Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Latest News _ Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 12 2011, 08:14 AM

Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility


Pilots For 9/11 Truth Co-Founder http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Balsamo along with Core Members http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Aimer and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Deets were recently invited by Gov. Jesse Ventura to discuss and attempt to recreate the attack on the Pentagon for the lastest investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. Unlike outdated simulator recreations offered by others, this attempt is based on the actual data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act. For a more detailed analysis based on data and precedent along with interviews of numerous experts, please see Pilots For 9/11 Truth presentations "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store.



I felt this would be easier to share and view if this scene were available as a stand alone.

Spread it everywhere!


Special thanks to Gov. Jesse Ventura and his crew for investigating and broadcasting information in which Mainstream Media (and some alternative media) refuses to acknowledge or investigate. If you wish to see more investigations into various topics, please contact http://www.trutv.com/contact/index.html and demand a third season with Gov. Jesse Ventura.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 12 2011, 08:54 AM

Good idea Rob!
thumbsup.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 12 2011, 11:19 AM

Also, here is a visual depiction based on data.



The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

Some have made the claim the above diagram is "fake". Those who make such a claim clearly aren't aware that a Vg can be plotted when the V-speeds are known.

They claim the above diagram is "fake" because it doesn't provide a weight or altitude range, nor G-load range. Actually, it does.

Again they demonstrate their lack of research ability and lack of aeronautical knowledge.

The speeds are based on the weight ranges in the http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/a8694be7b7ac6c178625731e006944bc/$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf which also give an altitude range.

VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.


The above diagram is good from sea level, up to almost 18,000 feet. Above that, the Vg diagram actually moves to the left. In other words, structural failure speeds are less in terms of Indicated at higher altitudes. Real pilots can see this as they climb. The Vmo indicator (Barber pole) actually moves to a lower airspeed once you climb above the crossover altitude. The reason for this is the aircraft is no longer limited by raw dynamic pressure, rather it is now becoming limited by the effects of Mach (both drag related, which is why EAS is calculated using Mach number and good to above Mach 2). A good explanation of this is shown here.

http://www.biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/flight_instruments/_popup_for_40_vmo_mmo.htm

The G-Loads are based on FAA Regulation, as is every Vg diagram, except military.

For those who wish to learn more regarding Vg diagrams and the effects of weight/altitude, click here...

http://www.apstraining.com/v-g-diagram-discussion-with-aps-training/

If you come across someone who thinks our diagrams are "fake", feel free to give them the above video course, or tell them to call their local flight school.

The above speeds as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing are also confirmed based on precedent, using Egypt Air 990 which suffered in flight structural failure 5 knots above Vd (Vd defines the structural failure line for every Vg envelope). See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" for in depth analysis.

Posted by: 911analyzer Jan 12 2011, 02:12 PM

Rob darnit, I am trying to get out of the movement (just due to "I can't take it anymore" syndrome), but you (and Jesse) make it hard to do with articles and videos like this. Excellent work as always.

While so many of us can't deal with it anymore after so many years, you and crew just keep on going. Amazing!

It's the fight to rewrite history- with the truth. You deserve a medal.

Posted by: panthercat Jan 12 2011, 03:01 PM

Four 100 ton (ok, I may be off a few kilos, but that isn't my specialty, as I only got to keep them flying, I didn't get to break them) chunks of metal disappeared, one of them supposedly striking the Pentagon, an ostensibly old, dry wooden building. Where was the debris? There should have been a huge FOD field, but there wasn't. Someone claimed the wings folded back like an F-14, but that idea was laughable. You'd have to be off your meds to believe that story. Official photos showed fire trucks on the lawn where there should have been large chunks of large, twin engine jet transport. For those who stated the airplane disintegrated, please explain to me how all that metal could go up in a puff of smoke and leave all of that dry wood. In my day, we called that FM (expletive deleted) Magic). The damage to the building was very limited to a single small area, which didn't correspond to the shape of the aircraft, especially at the supposed impact point. The trailer on the starboard side should have been reduced to garbage, but it was untouched. To top it all off, the damage was localized to the outer most ring, which means a very limited part of the airframe should have entered the building, leaving a good share of a large, twin engine jet transport hanging outside for the world to see. Please explain the physics of how you can make that much metal disappear in a wood structure without completely demolishing the wooden structure, using fire as a means of destroying the metallic object. As for magic, I believe the airplanes, at least in the tower videos were there to distract our attention from what actually happened.

Posted by: panthercat Jan 12 2011, 03:07 PM

Does your e-mail have a way to divert unwanted messages into the trash? That way you don't even have to know anything was received, going on your merry way believing what you wish. While I may not believe the official line, it is your prerogative to do so.

QUOTE (911analyzer @ Jan 10 2011, 05:12 PM) *
Rob darnit, I am trying to get out of the movement (just due to "I can't take it anymore" syndrome), but you (and Jesse) make it hard to do with articles and videos like this. Excellent work as always.

While so many of us can't deal with it anymore after so many years, you and crew just keep on going. Amazing!

It's the fight to rewrite history- with the truth. You deserve a medal.

Posted by: richard cranium Jan 12 2011, 03:30 PM

QUOTE (911analyzer @ Jan 10 2011, 06:12 PM) *
Rob darnit, I am trying to get out of the movement (just due to "I can't take it anymore" syndrome), but you (and Jesse) make it hard to do with articles and videos like this. Excellent work as always.

While so many of us can't deal with it anymore after so many years, you and crew just keep on going. Amazing!

It's the fight to rewrite history- with the truth. You deserve a medal.




Yes, I agree, you all deserve medals. Thank you Rob, Rusty, Dwain, and everybody else involved. Your courage, patriotism, tenacity, and passion for the truth keep me going. You really help make it easier for us "non aviation professionals" to spread the "word". And, of course, the word is "truth".

Thank you all. I feel so damn priviledged and honored to be able to hang out with you guys.

handsdown.gif


rc

Posted by: paranoia Jan 12 2011, 08:27 PM

not to complicate things, but for the sake of accuracy:

which path did they (rusty and the skeptic) try to fly? the FDR path? the RADES84 path? or the actual one flown on 9/11?

(the show's animation clip above skips the spiral/loop altogether - from 00:45 to 00:55 video time)


2 of those paths (the ones that were NOT flown on 9/11) are fairly similar and stay west of the river (potomac) and go as far west as springfield, which in turn makes it easier for the plane to line up with (and follow) columbia pike visually to the pentagon. the real path flown on 9/11 on the other hand, crosses east of the river (straying into p56's restricted airspace), and does a smaller loop that only reaches the western edge of arlington, which consequently has the plane carrying northern momentum as it crosses over columbia pike (near or over paik's auto shop), which in turn carries the plane north of the citgo (and gave/gives rise to the kind of contradictions/implications that have helped us to build a case AGAINST the official "conspiracy theory").


all 3 paths are complex and would require skill and experience (things hani was lacking), but do we know which path they attempted to fly for the ventura show?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 12 2011, 08:43 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jan 12 2011, 08:27 PM) *
not to complicate things, but for the sake of accuracy:

which path did they (rusty and the skeptic) try to fly? the FDR path? the RADES84 path? or the actual one flown on 9/11?


The "path" flown was recreated as close as possible to the path according to the NTSB data/profile.

The purpose of the above recreation was to demonstrate that an aircraft cannot maintain control at 110-130 knots above it's max operating limit near sea level. So, it doesnt really matter what "path" it took.

Posted by: 911analyzer Jan 12 2011, 09:45 PM

QUOTE (panthercat @ Jan 12 2011, 04:07 PM) *
Does your e-mail have a way to divert unwanted messages into the trash? That way you don't even have to know anything was received, going on your merry way believing what you wish. While I may not believe the official line, it is your prerogative to do so.


rolleyes.gif

I think you misunderstood that message. I am not getting out cause I believe the official story. At all. And really who can ever forget 9/11 and get out completely? I am just trying to reclaim my life a bit. I still look occasionally but I am not letting it consume me anymore, which it did for years. The message was to Rob as encouragement and admiration of the crew's persistence. That is all.

The simulation test is more testament to my belief that it was not 77 that hit the Pentagon. The plane couldn't take the stress at that speed and altitude whether there was a qualified pilot flying it or not. Beyond that, speculation is all that's left. Been there, done that. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Posted by: paranoia Jan 12 2011, 10:16 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 12 2011, 08:43 PM) *
The "path" flown was recreated as close as possible to the path according to the NTSB data/profile.

The purpose of the above recreation was to demonstrate that an aircraft cannot maintain control at 110-130 knots above it's max operating limit near sea level. So, it doesnt really matter what "path" it took.


thanks for the clarification.
salute.gif

Posted by: IslandPilot Jan 13 2011, 01:04 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 12 2011, 08:43 PM) *
The "path" flown was recreated as close as possible to the path according to the NTSB data/profile.

The purpose of the above recreation was to demonstrate that an aircraft cannot maintain control at 110-130 knots above it's max operating limit near sea level. So, it doesnt really matter what "path" it took.

I've ALWAYS understood 911 aircraft speeds exceeding VMO limits by more than 100kts, are highly unlikely, if not impossible. If we "factor in" Hani Hanjor at the controls; NO ONE who understands how an airplane FLIES can believe it. That has a ZERO PERCENT probability of happening IMO.

What's the probability if Chuck Yeager, or an electronic "guidance system" was flying the airplane?
What are the "chances" of an airplane flying 100kts OVER VMO, for 10 seconds, without destroying itself?
1000 to 1 maybe, in still air, in "unaccelerated" (no turns, climbs, decents) steady state flight?

If that speed was held for 10 seconds, what is the probability ANY pilot could keep that aircraft POINTED in the same direction for the next 10 seconds, another 1000 to one maybe??

We are up to 1000 x 1000 = 1,000,000 to 1 already...
If we begin banking for a 300 degree turn, increasing the aircraft "G" loading during the next 10 seconds; what's the probability of that? 1000 to 1 again?

One Thousand x One Million to ONE gives us a "BILLION to ONE" probability of "controlling" such an aircraft, without destroying it, for only 30 seconds.

With "Billion to One" odds behind us, each additional SECOND will INCREASE the odds for aircraft destruction exponentially. And we are continuing to increase our G loading as we enter our 300 degree turn, with more than a minute to go before we roll out??

IF we CAN roll out, and then INCREASE our speed even more... can we then point the airplane at a "specific" target on the ground.... I DON'T THINK SO!

While all of US are aware the excessive speeds are "impossible", we can't "prove" it. What I'm trying to point out here, is how the "odds" AGAINST successfully flying an airplane well above VMO, increase DRAMATICALY in a very short time.

Yet, we are told this aircraft maintained excessive speeds for OVER HALF AN HOUR! BULLSHIT!

The use of a Flight Simulator to prove whether a specific aircraft "can" or "cannot" be flown and controlled at any speed exceeding its VMO is NOT VALID, and this should be pointed out. A Simulator is "programed" with algorithms to "match" known handling and performance characteristics of a specific aircraft. It "knows" nothing about Aircraft Aerodynamics beyond what it has been "told".

Since a Simulator is not an AIRPLANE, it can be "made" to fly at any speed without "destroying" itself, unless it "hits something", like the ground,... or buildings programed into its "database".

Your simulator videos have PROVEN TO ME how UNLIKELY it is for ANYBODY to have flown a large plane into the Pentagon, after making that turn. From what I saw, I KNOW I couldn't hit the "virtual Pentagon" in that "Video Game", even if you slow it down to 300kts. When Rusty shows us what 500kts looks like THAT CLOSE to the GROUND... YIKES!!!

If you don't fly an F16 fighter every day, you'll NEVER be able to fly ANY airplane into the Pentagon like that, even if its a SUPERSONIC BOEING 757 or 767. You got me CONVINCED 100%.

Good work guys! Keep On Keeping ON! thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jan 13 2011, 07:22 AM

QUOTE (IslandPilot @ Jan 11 2011, 04:04 AM) *
If that speed was held for 10 seconds, what is the probability ANY pilot could keep that aircraft POINTED in the same direction for the next 10 seconds, another 1000 to one maybe??

Which reminds me of what we knew as auto-stab to overcome PIO (pilot induced operation) at high subsonic speeds. This caused the crash in which Geoffrey de Havilland was killed in a tailless type the DH108. It is thought that by being a big chap he broke his neck by repeated bashing into the cockpit canopy structure. I well recall how white, drawn and shaken was one Sea Vixen pilot when assisting him with seat pins and straps after an episode of auto-stab failure and PIO. Does a 767 have PIO supression features built in?

Posted by: onesliceshort Jan 13 2011, 09:22 AM

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1179

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"


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



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


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

QUOTE
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.


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


Posted by: kenchevis Jan 13 2011, 10:23 AM

I have recently joined the group and so I may not be up to speed on subjects that may have already been discussed. The question I have centres around the flight time from the turn over West Virginia to impact at the Pentagon. Given distance, wind direction, weight, etc., what was the airspeed calculation?

I was astounded by the info in the video, particularly the discussion concerning the highjacker not being able to control a 172. During my RCAF flight training I recall (vividly) transitioning from the T-33 to the CF100 and realizing how different the flight characteristics were. And he could run a 757 but not a 172? If you believe that I have a bridge to sell.

Posted by: paranoia Jan 13 2011, 03:02 PM

since we're discussing hani hanjour, here's a little tidbit:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18229&view=findpost&p=10778239



law abiding citizen who pays his tickets? or a terrorist who's ready to die less than 20 days later for "jihad"?
dunno.gif



dec2012 - while searching the court database for some unrelated info, on a whim i decided to check on hani's speeding ticket (above), and although other old tickets (my own and others) are archived and STILL available, the hani ticket has been REMOVED from the database. sad.gif

Posted by: msfreeh Jan 14 2011, 06:34 PM

The FBI is the agency that has been charged with investigating 911 including the Pentagon explosion. Why did the FBI miss this information?

Posted by: Johnny Angel Jan 14 2011, 09:45 PM

QUOTE (msfreeh @ Jan 12 2011, 10:34 PM) *
The FBI is the agency that has been charged with investigating 911 including the Pentagon explosion. Why did the FBI miss this information?


Why dont you tell us... Why did the FBI miss this information..??
..Why did the NIST director say there was no molten steel at ground zero..??

Posted by: paranoia Jan 14 2011, 11:45 PM

QUOTE (msfreeh @ Jan 14 2011, 06:34 PM) *
The FBI is the agency that has been charged with investigating 911 including the Pentagon explosion. Why did the FBI miss this information?


if you mean the paid ticket, i'd say im sure they DID find it (i found it publicly with ease so im sure they did too). but why they didnt report or include it in their hani the osama-guided, suicidal-for-jihad, mister "dangerous terrorist" profile that was fed to the public, well i think they answer is obvious- it just didnt fit!

and its not like refusal to pay the ticket would have hindered hani in any way, especially for a period as short as 20 days. it would take awhile for hani's license to get suspended for not paying the ticket, long enough that 9/11 would have passed already. and last time i checked, they still let you on planes even if you have a suspended license or an outstanding traffic ticket, so why would hani bother paying that ticket?

the likeliest answer would be that he did not intend to die anytime soon, nor did he know that he would be disappearing soon (and imo - end up dead by someone else's hands). he expected to be around and to need his driver's license, afterall thats why most people pay their tickets - that and the fact that they dont want their insurance getting cancelled or its premiums raised.

Posted by: dundas42 Jan 15 2011, 06:04 AM

Hello Rob,

Not too long after the atrocity of 9/11, I wrote to you asking what point would be served in continuing any investigation by your organization and should some thought not be given to the relatives of all those murdered on that day. and all the hurt an investigation by you would unnecessarily cause to them.

I was totally wrong and the CD's purchased from you,reports read on your site and this new CD certainly have all raised questions which I fear will never be answered. But....you all must continue to pursue this and someday the truth will be known. I appplaud the efforts of Pilots for Truth to try to factually prove the Government account is not based on any fact.

Best Regards from Northern Ireland
Iain

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jan 15 2011, 07:02 AM

QUOTE (dundas42 @ Jan 13 2011, 10:04 AM) *
Best Regards from Northern Ireland
Iain

'ere! What you doing using my Avatar pic'?

Will cause confusion.

Posted by: Bernie Jan 15 2011, 05:33 PM

QUOTE (panthercat @ Jan 12 2011, 04:01 PM) *
As for magic, I believe the airplanes, at least in the tower videos were there to distract our attention from what actually happened.


Of course they were! A conjurers trick, 'keep watching my moving hand, while the other one has the pigeon up its sleeve'. I'd go somewhat further and suggest the two WTC planes were remote controlled B737's most likely 'seeking' a homing device planted in the buildings.

I have long believed this after seeing images of the Jet Engine lying under an awning in Murray St following the impact on the south tower where in one video clip, a flaming object can be seen hurtling out of the side of the Tower. The Jet engine in Murray St was identified by Boeing mechanics and other train spotting types as a CFM56 model, far smaller than the B767 Engines. Needles to say it was disposed of with indecent haste to parts unknown just as was most of the other evidence.


I posted this suggestion in another forum some weeks ago and received an interesting reply from a former Air Traffic Controller, which I paste below:

“I was an FAA air traffic controller at one time. “Full-performance-level” is what they called those of us who were completely qualified, i.e. certified at all control positions. Prior to that, I was a combat air controller in the Navy aboard a carrier. All this is only to say that I have seen and experienced quite a lot in the way of civil and military aviation. Later in life, I also did some construction engineering, including several types of concrete and steel bridge structures.
I doubted the official story since day one. The more I heard or read, the more my doubt was confirmed.
What prompted me to respond to your particular post is mention of the Boeing 737.
Let us take for granted that I have flash recognition of aircraft types. Kind of goes along with the work I once did. The first image I saw on television of that aircraft hitting the tower, my mind identified it as a 737. However, your post is the first I have seen a 737 mentioned.
On another but related topic, we had remote-control systems of our aircraft in the Navy fleet as early as 1973. The system was called Link 4A or “Dolly.” On recovery aboard the carrier, the system was so exact that the aircraft would hit the same spot on the flight deck every time. Among the reasons I remember this is because a computer programmer had to tweak the software so recovering aircraft would not hit the same spot. The fear was that it would over-stress the flight deck. So, it does not surprise me in the least that aircraft could be remotely and precisely controlled to collide with those towers.
There are other aspects of my experiences and the events of 9/11 that place me with the disbelievers.
That people continue to support the official story is amusing. If I were younger, I would probably be very angry”

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)