass much more than just a few skyjackers steering planes into buildings.

By themselves, these skyjacked jets, should have been enough to damage the WTC's. Okay, but then read about the skyjackers, their supposed motivations, see if they were the kind of people who seem motivated that way. An extreme "religious fundamentalist", who drinks, hires hookers, haunts dancing clubs and gambles for pleasure? He loves to flash big wads of cash and drinks heavily. Gee, the only way to get a guy like that on one of these planes is to trick him. But... He's one of the pilots, a leader, he's Mohammad Atta! Oh yeah, and he's surrounded by a cast of CIA assets who are engaged in drug trafficking, with apparent ties to the Whitehouse, even going so far as to paint their planes as TSA planes, like the one caught in Mexico with 137 suitcases, loaded with 5.5 tons of cocaine. It was based on the same land as the Huffman Flight School where Atta and crew were supposedly trained to fly piper cubs.

Anyway, I'll just stick to providing the facts, you can make up your own minds as to what's most likely going on. Only thing is, there's way too much other evidence, that impacts the SPNOOTS and NPT, but isn't appropriate for discussions that focus on the technicals of the flights alone.

Obwon

Posted by: RickMason Jul 24 2010, 10:51 AM

I agree that this forum should focus on technical and flying issues, I was just expanding on a point already made. It's my humble opinion that any speculation about this is a job for "Occam's Razor"! Always a pleasure, gentlemen...have a nice day!

QUOTE (Obwon @ Jul 24 2010, 08:22 AM) *
Okay then... S.P.N.O.O.T.S. (Smallest Possible Number Of Operatives To Succeed). Instead of NPT.

Either way, such theories better account for the totality of the evidence, not just the evidence concerned with the planes themselves, but with the planning, the planners, the training and travels of the skyjackers, the missing evidence(s), the trails that missing evidence leaves or leads to. The banking and bankers involved, the players like Jack Dekker, Jack Abramoff, Huffman Aviation and a whole host of other players who have some role in this entire conspiracy mess. So, when you look at the planes and the flight paths and speeds, and you listen to the tapes and the content of the "calls from the planes", you listen to the firemen, first responders, the pagers, the building collapse analysis. Any theory of how it happened, has to encompass much more than just a few skyjackers steering planes into buildings.

By themselves, these skyjacked jets, should have been enough to damage the WTC's. Okay, but then read about the skyjackers, their supposed motivations, see if they were the kind of people who seem motivated that way. An extreme "religious fundamentalist", who drinks, hires hookers, haunts dancing clubs and gambles for pleasure? He loves to flash big wads of cash and drinks heavily. Gee, the only way to get a guy like that on one of these planes is to trick him. But... He's one of the pilots, a leader, he's Mohammad Atta! Oh yeah, and he's surrounded by a cast of CIA assets who are engaged in drug trafficking, with apparent ties to the Whitehouse, even going so far as to paint their planes as TSA planes, like the one caught in Mexico with 137 suitcases, loaded with 5.5 tons of cocaine. It was based on the same land as the Huffman Flight School where Atta and crew were supposedly trained to fly piper cubs.

Anyway, I'll just stick to providing the facts, you can make up your own minds as to what's most likely going on. Only thing is, there's way too much other evidence, that impacts the SPNOOTS and NPT, but isn't appropriate for discussions that focus on the technicals of the flights alone.

Obwon

Posted by: amazed! Jul 26 2010, 01:40 PM

Elreb

Thanks for that info on the KC 767 designation in 2002. I was not aware that it had actually been designated.

In my opinion, that aircraft is the favorite candidate for being what actually struck the towers, at least the second one.

Posted by: elreb Jul 26 2010, 04:13 PM

If you really wanted to get sophisticated...take the KC 767 freighter combi configuration and incorporate a time delay 1250 pound C-4 shape charge in it…pointing down towards the foundation of the building.

Kill two stones with one Bird!

Posted by: elreb Aug 5 2010, 12:06 AM

Thanks, Rob and Dwain,

These were platform planes designed to perform …under stressful circumstances.

I’ve never seen so much “Real World” during a drill.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 5 2010, 11:03 AM

QUOTE (panthercat @ Jul 19 2010, 08:11 PM) *
Whatever the airspeed, there should have been one hell of a lot of FOD left at 4 supposed crash sites.

This is what I would have expected too, as would anyone who has been to the crash site of a HEAVY - I have.

Also peripheral parts, wing and tail tips, would likely be shaken off during impact as the stresses whip through the structure. Our F4ks had a habit of losing lift suddenly when just off the round-down and dropping onto the deck sometimes bursting tyres (450 psi) and ripping undercariage doors and U/C leg pipe runs (hydraulic and pneumatic) right off. Plenty of rubbish flying through the air to dodge. - Terrific!

I well remember one that dropped into the round-down slamming its hook right up and through the aft fuselage structure riping the deck-hook damper out of its mountings. It left a trail of buckled titanium heat shield panels as well as inner stainless steel and asbestos (Wha-Hey!) heart shield blankets and rubber along the deck. When struck down into the hngar we found that the wing tips were all buckled and they had hit nothing. That is the force of hitting the deck hard and the shock running along the main spar to which the U/C was attached.

FOD - oh the memories of 'FOD Plods' down the deck with the grit laden and burned kersone filled wind trying to hurl you into the island or out into the green-stuff for a float test!

All those heat shield panels on the F4s were something else when it came to removal and refit for routine inspections. One of those tasks relegated to SMP (Self Maintenance Period) whilst in a harbour somewhere and often after a night run ashore seeing the sights - Lauderdale, Mayport etc.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Aug 5 2010, 06:08 PM

OK. So its physically impossible for a 767 to go 500 MPH in a slightly diving banked turn at low altitude.
I'm going to look at all the various videos and see how many frames it takes for the second aircraft to go from nose to tail into the building. I've only looked at one a few times. If there is any discrepency, then some of the videos were modified, if not, then every video has been modified or the 767 is not a standard 767 and is going 500 MPH.

Or like some propose, its all a hoax and there were no planes. Then maybe you might as well say life is a virtual reality, and 9-11 never really happened.

I'm sure we can at least agree that an inexperienced pilot couldn't have done the manuever. And we seem to agree that an unmodified 767 couldn't have done the manuever. And it looks like even an experienced pilot probably couldn't have done so well either.

It brings up a lot of questions, like, why go so fast (as already pointed out) and why modify a plane to do something extraordinary ?

Some whiz could possibly determine air resistance versus thrust of a 767 at the particular air density.
Maybe using calculations of acceleration and climb during take-off. You know, if a 767 can climb at a certain speed at a certain angle with a certain load up to a certain cruising altitude, there could be an indication of possible suicide speeds at low altitude.
If not a standard 767, then what would the modifications involve ?

It seems implausible that the videos were faked and thousands of people remain silent when told aircraft hit the towers, if indeed, no planes were involved. Its even odd to think that the videos were altered, but what is weirder, modified 767s or modified videos and modified radar ? What's the purpose ?

I can see a delay in the demolition of the towers so electronic "accounting" can be done, and maybe gold plundering in the basements, so an explanation why the towers weren't brought down at the same time as airplane impact is plausible to me. But why screw around with what would be a straight-forward plane-into-tower scenario ? Of course the Pentagon has that same problem.

Over-engineered false-flag simulations ? Jeez.

Well, maybe the no-planes thing has some merit. Eye witnesses to the event have to number in very high numbers.

The 767 that had two debris fields when it dived into the ocean, was there a black-box data recording of g-forces ? Do we know what manuevers it was doing when it broke-up ? I don't recall seeing a lot of info except that at a certain speed, it apparently broke up.

Can we determine g-loading on the 767 that hit the second tower by the arc-radius method ?

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 5 2010, 06:31 PM

QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ Aug 5 2010, 07:08 PM) *
I'm going to look at all the various videos and see how many frames it takes for the second aircraft to go from nose to tail into the building.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Video%20Data%20Impact%20Speed%20Study--UA175.pdf (8mb pdf)

Summary
Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)





QUOTE
It brings up a lot of questions, like, why go so fast (as already pointed out) and why modify a plane to do something extraordinary ?


Fighters were inbound from Otis ANG.

QUOTE
Some whiz could possibly determine air resistance versus thrust of a 767 at the particular air density.
Maybe using calculations of acceleration and climb during take-off. You know, if a 767 can climb at a certain speed at a certain angle with a certain load up to a certain cruising altitude, there could be an indication of possible suicide speeds at low altitude.


"Whiz kids" at Boeing already performed such calculations based on flight and wind tunnel testing. They came up with a max operating limit of 360 knots.


QUOTE
If not a standard 767, then what would the modifications involve ?


Get us the parts and we'll tell you.

QUOTE
It seems implausible that the videos were faked and thousands of people remain silent when told aircraft hit the towers, if indeed, no planes were involved. Its even odd to think that the videos were altered, but what is weirder, modified 767s or modified videos and modified radar ? What's the purpose ?


To beat a Fighter to it's target perhaps? Speculation of course.

QUOTE
I can see a delay in the demolition of the towers so electronic "accounting" can be done, and maybe gold plundering in the basements, so an explanation why the towers weren't brought down at the same time as airplane impact is plausible to me. But why screw around with what would be a straight-forward plane-into-tower scenario ? Of course the Pentagon has that same problem.

Over-engineered false-flag simulations ? Jeez.


Only the perps could answer. But just like there have never been a steel skyscraper which collapsed due to fire before 9/11, there has never been an aircraft which exceeded it's maneuvering speed by more than 220 knots, or it's operating speed by 150 knots, and survived.

If you find one, please let us know.



QUOTE
Well, maybe the no-planes thing has some merit.


I disagree. Many people witnessed aircraft hit the towers, including people I know personally.

QUOTE
The 767 that had two debris fields when it dived into the ocean, was there a black-box data recording of g-forces ? Do we know what manuevers it was doing when it broke-up ? I don't recall seeing a lot of info except that at a certain speed, it apparently broke up.


Please watch the presentation or read this thread. It's covered.

QUOTE
Can we determine g-loading on the 767 that hit the second tower by the arc-radius method ?


Yes.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19752&view=findpost&p=10783786

Posted by: elreb Aug 6 2010, 06:41 PM

Not to pick on Maha

But in respect to the facts, I had already pointed to the airframes in question, as given refurbished engines and instruments; then sent to Mojave Airport in California.

There, BAE Systems turns the aircraft into remote-controlled drones, installing radio antennas and modifying the flight controls, throttles, landing gear, and flaps. (Or whar ever)

Retagged by “Elreb” as KC-911A and KC-911B, they were never originally refurbished to kill WTC1 or WTC2.

It was a drill that went “Real World”. Something Mode S, backdoor remote control sent the planes to new targets. NORAD was at a loss! It is just a drill.

Otis was at Battle Stations “Ready 5” sitting on their nuts for 40 minutes waiting to scramble.

Who held them back and why?

PS: Rob please correct my story to make it flow better!

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 8 2010, 10:16 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Aug 4 2010, 10:41 PM) *
There, BAE Systems turns the aircraft into remote-controlled drones,

BAE (and constituent companies), but not the only ones, have had a long history of producing remote control target drones and using some decidedly heavy metal:



De Havilland Sea Vixen D3 (conversion from FAW2)

then there was the Gloster Meteor U15 before that and unlike the Sea Vixen D3 much used in the drone role.

More on target drones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_drone

then there are the known, and recorded elsewhere on this forum, Boeing aircraft used for crash tests.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Aug 16 2010, 09:04 PM

I have no objection to being picked-on whatsoever.

I live one mile from BAE systems in Mojave. I'ved worked outside for 19 years in this area. I have not seen 757, or 767 aircraft being flown in this area very much, but yes a little. There are some aircraft of that type right now sitting in the field. I have seen low flying 747s years back. I know one person who works in a salvage company in Mojave airport and I can ask him if he knows anything, and I know one other person who was developing his own two person planes there. They also refurbished tanker aircraft there maybe ten years ago. Its not a very lively airport and planes get noticed pretty easily, as they take off just north of town which has a Northwest prevailing wind. That also means that planes can be flown in from the East without much visibillity coming from the direction of Edwards Airforce base. Still, I haven't witnessed what seems like development of 767 aircraft here.
Mostly its weird planes like the Voyager, the "space plane" and all the seemingly endless creations of Burt Rattan and Scaled Composites.

I did look again at a few different videos and even the first plane was about 7 frames although its hard to see, the second, right about 6.5 frames from nose to tail into the building out of 30 frames per second.

I guess we could just leave it as impossible. But I like your points.

So we agree they had to be modified aircraft and remote controlled to do what they did.

The extra speed makes sense in every aspect as to pull off such an event.

Is the performance of the whole flight abnormally quick ? I know someone was mentioning the flight path.

There was a twin engine white comercial style aircraft flying south from Mojave a couple weeks back. That's unusual though.

Typically up high its Edward's Air Force aircraft it seems doing tight manuevers or supersonic.
The hills I work on are right on the cruise missile test course to China Lake. It used to be the old Wild Weasle F-4s chasing them, now F-18s or F-16s.

Off-topic, what do any of you think about "chemtrails" ?

Posted by: elreb Aug 17 2010, 10:24 PM

Dam Johnny, “Maha”

Good show…thank you…BTY look at Google Earth…I see heavy air craft at…35.059444, -118.151667


You are right in the middle of my Old Spanish Trail & Mohave River Trail.

Could have used you on our “Frontier Adventure Series”

If things get better, we will give you a job. Can you write?

http://www.silverspurbooks.com/

AS far as "chemtrails" I was one of those who got agent "Purple" at Eglin AFB.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Aug 18 2010, 10:30 PM

Thanks for the link regarding the Mojave area.
I've been a wind-turbine tech out here for, actually, 20 years now. I see a lot of the sky around Mojave.
I have an uncle who worked at China Lake Naval Weapons Center for 35 years. I gave him some DVDs from Pilots for Truth and Architects for Truth last year, haven't talked to him. Maybe I should.

I'm not aware of agent purple. I don't want to digress, but I'd assume that somewhere on this site would be a great place to discuss "chemtrails".

If we assume the planes were modified and remote controlled, we'd look into anything unusual involving passenger lists, abnormal departure and flight path data etc. Some would say there's enough data already looked at: Too fast and manueverable to be human piloted standard aircraft.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Aug 20 2010, 12:28 AM

Yeah, gee Rob I finally looked at your links, I'm only half bad.

I did observe the wing bend on the plane. 3 Gs huh ? Does that include 1 G for gravity, or would it be 4 Gs ?

I do like the thought trail involving how all these seemingly odd ways to stage an attack may involve fooling air defense. With many excercises, "hijacked" airliners looking like military flight performance aircraft could add to the confusion as stated by traffic controllers. Maybe on the screens during the excercises, the "hijacked" aircraft were given false IDs as simulated or real friends or foe aircraft.

Somebody must have a bit of a complex in remembering the events on that day as excercise turned into reality.


Mod edit: Off topic portions of this post removed. Please post your inquiries in the proper forum sections.

Posted by: SanderO Aug 20 2010, 05:55 AM

Does this site have a consensus about the air speeds? Were they false ie inserted data and impossible for the supposed air frames used... or were they accurate and modified or substitute air frames were used? If the latter, there are several options for the "actual" flight and the high jacking I would think.

One being that the perps simply had to dispose of those passengers and crew and since they were about to cause major damage to the WTC and Pentagon, a few hundred passengers and crew murdered would be part of the plan. Whether there were hijackers of those original flight seems to be moot as hardly ANY pilot could hit those targets flying those maneuvers at anything close to the reported speeds. This seems to indicate that the planes were flown "electronically" as drones or similar and the hijacking aspect was only necessary to pin the blame on AQ and Islamic radicals.

So we have to decide if the actual flights were disposed of (even hijacked) and then taken over electronically so no one could do anything on board. Or were they modified planes which were boarded and then flown into their targets electronically.. even "hijacked" but ultimately not under the control of the hijackers as claimed.

I would look for the simplest scenario to accomplish the "mission" from the perps POV. To my way of think it might be:

Modified planes were prepared for the attack and substituted for the commercial air frames. The hijackers were "managed" by their "handlers" and told to practice or even carry out this multi hijacking believing they would fly the planes into the targets. They were dupes of course and only carried out the first stage of the high jacking, but did NOT control the planes.

Perps had the ability to insert data into the ACT system and knew of the military exercises at the time and knew that they could easily confuse ATC, NORAD operators and so forth with the inserted data. When it was too late the FAA ordered all flights grounded because they realized they had no idea of what was going on.

Air defenses had never faced a shoot down of a domestic airliner and they too were confused of where the attack was coming from since the RADES and ATC data was so unreliable during and now after the attack. Essentially the perps knew that with distraction and confusion... the way a magician acts... they could do their heinous act.

Since the planes could not destroy the towers, they were an excuse and trumped up cause for the actual engineered destruction of the entire WTC complex. The excuse would be planes start fires which become uncontrollable and will allow tall buildings to collapse. Not likely true, but that would be the official explanation and they sought means to conceal the identity of the planes striking the towers as well as make sure that they hit the towers "as planned". The planes had little to do with the actual collapses, and in the case of the south tower may have messed up some of the explosives etc because of the off center location and angle of the hit. But it didn't really matter because they measures to take down the towers were not plane strike dependent.

Inserting false data seems to be a doable act with few people required. My take away is that this was a insider rogue intel-military op (coup) which likely was planned well in advance of the elections and putting W and Cheney in there was part of getting it all in place to happen. There were many nefarious goals accomplished by what they did and many benefited and bought into the official narrative for that reason. The overall goal seems to be about growing the control and influence of the military and intel over our nation's agenda. And we were shown in spades how much power and control the military and intel have over our society. They took us exactly where they wanted this to go and there was hardly a pip from the frightened public.

Air speeds ultimately don't matter and all this keeps us focused on the details and not the bigger picture of their motives and agenda. Sorry for the rant and going off topic.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Aug 27 2010, 06:22 PM

I think the wing bending indicates high speed, and it really seems like the planes were going very fast. Otherwise, the videos and radar data would have to have been altered, and one would wonder why anyone would want to make a real event appear unrealistic by speeding things up.

Operations Northwoods was to use CIA agents with elaborately developed aliases to board planes that would have remote controlled planes take over their flight path. I read somewhere that flight 77 reportedly (by local news) landed at an airport and the passengers were moved into a NASA building.

The fact that flight 77s data recorder is so far off proves the official story is false. Especially with the witnesses. That's beyond a doubt.

We seem to have a concensus that the planes were modified and remote-controlled if video and radar data are relatively correct (and maybe if the speeds are "normal" and video and data are false too) . It might be measurable as to how far debris travels out the side of the towers, regarding speed.

Comparing debris travel at the 500+ knots versus 300-350 Knots speeds. I'm not sure about how to measure trajectory arcs. Of course we don't really know the weight and shape of the debris. Maybe the street corner where the engine landed may be an indicator, but a lot of speed could be reduced by collision with the building.

Posted by: dadeets Sep 15 2010, 08:57 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Aug 20 2010, 05:55 AM) *
Does this site have a consensus about the air speeds? Were they false ie inserted data and impossible for the supposed air frames used... or were they accurate and modified or substitute air frames were used? If the latter, there are several options for the "actual" flight and the high jacking I would think.


I came up with one other possibility which I included in a talk I gave in Ventura, CA, on 9/11/10. That is, a 767 was cleared to higher airspeeds in a flight test program, with flutter monitoring and so forth, such that they actually had confidence it could be flown at the higher airspeed reported.

Although I didn't consider this likely, I included it as a possibility for completeness.

Dwain

Posted by: Maha Mantra Sep 19 2010, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (dadeets @ Sep 13 2010, 11:57 PM) *
I came up with one other possibility which I included in a talk I gave in Ventura, CA, on 9/11/10. That is, a 767 was cleared to higher airspeeds in a flight test program, with flutter monitoring and so forth, such that they actually had confidence it could be flown at the higher airspeed reported.

Although I didn't consider this likely, I included it as a possibility for completeness.

Dwain

Posted by: Maha Mantra Sep 19 2010, 10:14 PM

I know Rob and other pilots are emphatic regarding maximum low altitude speeds.
Boeing gives a max low altitude speed, and I wonder if there is a safety margin before bad things start to happen.
Its been said that higher than 300-350 knots was "impossible" at low altitudes by highly credible "authorities".
What can we do beyond that ?
And then because credible data/videos etc. indicate 500 + knots, it may be a bit grey, but some explanation has to be entertained, and if plane/pilot "enhancement" doesn't work, then I don't know where to go with it.

Posted by: albertchampion Sep 19 2010, 11:14 PM

come on guys, no matter how it happened, it was a reichstag fire event. a usg/mossad orchestrated false flag.

atta, shehi, et alia were probably assassinated by us intell operatives. they never boarded any aircraft that day.

no one as knowledgeable of the usa and its defense systems and its strategic economic vulnerabilities as a bin laden would have devised a plan incorporating hijackings[and the failure that would have ensued ordinarily]. so too, no bin laden would have attacked the wtc. neither the wrong side of the pentagon.

i am going to say it again, any real, coherent enemy of the great satan would have leased aircraft and loaded them with explosives. and launched within minutes of the targets. and the targets would have been east coast petrochemical complexes, indian point nuclear plant.

that has always been the dog in the manger, so to speak. the question that no one asks. why would any opponent of the great satan risked an op with hijackings and targeted what were essentially non-strategic assets?

Posted by: SanderO Sep 20 2010, 07:29 AM

They were largely symbolic of US hegomny - finance and the military. But that's off topic re air speed.

Can someone clarify the following:

How much time were the planes reported to be traveling at 500 knots?

How long does it take for such a plane to accelerate to that speed if one "floors it"?

How long would it take for a plane which accelerates to this speed to break apart? That is... how long would it continue to move in the direction it was heading before it completely broke apart? What actually breaks off - the wings and tail?

Just curious.

Posted by: amazed! Sep 20 2010, 09:08 AM

SanderO

I'm not convinced that Boeings were actually doing 500knots that day. In the first place, we know that because of radar "injects" as a part of Vigilant Guardian the radar data was for all practical purposes meaningless. Injected targets were not real airplanes, but only electronic images on the scope.

I'm not convinced that it was a Boeing that struck first. The only pictures I've seen of the first airplane to hit were poor and very short. It might have been a Boeing, or maybe not.

I've not flown Boeings, so I can only speculate. Most airplanes will not reach the airspeed redline in level flight--it takes some sort of dive, even with the throttles wide open.

Exceeding the redline does not mean that the airplane will instantly fall apart, or even that it will necessarily suffer structural damage. I know that for little airplanes, the certification rules require about a 10% cushion over the published numbers regarding a failure of the structure.

In short, exceeding the airspeed limitations does not necessarily mean the structure will fail. It may damage the structure somehow, but it does not mean that it will fail. And in some hypothetical case about the structure actually failing and coming apart, there are many many variables.

Posted by: rob balsamo Sep 20 2010, 10:34 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Sep 20 2010, 08:29 AM) *
How much time were the planes reported to be traveling at 500 knots?


I calculated the last minute of travel, the average is 500+ knots. Feel free to calculate the moment the aircraft exceeded it's Vmo of 360 knots. CSV file is attached at bottom of this post.

QUOTE
How long does it take for such a plane to accelerate to that speed if one "floors it"?


Depends on pitch attitude, engine thrust and aircraft structural capability (drag, control surface flutter, etc). This is basic physics and the four fundamentals of flight.

Get us the engines and pitch data and we can tell you. Unfortunately, the FDR data is not available for the WTC aircraft.

With that said, it is impossible for a standard 767 to reach such speeds based on precedent set by Egypt Air 990, limits set by the manufacturer, and numerous experts with thousands of hours in the 767. NASA Flight Director Dwain Deets describes the reported speeds as the "Elephant In The Room". He is right.

QUOTE
How long would it take for a plane which accelerates to this speed to break apart? That is... how long would it continue to move in the direction it was heading before it completely broke apart? What actually breaks off - the wings and tail?


According to EA990, a few seconds over Vd. EA990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 knots. It lost wing panels, it's left engine, and horizontal stabilizer skin.

Please read the thread and view the presentation SanderO as most of your questions are answered.

@amazed,

The Radar simulated inputs were input on NEADS/NORAD radar screens. This is different than the RADES and ASR radar used in calculating speed as used by the NTSB. The radar used for calculating the speeds is the same radar that is used to vector aircraft in the NYC Terminal area. There weren't any sim inputs on those screens. This will be covered thoroughly in our next presentation "http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20596".

To all, there is a margin of safety built into the speeds. See this Vg diagram that was put together using the V-speeds of a 767 as set by Boeing based on flight and wind tunnel tests.

The Yellow "Caution" zone is your "margin of safety".



If you would like to learn more about the above diagram, here is a short video tutorial offered by an Aerobatic flight school that is pretty good.

http://www.apstraining.com/v-g-diagram-discussion-with-aps-training/

Keep in mind that not only has a steel skyscraper never collapsed due to fire and gravity prior to or after 9/11, but never has an aircraft exceeded it's Max Operating by 150+ knots, it's Maneuvering speed by more than 200 knots, pulled G loading, remained controllable, or held together.

 RADES_Radar_Data_UA175_CSV.csv ( 28.66K ) : 58
 

Posted by: SanderO Sep 20 2010, 12:13 PM

Anything that collapses does so with the assist of gravity. But connecting fire damage to turning enough of the structure to putty so it can't carry the loads above is a new one. Lot's of oddities on 9/11/01.

Posted by: rob balsamo Sep 20 2010, 09:33 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Sep 20 2010, 01:13 PM) *
Anything that collapses does so with the assist of gravity....



Mea Culpa, SanderO, allow me to emphasize the part you missed.

"....a steel skyscraper never collapsed due to fire and gravity prior to or after 9/11."

In other words, many steel skyscrapers collapsed due to explosives and gravity.

Hope this helps.

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: amazed! Sep 21 2010, 08:02 AM

Thanks for the info Rob.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Sep 29 2010, 12:44 AM

The graph seems to indicate low altitude/high air density due to the 360 knot max safe operating speed.
It does go up to about 450 knots. The graph grid is a bit weird for speed.

So a 767 at 3 Gs (as plotted by the arc radius) and 425 knots is about 120 knots over stall, and at the structural failure limit.

My understanding of stall is that the airflow seperates from the wing, resulting in a loss of lift.

So, an airplane couldn't maintain a 3 G turn, 120 knots over stall. Or at least it would seem to be pushing outside any kind of intended flight path and be in certainly unknown flight trajectory territory unless the craft was tested at such speeds and made to be able to stay together at those speeds. I don't think that could be done from caves in Afghanistan.

What could be done to standard shaped wings to maintain stall to higher airspeeds ? Vortex generators help raise stall airspeed. It seems like reducing weight/wing loading would help some, but not really affect how the airflow interacts with the wing curvature. So maybe a different wing profile ?

Some of the 767s designed for tanker/radar missions had bigger engines, so is it possible the thrust could be there for near 500 knots low-level flight ?

So, are we looking at a plane with a different wing profile, lighter weight, and stronger engines, and reinforced airframe, or where did all the videos of the planes hitting the towers come from, and are they speeded up ?

The videos I've looked at show the second plane at 6.5 frames nose to tail into the building out of 30 frames per second, and that is about 500 MPH or 435 knots. They don't seem to vary. I'll go back and look at the analysis about plane speed based on video measurements. If I recall they were measuring part of the aircraft.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Sep 29 2010, 12:49 AM

Actually it doesn't indicate stall does it ? Just at the structural failure point.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Oct 31 2010, 12:00 AM

Its been awhile and I figured someone would have said I was dumb. So I'll do it. Maha, you're dumb. OK.

So, the graph basically shows that stall is relative to speed and that as speed increases, stall becomes less possible, but as Rob has shown well, the lift increases as well and moves reward causing severe handling problems, as well as aileron reversal etc.

The graph seems to show that airspeed at low altitude can be acheived up to structural failure. So for me, it seems like the plane could have been going as fast as at least the videos depict it as going, and that it is getting well into structural failure levels.

So, in my measily mind, it looks like more of a military industry style endeavor to take a 767, make it reliably withstand the forces and fly reliably and very accurately to accomplish this particular mission.

Is there any data or experience of flying such a manuever even at high altitudes from pilots ? Not equating air density but actual flight characteristics regardless of air density? Has anyone found a 767 to start handling abnormally when turning one at high speed at high altitude ?

Air density increases lift. it increases resistance. It increases drag.

There must be a comparison between wing geometry and components between aircraft designed for varying air densities at high speed. Meaning the size shape etc of the airfoils between a 767 and F-15 for example, and how the differences would show why a 767 couldn't do what an F-15 could at the considered speeds and air densities.
How easy would it be to hit the towers in an F-15 at 500 mph? Anyone know ? I'm just trying to increase my perception of the unlikeliness of a 767 doing what it did, and wonder more clearly what would have had to be done to make a 767 capable of that manuever.

Right now, I believe no amatuer pilot could have done it, and have doubts about a human doing it at all, and wonder if the plane with advanced control systems remotely could have been guided and/or what changes would have to be made to have even remotely piloted the plane and have it reliable and accurate.

Then the flashes at impact become more interesting too.

Posted by: amazed! Nov 14 2010, 02:08 PM

It is likely that at least one of the aircraft had been modified into tanker configuration, thereby making the airframe stronger.

Posted by: Scooby Mar 10 2014, 01:20 PM

Just a quick note about the air speed. I have argued the “flying way beyond specification” case several times and always hear the response “We don’t know if that speed chart is accurate”.

On Netflix there is a series about airline disasters (I forget the name). One of the episodes is called “Mixed Signals” and it shows a 757 getting mixed air speed signals which eventually cause the plane to stall because the pilot thinks the plane is going too fast. In the CVR recreation they show the plane flashing over speed alarms and beeps when the plane gets too close to 350 knots at 10,000 feet. So a 757 has a very intricate warning system to prevent over speed structural failure. This is great independent verification of a 757 speed specifications at lower altitudes. It also is a strong data point that what hit the Pentagon could not have been flight 77 – a 757 flying 480 knots twenty feet above ground.

Posted by: Peterauty May 27 2014, 10:24 AM

I understand these are reported impact speeds. Can anyone tell me for how long these maximum speeds were sustained or was it maybe a case of revving the engines to maximum at the last minute when controllability and any need to keep the airplane intact would no longer be an issue?

Posted by: onesliceshort May 27 2014, 11:05 AM

QUOTE (Peterauty @ May 27 2014, 04:24 PM) *
I understand these are reported impact speeds. Can anyone tell me for how long these maximum speeds were sustained or was it maybe a case of revving the engines to maximum at the last minute when controllability and any need to keep the airplane intact would no longer be an issue?


According to the official story, no:

http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c1/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf






Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAaEZEB850M

Posted by: onesliceshort May 27 2014, 11:12 AM

"UA 175" Stable 1.5 Mile Turn Toward WTC 2 (Enhanced View)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgMsDfJ-gB0

That is ridiculous.

Posted by: rob balsamo May 27 2014, 11:38 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 27 2014, 12:12 PM) *
"UA 175" Stable 1.5 Mile Turn Toward WTC 2 (Enhanced View)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgMsDfJ-gB0

That is ridiculous.


Well... to be clear....

Ridiculous for a standard 767 flown by a 'pilot' with zero time in type and less experience than one who couldn't control a Cessna 172 at 65 knots....

It is probably why the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 were never positively identified....


pilotfly.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)