IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Flight Simulator Experiment

kawika
post May 20 2015, 10:48 AM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 470
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



Could the very inexperienced accused 9/11 hijackers really have precisely piloted complex Boeing jets into the 208 foot wide World Trade Center towers unassisted and at extreme speeds as claimed on September 11? A filmed experiment utilizing a Boeing simulator and a qualified Boeing jet pilot seeks to answer this lingering question once and for all by attempting to duplicate the precisely measured flight path of United Airlines 175, the most recorded of the 9/11 flights. The filmed results will be published exclusively at 9/11 Blogger. Simulator use costs are $750.00. Contributions to this important research are greatly appreciated.

Please donate here: http://fnd.us/c/dx3L3

Even though the original goal has been reached, I will continue to challenge others to donate. When $825 is achieved. I will kick in another $25.

At $925, I will go again.

Here is an excellent analysis. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...an_Analysis.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 20 2015, 11:09 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,746
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Don't waste your money. It can't be done. A fully certified Level D simulator will freeze and the screens will turn red at 30-50 knots over Vmo.

The only way to accomplish this task is to disable the crash logic within the simulator.

See here for an example....



The flight dynamics within FSX behave much like a Level D Sim.

In short, it is impossible to achieve Vmo+150 (the reported speed of "UA175"), with a fully functional Level D sim with crash logic enabled.

If one were to disable the crash logic, it is no longer an accurate simulation.

See more in our presentation 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, including interviews with Boeing Captains who have attempted to duplicate the attacks in their Simulators.

As to the question -

"Could the very inexperienced accused 9/11 hijackers really have precisely piloted complex Boeing jets into the 208 foot wide World Trade Center towers unassisted and at extreme speeds as claimed on September 11?"


It's already been done (albeit at the Pentagon) -

Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility

Again, save your cash for something that hasn't been beaten to death.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shallel
post May 20 2015, 11:43 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 13-November 07
Member No.: 2,476



Monaghan's analysis states that higher speeds would limit lateral drift:

"At its time of impact with WTC 1, AA 11 is estimated to have been traveling at a speed of 683 feet per second (466 mph).[9]"
"At its time of impact with WTC 2, UA 175 is estimated to have been traveling at a speed of 799 feet per second (545 mph).[10]"

As the excellent work done here by Rob and all show, we know these speeds are ridiculous.

But as Monaghan states, Pythagorean's Theorem explains it all.

wall.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post May 20 2015, 11:51 AM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 470
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 20 2015, 10:09 AM) *
Don't waste your money. It can't be done. A fully certified Level D simulator will freeze and the screens will turn red at 30-50 knots over Vmo.

The only way to accomplish this task is to disable the crash logic within the simulator.

See here for an example....



The flight dynamics within FSX behave much like a Level D Sim.

In short, it is impossible to achieve Vmo+150 (the reported speed of "UA175"), with a fully functional Level D sim with crash logic enabled.

If one were to disable the crash logic, it is no longer an accurate simulation.

See more in our presentation 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, including interviews with Boeing Captains who have attempted to duplicate the attacks in their Simulators.

As to the question -

"Could the very inexperienced accused 9/11 hijackers really have precisely piloted complex Boeing jets into the 208 foot wide World Trade Center towers unassisted and at extreme speeds as claimed on September 11?"


It's already been done (albeit at the Pentagon) -

Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility

Again, save your cash for something that hasn't been beaten to death.


Thank you for these excellent links and the clarification.

I'm not controlling how the experiment will be conducted, but maybe the result will be that even under the SIM's limits the target can't be hit.

The WTC is only 208 feet wide. If I remember correctly this is about 50 feet wider than the wingspan, so to hit it without any wing overlap is quite a chore.

Maybe this experiment will wake a few more people up.

Rob, is there another experiment, beyond this one, that we should try to accomplish? I think people are still hungry for information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 20 2015, 12:10 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,746
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (kawika @ May 20 2015, 11:51 AM) *
Thank you for these excellent links and the clarification.

I'm not controlling how the experiment will be conducted, but maybe the result will be that even under the SIM's limits the target can't be hit.

The WTC is only 208 feet wide. If I remember correctly this is about 50 feet wider than the wingspan, so to hit it without any wing overlap is quite a chore.

Maybe this experiment will wake a few more people up.


With an experienced pilot at the controls, the WTC can be hit as I demonstrate above in the scene from 9/11: Simulations, with the crash logic disabled.

However, aircraft limitations are a factor, as also demonstrated in the above scene.

With that said, when producing 9/11: Simulations, I also let others who are inexperienced try to hit the WTC at 510-520 knots with crash logic disabled. They lined up with downtown NYC nicely, but as they got closer, dutch roll became too much of a factor for them and they over controlled the aircraft around the WTC, never even clipping a wingtip. I cut this from our film as no doubt the duhbunkers will claim we missed on purpose. However, it is a real eye opener for those who wish to try it at home, at such speeds, on full realistic settings.

See more here -



QUOTE
Rob, is there another experiment, beyond this one, that we should try to accomplish? I think people are still hungry for information.


I agree, people are very hungry for information. Currently we are researching the parts recovered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post May 20 2015, 12:54 PM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



to the analysis:
To me it looks the approach used in the analysis is oversimplified. The final trajectory of the "UA175"' plane was already simulated in 3D using multiple videos available for the trajectory reference, years ago, and if nothing else it showed quite clearly 1) the variable speed during the final maneuvre way exceeding Vmo and way beyond the B767 structural integrity limits and significantly also the 799 ft/s stated in the analysis - and because the plane was accelerating during the high descent rate bank, it likely exceeded ~880 ft/s at the point of the final trajectory corection and 2) the final correction was not only the correction of the bank angle, but quite clearly also of the descent rate (lowering it from about ~6500 ft/min to final ~1400 ft/min -and here it would be interestng to find out if a B767 airframe with its given aerodynamic properties in the given conditions could even behave like that, I mean in terms of such numbers - something tells me that it is not the case...) resulting in turn in a significant change of the horizontal speed (slowing) - which, among other things would place additional strain on the airframe which already would be way beyond the structural integrity breakpoint. However the impact speed (relatively to the 2nd tower wall) still was some 20-30 ft/s higher than the 799ft/s at that point.

The attempts to simulate this in the B767 simulator failed for the reasons stated by Rob where the enabled crash logic simply prevented even the simulated plane from further flying and I'm quite convinced that with a real plane it would fail too for the real plane completely loosing its structural integrity way before the plane would reach the point of the impact.

After years of looking into this question - which originally was the very question which brought me at the P4T some almost 8 years ago (oh, rolleyes.gif how the time is running...), when I, naive researcher of the terrorism since mid-1990s, posed it to Rob - I'm quite convinced that not only the maneuvre was impossible for an unexperienced pilot flying a B767 first time in the life, but it was impossible with a civilian B767 in general either piloted by a computer with whatever software or an experienced pilot ace.

But people want to try and learn. It is the experimental approach after all. So if the money are already raised, why not. In any case it would be fair to use them for the purpose stated when the "moneybomb" was launched and not some other things. The 750$ is not such an astronomic amount of money to pay for learning what others already have learned. People often pay much more to fail where others have already failed. In fact the history is full of such examples, and unlike many such after all nobody will be killed in attempts like this, not even pets. If nothing else the results could independently reconfirm what was already found and thus not be completely in vain, and if nothing else somebody could have a reason to have a look how a B767 simulator looks and really works when pushed to the very limits of the physically possible for the aircraft it simulates. laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post May 20 2015, 03:27 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 470
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



Suppose we could invite anyone to give this a few tries. Who would that be? Popular Mechanics?

To avoid any griping after the fact that the results were rigged, both sides should be present and making observations.

Let's challenge PM or someone else to match the rental time and give it their best shot.

If they are serious about participating I'll be the first to contribute to get the ball rolling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post May 22 2015, 03:58 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 102
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 20 2015, 10:09 AM) *
Don't waste your money. It can't be done. A fully certified Level D simulator will freeze and the screens will turn red at 30-50 knots over Vmo.

The only way to accomplish this task is to disable the crash logic within the simulator.

See here for an example....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CmCdDKf_U24" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The flight dynamics within FSX behave much like a Level D Sim.

In short, it is impossible to achieve Vmo+150 (the reported speed of "UA175"), with a fully functional Level D sim with crash logic enabled.

If one were to disable the crash logic, it is no longer an accurate simulation.

See more in our presentation 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, including interviews with Boeing Captains who have attempted to duplicate the attacks in their Simulators.

As to the question -

"Could the very inexperienced accused 9/11 hijackers really have precisely piloted complex Boeing jets into the 208 foot wide World Trade Center towers unassisted and at extreme speeds as claimed on September 11?"


It's already been done (albeit at the Pentagon) -

Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility

Again, save your cash for something that hasn't been beaten to death.



I'm not a pilot.......but it seems to ME, that following the published flight path into the buildings is cheating.....let someone try to just "wing it" by flying the aircraft without headings, etc. and try to hit the buildings at the published speeds........I BET you can't do THAT!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post May 22 2015, 03:59 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 102
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (excontroller @ May 22 2015, 02:58 PM) *
I'm not a pilot.......but it seems to ME, that following the published flight path into the buildings is cheating.....let someone try to just "wing it" by flying the aircraft without headings, etc. and try to hit the buildings at the published speeds........I BET you can't do THAT!



I have to say again.........I really feel these "accidents" were accomplished by laser-guided aircraft. It seems to ME to be the only practical possibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
excontroller
post May 22 2015, 04:05 PM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 102
Joined: 28-December 09
From: Ypsilanti, MI
Member No.: 4,819



QUOTE (kawika @ May 20 2015, 02:27 PM) *
Suppose we could invite anyone to give this a few tries. Who would that be? Popular Mechanics?

To avoid any griping after the fact that the results were rigged, both sides should be present and making observations.

Let's challenge PM or someone else to match the rental time and give it their best shot.

If they are serious about participating I'll be the first to contribute to get the ball rolling.


IF Popular Mechanics was serious about debunking our theories about 9/11, they would be the FIRST in line to try......but they know it can't be done. THAT fact would destroy their best argument against a conspiracy. Popular Mechanics will NEVER engage in a serious attempt at the truth. THEY are definitely part of the problem. And, apparently, part of the conspiracy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 22 2015, 05:16 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,027
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (excontroller @ May 22 2015, 03:59 PM) *
I have to say again.........I really feel these "accidents" were accomplished by laser-guided aircraft. It seems to ME to be the only practical possibility.


I would agree, high tech was at work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shallel
post Jun 1 2015, 04:40 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 13-November 07
Member No.: 2,476



QUOTE (excontroller @ May 20 2015, 05:59 PM) *
I have to say again.........I really feel these "accidents" were accomplished by laser-guided aircraft. It seems to ME to be the only practical possibility.


Laser guided planes are subject to the same laws of physics and aerodynamics as piloted ones. They are not capable of penetrating a building (180 steel columns and 8 floors).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 2 2015, 01:20 AM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 408
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (Shallel @ Jun 2 2015, 06:10 AM) *
Laser guided planes are subject to the same laws of physics and aerodynamics as piloted ones. They are not capable of penetrating a building (180 steel columns and 8 floors).


Dear 'Shallel'

They could be greatly assisted by entry through a prepared target, or one that was opened up by some form of explosive prior to aircraft entry.

If the aircraft involved was not as large as the claimed Boeing 767, this could assist entry into the building also, through either of the above.

Especially if it was of a very strong construction or modification.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 2 2015, 10:16 AM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 430
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 2 2015, 12:20 AM) *
Dear 'Shallel'

They could be greatly assisted by entry through a prepared target, or one that was opened up by some form of explosive prior to aircraft entry.

If the aircraft involved was not as large as the claimed Boeing 767, this could assist entry into the building also, through either of the above.

Especially if it was of a very strong construction or modification.

Robert S


Precisely.
What Shallel and others have never even considered (judging by their remarks here) is that the towers were prepped before 9/11.
By prepped I mean steel beams loosened, removed, floors removed, internal explosives used just before impact etc.

If there was little more than aluminum covers, windows and framing at the entry points, then yes Shallel, planes could have penetrated, would you not agree?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Jun 2 2015, 10:27 AM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 470
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jun 2 2015, 09:16 AM) *
Precisely.
What Shallel and others have never even considered (judging by their remarks here) is that the towers were prepped before 9/11.
By prepped I mean steel beams loosened, removed, floors removed, internal explosives used just before impact etc.

If there was little more than aluminum covers, windows and framing at the entry points, then yes Shallel, planes could have penetrated, would you not agree?


Real planes (likely not the passenger jets) hit the towers and broke the connections of the exterior panels. Study the facade maps in the NIST report. The wings did not slice through the columns, in most cases.

Consider that the facade was mostly glass. 14" steel column and 18" of glass, then another column. The plane was shredded and entered through the thin openings.

Please stop relying on fuzzy videos and photos.

Think about what you are proposing when you suggest that specifically placed explosives assisted the airframe in entering the structure. The logistics of such a scenario would be impossible.

Suggesting that structural elements were removed to accommodate the arrival of the plane is not feasible.

This post has been edited by kawika: Jun 2 2015, 10:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jun 2 2015, 04:19 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 430
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (kawika @ Jun 2 2015, 09:27 AM) *
Real planes (likely not the passenger jets) hit the towers and broke the connections of the exterior panels. Study the facade maps in the NIST report. The wings did not slice through the columns, in most cases.

Consider that the facade was mostly glass. 14" steel column and 18" of glass, then another column. The plane was shredded and entered through the thin openings.

Please stop relying on fuzzy videos and photos.

Think about what you are proposing when you suggest that specifically placed explosives assisted the airframe in entering the structure. The logistics of such a scenario would be impossible.

Suggesting that structural elements were removed to accommodate the arrival of the plane is not feasible.



I am not big on the explosives upon entry theory, but am still open to it.
As for prepping the building beforehand, there was work being done inside the building around the entry levels before 9/11.
Check the Gelatin team chronicles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd August 2015 - 08:26 PM