IPBFacebook




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 )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Addressing " World Trade Center Attack " Arguments, split from Official Release Thread

tomk
post Oct 14 2009, 08:53 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 24-April 09
Member No.: 4,275



I'm sorry. I'm a bit confused by your presentation.

We have videos of the 2nd plane flying into the South Tower.

Since we have videos taken from the side, it is trivially easy to calculate their airspeed.

1. Knowing the type of plane, undoubtedly a 767-222), you have an accurate distance scale (+/- 1 pixel).

2. Knowing the video frame rate (29.97 fps), you have an accurate time base.

With just the two factors above, you can accurately calculate the speed, with a small error margin.
(Note that any angle errors are already compensated in the apparent length of the plane.)

Are you saying "those were not 767s"?
Or are you saying "they weren't going that fast"?

It does seem like either assertion would be difficult to justify, given that you have video evidence of exactly that event actually occurring.

Can you please clarify.

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Oct 14 2009, 10:01 AM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (tomk @ Oct 14 2009, 06:53 AM) *
Are you saying "those were not 767s"?
Or are you saying "they weren't going that fast"?


The presentation is saying it is aerodynamically impossible for an unmodified Boeing to fly at the air speeds indicated by government agencies at near sea level and especially to remain under the control of pilots with no flight experience in aircraft type.

QUOTE
It does seem like either assertion would be difficult to justify, given that you have video evidence of exactly that event actually occurring.


Do you have access to the original video footage from which a forensic analysis can be made? And, even if you do have it or a 'good enough' facsimile of it, is this video an official statement from a US government agency?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 14 2009, 10:27 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (painter @ Oct 14 2009, 11:01 AM) *
The presentation is saying it is aerodynamically impossible for an unmodified Boeing to fly at the air speeds indicated by government agencies at near sea level and especially to remain under the control of pilots with no flight experience in aircraft type.



Do you have access to the original video footage from which a forensic analysis can be made? And, even if you do have it or a 'good enough' facsimile of it, is this video an official statement from a US government agency?



Well said painter.

Another question could be:

Have you seen the presentation yet?

Cross referencing your email addy with the orders which have come in, combined with the questions asked above by tomk...

Apparently not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomk
post Oct 15 2009, 06:09 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 24-April 09
Member No.: 4,275



Painter,

Thanks for your answer.

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 14 2009, 11:01 AM) *
The presentation is saying it is aerodynamically impossible for an unmodified Boeing to fly at the air speeds indicated by government agencies at near sea level and especially to remain under the control of pilots with no flight experience in aircraft type.


I'm sure that you guys are familiar with John Bursill's work in the Full Flight Sim down in Australia.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20232

His sim work suggests that the plane could hit these speeds without a problem. And remain very controllable.

His testing is as close as you're going to get. Engineers build in structural integrity margins, they rate the planes so that they'll last a long while with as little maintenance as reasonable. And Boeing makes good planes. There are lots of stories of their planes exceeding Vne and not falling apart.

As Bursill states, the 767 is a slick plane with lots of power, which is easily over sped in a normal descent.

The Egyptair Flight 990 was reported to have come very close to Mach 1 (possibly with its engines shut down, although it isn't completely clear to me whether they got them restarted before impact), in a straight down dive, of course. And there were apparently no breakup of 990 until it hit the water.

So, given everything that I've seen, I see no reason to believe that the plane could not go 560 mph or more. Especially coming out of a dive.

If you've got some evidence or calculations that suggest otherwise, could you point me to it?

What is the failure mode of the plane that your analysis shows?


Which leads a the second question: Why would anyone bother "rebuilding a Boeing to withstand greater speeds?" If you wanted to do this & get away with it, everything that you do is a possible trip up that will get you caught. Modifying a Boeing 767 is probably a $50 million engineering project (to do it right). Or merely a $10 million project to just ... what? Think about the steps involved...

1. Get a 767. Somewhere.
2. It's gotta match Flight 175 in all respects: serial numbers of all parts, etc. Because you have no idea what parts might survive the crash.
3. Find the engineers who can do the calcs for you. And will then stay quiet about it.
4. Do the engineering to tell you what you need to modify.
5. Find the mechanics who will do the mods & stay quiet.
6. Modify it somewhere.
7. Get it back into AA's stable somehow. (Or do you believe that the switch was made in-flight?)

Why do all this? And multiply your risk of exposure by, oh, about a million times? Why not simply tell the guy (or autopilot) to keep the airspeed down to Vne??

___

Now, your second suggestion, that the plane becomes uncontrollable seems to not stand up to scrutiny either.

First, how does holding a building as wide as an international runway at a fixed point in the windshield represent a "challenging aerodynamic maneuver"?

It ain't like he's doing chandelles.

Second, it is plainly evident that he did not have trouble controlling the plane. He almost missed slightly to the right of the building, he banked left, pulled back and put the plane slightly right of center into the side of the building.

The simple fact that he banked and pitched the nose up tells you that he had no problem with frozen controls, etc. Again, you'd expect no control freeze from a modern plane.

If he had trouble controlling the plane, the he wouldn't have been able to pull off those maneuvers, & would have simply clipped the left wing on the corner of the building.

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 14 2009, 11:01 AM) *
Do you have access to the original video footage from which a forensic analysis can be made? And, even if you do have it or a 'good enough' facsimile of it, is this video an official statement from a US government agency?


I don't need to do the velocity calculation. Several technical experts (in video analysis) have already done that. (I know that engineers at MIT, NIST & (IIRC) Purdue did this calculation independently. Perhaps others did too. The calculation is trivial.)

I guess I don't see the logic in your contentions. If you could back them up with calculations or simulator data, then I might be convinced that there is something unusual here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 15 2009, 07:22 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tomk @ Oct 15 2009, 07:09 PM) *
Painter,

Thanks for your answer.



I'm sure that you guys are familiar with John Bursill's work in the Full Flight Sim down in Australia.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20232

His sim work suggests that the plane could hit these speeds without a problem. And remain very controllable.


Clearly you haven't viewed the presentation as the alleged sim research done by Bursill is completely and thoroughly pulled apart.

We also compare EA990 speeds to UA175. Clearly you do not know the definition of Equivalent Airspeed. But you would if you had seen the presentation.

The aerodynamics and control factors are also addressed in the presentation by 757/767 Captains from United and American airlines who have actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

QUOTE (tomk @ Oct 15 2009, 07:09 PM) *
I guess I don't see the logic in your contentions. If you could back them up with calculations or simulator data, then I might be convinced that there is something unusual here.


tomk, why are you arguing a presentation you haven't even seen? If you had seen the presentation, you wouldn't be making such absurd arguments. Why do you also suggest to have seen the presentation in your first post when clearly you haven't?


"I'm sorry. I'm a bit confused by your presentation."


Here tomk, let me help you out, listen to this interview. At least you'll have some idea who and what you are arguing against instead of arguing in the blind.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18114
Barrett and Capt Kolstad also discuss Bursill's alleged sim results.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Oct 16 2009, 02:00 AM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



tomk would seem to be another individual craving for a validation of the "official conspiracy theory".

i shall continue to assert that the "official" story is a "crock". and that anyone with an analytical brain should be able to discern that.

as to ea990, having studied it as a part of my investigations into inexplicable commercial aircraft catastrophes, i must assert that it is such an anomalous incident that it must be thrown out. like so many others, AS261, SR111, PA103, TWA800, it was never well reported, nor investigated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Oct 16 2009, 03:52 AM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 4,544



I don't think tomk would be someone "craving" for the official conspiracy theory.

My guess would be that he is simply "picking a side" in an argument between P4T and John Bursill that he isn't qualified to make a judgement on.

I accept I don't know whether or not Bursill of P4T are correct on this one, so I'm not going to go around saying either is right. This is a debate for those with relevant qualifications to duke it out and I'll follow it as best I can, but unless I fully understand the science and mathmatics behind it; I won't express an opinion.

I certainly won't defame other researchers because a group of other unqualified people are urging me to. Especially when that group of unqualified people's sole contribution to the online community has been to systematically smear and incite witch hunts against other activists and researchers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomk
post Oct 16 2009, 10:19 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 24-April 09
Member No.: 4,275



mod edit: this post split from Official Release thread and merged here.

Wow Rob,

I asked a couple of questions...

... and you yank my post.

Why?

Because I politely asked you what you were suggesting?
Because I politely disagreed with you?
Because I politely asked you to provide some corroboration for, what is thus far, simple assertions?

That's some hair trigger you've got there.

I've asked what seem to me to be very reasonable questions:

1. Do you think that it was not a 767?

2. Do you think that it was a strengthened 767?

3. Do you think that it was not going that fast?

4. Do you have any compelling evidence or calculations that show that it couldn't go that fast?

5. How do you maintain the contention that "it can't go that fast" when it appears that there are other incidents when planes of this exact type that have exceeded this speed without breakup?

6. Why would someone go thru the incredibly risky & expensive task of modifying a 767, rather than simply telling his pilot or Robo-pilot to keep the airspeed down?

7. What is so difficult about keeping a huge building straight ahead of you steady in the windscreen?

8. How can you justify saying that the plane would "become uncontrollable" when it is patently evident from the videos that it (intentionally & appropriately to its purpose) banked left and pulled back? Thereby hitting the building, and proving that the plane was, in fact, controllable.

Thus far, nobody has answered one of these questions.

Now, I did ask one question that you did reply to. Kinda sorta...
9. How can you say that it can't hit these speeds when Full Function Sims suggest that it can do so easily & stay in control?

You asserted that the Sim work was faulty. And sent me off to a link to get "educated". Where I listened to Kevin Barrett interview Mr. Kolstad. Where Kolstad also simply asserts, without the slightest backup, that those sim results are not reliable. Because [paraphrased] they 1. pulled the overspeed alarms and 2. the sims are only accurate within the operating envelope of the planes and 3. they don't want to spend the money to model any more than they have to (??).

Now, call me silly, but it seems to me that the performance of the airplane just outside of the accepted envelopes (such as airspeed) would be EXACTLY the performance that the engineers would make damn sure that they got right. Since they're training pilots, and would want to show them what happens to the plane if they did enter those conditions. And, in case of an accidental entry, how to recover from those condition back into the normal flight envelope.

All in all, the assertion that the sim would be inaccurate seems to me utterly illogical.

You've suggested that, on your new DVD, "The aerodynamics and control factors are also addressed in the presentation by 757/767 Captains from United and American airlines".

This question has been an issue for at least 3 years (that I've seen). You can't point me to any competent discussion of these issues prior to your new DVD?

And you'll forgive my impertinence since I've got only 400 hours TT. But I've also got 35 years experience as a degreed mechanical engineer, including control systems theory & simulations. And after many discussions with both commercial & military pilots, I've found that their depth of understanding of the details of those fields is, shall we be kind, "less than compelling".

That is not in any way a knock on pilots. Their job is to fly airplanes, which they do extremely well. Their job is not to design, build & program flight control simulators. There would be no more reason for a pilot to know this stuff than there would for a bus driver to know about the differential equations used to program bus simulators.

So I'll take the opinion of a aerodynamics engineer, specifically someone familiar with the details of sim programming, over that of a pilot on this issue. Especially if he/she can provide corroboration.

So, I ask again:

10. Do you have any evidence - other than simple assertions - that the sims are not reliable with respect to engine power, air speed and controllability up to the Flight 175 airspeeds at that altitude?

You asked me "Why do you also suggest to have seen the presentation in your first post when clearly you haven't?"
My use of the word "presentation" referred to the posts here. Not to your new DVD.

You stated that "Clearly you do not know the definition of Equivalent Airspeed".
You'd be wrong about that.
___

So, Rob, I've got 10 unanswered questions.

Can you or anyone else take a shot at providing brief answers to them?
Does simply leaving these questions up for someone else to take a shot at represent some unacceptable level of threat to you?
Why the censorship?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 16 2009, 10:37 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



tomk,

I see you still haven't viewed the presentation nor reviewed our forum rules.

Once you view the presentation let us know, as most, if not all, of your questions are answered.

Did you know that .86 Mach, 568 knots at sea level, has the same dynamic pressure acting on an airframe as 805 knots, or 1.32 Mach at 22,000 feet?

Did you know that EA990 peak airspeed was the equivalent of 425 knots at sea level? Did you know the 767 has not been tested above 420 knots? With the exception of EA990, which had inflight structural failure at just 5 knots over 420?

No, you dont know this. But you would if you watched the presentation.

There is a reason Boeing assigns two airspeed limitations which is covered thoroughly in the presentation, and 150 knots over Vmo is not "just outside of the accepted envelopes"... nor has it ever been tested. So how could it possibly be simulated accurately? Our sim goes red and freezes at 30 knots over Vmo. Who you trying to kid here?

QUOTE
And after many discussions with both commercial & military pilots, I've found that their depth of understanding of the details of those fields is, shall we be kind, "less than compelling".


So you are saying you disagree with the many military and civilian pilots you spoke with who actually fly these aircraft? Why am I not surprised.. rolleyes.gif

I bet Kolstad has more flight time inverted (flying upside down in case you're confused) than you have total.

On behalf of all the passengers out there, let me just say, thank god the pilots you speak to are flying these aircraft, and you aren't. smile.gif

Again, please familiarize yourself with Equivalent airspeed, crossover altitude, Mcrit, Mach Tuck, Vg diagram, control reversal, Center of Pressure vs. Center of Gravity. Once you get done with that, we'll have more homework for you.

In closing.. .Cockpit simulators are not meant for precisely simulating aerodynamic stress, that is why there are wind tunnels and test pilots.

Also, if we were censoring your posts, we would have deleted them or moved them to a section which guests cannot see. If you would like to experience real censorship, visit ATS where they delete posts regularly or J.REF where they move the hard questions to a section guests cannot see.

Your false accusations, lies and arguments in the blind are very unbecoming tomk. One might think you are here to troll? Sorry tom, but we are not going to let you muck up a thread intended for reviews when you haven't even reviewed the presentation (by the way.. posts on a forum giving opinions/reviews of the presentation, are not the presentation itself, nice try rolleyes.gif). Especially when most of your questions are answered in the presentation and you are posting against forum rules. How can anyone possibly debate a topic in which they havent even reviewed both sides thoroughly? That is called trolling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 16 2009, 03:35 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



FYI to those reading....

tomk has visited this thread since the above post. I made it a point to follow his movements.

He has now read the above in full, our forum rules, visited the newcomer forum, and the "Trolls and Shills, Please Read" pinned topic in this debate section.

tomk elected to not reply to the above.

I'm not surprised as I'm sure he now realizes he is in way over his head. After all, what type of "engineer" debates a topic without thoroughly researching all sides of the debate?

However, I am glad tomk stopped by. He is/will make a great example of those who make excuse for the govt story, especially since he has stated he knows more than pilots and disclosed his credentials.

Clearly tomk never took a course in aerodynamics and was BSing when he claimed to know what EAS is.... . wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomk
post Oct 26 2009, 07:36 AM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 24-April 09
Member No.: 4,275



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Oct 16 2009, 03:00 AM) *
tomk would seem to be another individual craving for a validation of the "official conspiracy theory".

i shall continue to assert that the "official" story is a "crock". and that anyone with an analytical brain should be able to discern that.

as to ea990, having studied it as a part of my investigations into inexplicable commercial aircraft catastrophes, i must assert that it is such an anomalous incident that it must be thrown out. like so many others, AS261, SR111, PA103, TWA800, it was never well reported, nor investigated.


The only thing that I "crave" is the truth. And I'll follow it where ever it leads.

I am frankly unconcerned with other accidents.

The correct presentation of the arguments is that we have solid, unarguable proof of the following:

1. the plane that hit the South Tower was a 767. I have sufficient evidence from external sources to convince me that it was, in fact, UA175.

2. the size of the plane's body & external flight control surfaces were the same size and location as a standard 767, so any control loss that would occur on any standard 767 would also happen on this one.

3. the speed of the plane is known (20 knots or so) from the video evidence.

4. the plane maneuvered at the end of its flight, rolling left & pitching up, in order to intentionally hit the building. Therefore the plane was capable of maneuvering at that speed.

5. There are confirmed flight tests that show the plane to be controllable & stable at lower speeds. Nobody has ever flown a plane "to destruction".

But it is patently obvious that engineers build a significant margin into their airplanes. They don't self-destruct at Vne + 1 knot.

You guys are asserting that a 767 could not fly this fast.

I see lots of assertion and zero proof.

I came here to see if any of you could provide anything that constitutes - by any stretch of the definition of the word - "proof".

The only thing that I've seen thus far is childish insults and requests to purchase DVDs.

Do you have anything that would fit the term "proof"?

Tom
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomk
post Oct 26 2009, 07:46 AM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 24-April 09
Member No.: 4,275



QUOTE (StefanS @ Oct 16 2009, 04:52 AM) *
I don't think tomk would be someone "craving" for the official conspiracy theory.

My guess would be that he is simply "picking a side" in an argument between P4T and John Bursill that he isn't qualified to make a judgement on.

I accept I don't know whether or not Bursill of P4T are correct on this one, so I'm not going to go around saying either is right. This is a debate for those with relevant qualifications to duke it out and I'll follow it as best I can, but unless I fully understand the science and mathmatics behind it; I won't express an opinion.

I certainly won't defame other researchers because a group of other unqualified people are urging me to. Especially when that group of unqualified people's sole contribution to the online community has been to systematically smear and incite witch hunts against other activists and researchers.



Stefan,

No, I'm not really picking a side in that argument.

It is a purely academic point to me that I strongly suspect that the aerodynamics of that flight simulator is, in fact, accurate at those speeds, because the performance of planes in transonic regions is well known. And I would expect that the folks who wrote the code for the sim would have incorporated this into their code.

But that's irrelevant.

What is relevant is the info that I listed in my post above: that we have video of the plane's impact. And from that video, we can determine the plane type, the speed and its maneuvering just before impact.

The sum & substance of the arguments that I've heard against those self-evident conclusions are:

1. "So & so has more time inverted than you do upright".
2. "You probably don't know what EAS is."
3. "Buy my DVD."

None of these constitute a compelling argument.

Do you have any argument whatsoever as to how that plane:

1. was not a 767?
2. was a modified 767?
3. was not flying at those speeds?
4. was somehow "faking" its maneuvering?

Tom
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomk
post Oct 26 2009, 07:47 AM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 24-April 09
Member No.: 4,275



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 16 2009, 04:35 PM) *
FYI to those reading....

tomk has visited this thread since the above post. I made it a point to follow his movements.

He has now read the above in full, our forum rules, visited the newcomer forum, and the "Trolls and Shills, Please Read" pinned topic in this debate section.

tomk elected to not reply to the above.

I'm not surprised as I'm sure he now realizes he is in way over his head. After all, what type of "engineer" debates a topic without thoroughly researching all sides of the debate?

However, I am glad tomk stopped by. He is/will make a great example of those who make excuse for the govt story, especially since he has stated he knows more than pilots and disclosed his credentials.

Clearly tomk never took a course in aerodynamics and was BSing when he claimed to know what EAS is.... . wink.gif



I'll reply to this shortly, Rob.

Tom
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 26 2009, 08:29 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tomk @ Oct 26 2009, 07:36 AM) *
Nobody has ever flown a plane "to destruction".


Yes they have. And if you had viewed the presentation, you would know this. This fact alone proves all your other statements moot.


Tom, when are you going to view the presentation in order to have a thorough understanding of what you are attempting to argue? If you were a good researcher, you would know you don't have to "Buy the DVD" and we have never told you as such. For your deceptive quotes which do not exist in statement, please view this as your second warning, enjoy your 2 week vacation, hopefully it will give you time to thoroughly review all sides of the argument. Tom, you really shouldn't lie about our statements on our board.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Oct 30 2009, 06:44 PM
Post #15


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (StefanS @ Oct 16 2009, 08:52 AM) *
I accept I don't know whether or not Bursill of P4T are correct on this one, so I'm not going to go around saying either is right. This is a debate for those with relevant qualifications to duke it out and I'll follow it as best I can, but unless I fully understand the science and mathmatics behind it; I won't express an opinion.


That is the purpose of disinformation. To neutralize. They want it so you are not confident or knowledgeable in PFT's findings/conclusions. They want you to not which side to believe, so you aren't "going to go around saying either is right". That is the way this works.

You've got Legge, Bursill and now Stutt. All out of Australia, all using the same nauseating vague, neutralizing, innuendo laced, technical jargon vs technical jargon, misrepresenting, omission tactics they have always used.

They are everywhere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 2 2009, 08:11 AM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 4,544



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Oct 30 2009, 06:44 PM) *
That is the purpose of disinformation. To neutralize. They want it so you are not confident or knowledgeable in PFT's findings/conclusions. They want you to not which side to believe, so you aren't "going to go around saying either is right". That is the way this works.


No, this is my method and I'm sticking with it. I only lead with material I fully understand. What I have to offer this online community is analysis and debate, and both must be built on a foundation of solid information, and my undestanding of that information. That's why I stick to the research you and Craig have done when it comes to the Pentagon - because I understand it and therefore can debate strongly on it.

I'm not confident in writing exposition of g-force caluclations, maximum speed of air craft because I have no qualification or expertise in that area; I'd be opening up myself to making a mistake if I tried. I am slowly trying to get my head around it and I don't see any problems with what they are saying. But a layman seeing no problems with highly technical research is not a resouding endorsement.

Give my method some leyway here. You remember how cautious I was to get behind the flyover/flyaway; that's because I wanted to be absolutely sure you were right and that took a lot of research and fact-checking. Having given myself the time to familiarise myself with the material, I think I've done a pretty good job so far in defending the research within this online community.

QUOTE
You've got Legge, Bursill and now Stutt. All out of Australia, all using the same nauseating vague, neutralizing, innuendo laced, technical jargon vs technical jargon, misrepresenting, omission tactics they have always used.

They are everywhere.


That said, what I can do very well, is smell b*llshit, and I smell it from Legge. When he tries to refute Pentagon evidence and pretends not to know of the existence of massively corroborated eye witness testimony, I smell b*llshit. When Bursill says he used to support CIT but now doesn't because... and then throws in some utterly weak and throw away a priori objection that has been logically rebutted a thousand times, I smell b*llshit. The stench of b*llshit is hard to stomache from the CIT detractor clique in general.

Naturally this makes me cautious of what those same figures have to say about P4T's research as well, and does suggest that P4T are on the level. But, while I 100% support P4T's efforts, I cannot 100% endorse their findings and still consider myself an honest researcher. Sorry.

This post has been edited by StefanS: Nov 2 2009, 08:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 2 2009, 08:19 AM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 4,544



Tom,
I think your list starts with an assumption:

"1. the plane that hit the South Tower was a 767. I have sufficient evidence from external sources to convince me that it was, in fact, UA175."

And builds from that fact.

Are you saying it is beyond the capabilities of the US gov. to modify the shell of a 767? I find that hard to swallow when your average boy racer can modify a Ford Cortina to run like a racing car.

And you have sufficient evidence to say it was US175? Could you share that evidence with us? You seem to be massively underestimating the ability of the US Gov to stage events. Have you never read Operation Northwoods? They thought they could pull that one off 40 odd years ago.

If P4T have shown an unmodified 767 could not have performed as the WTC attack jets did, they have proved an inside job.

So they've put that info out there, now let those who know about this stuff debate the issue like grown ups.

Intentionally or not you are feeding off an unfortunate "tribal" factionalism that seems to have grown up around this issue and these research groups that, if you look at the history of the Pentgaon issue within this community, it has to be concluded is at least partially if not completely motivated by political concerns and not genuine research. John Bursill is a part of this and so his instant rebuttle of this work cannot be taken without a pinch of salt.

You have a clique who pinned their colours to the mast that a plane hit the pentagon on the official flight path. They have been proved wrong and are not taking that well at all. This placed P4T as their "enemies" in their childish psyco-drama, which in turn has lead to a premature rejection of their WTC research. The research was attacked almost as soon as it was released - does this sound to you like a rejection based on thorough research or a knee jerk reaction?

This post has been edited by StefanS: Nov 2 2009, 11:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 2 2009, 01:30 PM
Post #18


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 2 2009, 05:11 AM) *
<snip>
I'm not confident in writing exposition of g-force caluclations, maximum speed of air craft because I have no qualification or expertise in that area; I'd be opening up myself to making a mistake if I tried. I am slowly trying to get my head around it and I don't see any problems with what they are saying. But a layman seeing no problems with highly technical research is not a resouding endorsement.

As another reasonably intelligent layman I appreciate your caution. We don't want to misrepresent what P4T is actually saying. I've learned a lot from hanging out on this forum over the years but I'm still a layman when it comes to aeronautics. Some things -- such as the likely hood of Flight77 having done everything it is said to have done leaving behind no verified evidence of having actually done it -- are fairly obvious. But when it starts getting into technicalities it gets more difficult.

QUOTE
<snip>Naturally this makes me cautious of what those same figures have to say about P4T's research as well, and does suggest that P4T are on the level. But, while I 100% support P4T's efforts, I cannot 100% endorse their findings and still consider myself an honest researcher. Sorry.

Understandable. Maybe "objective" rather than "honest" would be more appropriate. In any case, the problem is understanding technical questions -- asking the right question and having someone walk us through it so we understand the fundamental principals as well as the details. Aircraft have limitations by type and these limitations are fully understood by the people responsible for designing, flying and maintaining them. One of the problems I have is converting 'knots' to some measure of speed I recognize such as miles per hour. I don't even fully understand why 'knots' are used as the appropriate measure. I certainly can understand that a safe (or even possible) air speed at one altitude is not going to be the same at a different altitude with different atmospheric conditions. I can understand in a general way that you can't fly a large Boeing aircraft at sea level at the same air speed you could fly it at 30,000 feet. I can understand that trying to do so is going to create all sorts of problems such as precise navigation, not to mention potentially compromising the stability of the aircraft itself. Commercial airliners are not fighter jets and are not designed to be flown at high speeds near sea level and have safety mechanisms built into them to prevent pushing the aircraft beyond its safety envelope. An intelligent lay-person can grasp this. Its when it gets into the details that it gets difficult. Exactly how fast were these aircraft alleged to have been flying? What are the aerodynamic consequences of putting those kinds of stresses on those types of aircraft?

Equally importantly (in my mind) is why would agencies of the government suggest that these aircraft WERE flying at those excessive (if not down right impossible) speeds [ETA: just prior to impact]? Are these speeds necessary to account for the full penetration into their respective targets leaving behind virtually no trace of themselves? Is this another instance of counter-intuitive counterintelligence where the absurd is put forward as obvious by a figure of authority, believed by most who never question anything anyway, while being an equally obvious fabrication to those qualified to know better? Is this another of their calling cards that basically says (to those with eyes to see), "See, this is what we can do in broad day light and get away with it"?

I do understand where Aldo is coming from. So long as they can keep everything obscured in the arena of "opinion" (as opposed to proven and established fact accepted by the majority of intelligent people), they win.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 2 2009, 03:18 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 2 2009, 01:30 PM) *
One of the problems I have is converting 'knots' to some measure of speed I recognize such as miles per hour.


http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/speed

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 3 2009, 12:50 PM
Post #20





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (painter @ Oct 31 2009, 05:30 PM) *
I don't even fully understand why 'knots' are used as the appropriate measure.

Knots, are a measure of nautical miles an hour.

This comes from the original usage of a nautical mile for ocean navigation.

A nautical mile is longer than a statute mile (of 1760 yards) and so any particular speed given in knots (knts) would require a higher number to specify that speed in mph.

If the Earth had been a perfect sphere then a nautical mile would represented the distance on the surface subtended by an arc of 1 degree latitude from the Earth's centre. But the Earth being an oblate spheroid complicates things rather with the arc subtended being longer at the poles as compared with the same angular arc at the equator.

The arithmetical mean of the polar and equatorial arcs is 6077 ft. This is rounded off to 6080 feet which is the length of the standard nautical mile.

As 1 statute mile = 1760 yards = 5280 feet and
1 standard nautical mile = 6077 feet


6077/5280=1.15094697

so multiply any given speed in knots by 1.15094697

to achieve the equivalent mph.

When it comes to KIAS knts indicated air speed, ground speed, and Mach number I can offer this from my experience in 'flying' a Sea Vixen FAW II in Micrsoft Flight Simulator. Although not real world it helps paint a picture:

At 47,300 ft at 238 knots IAS (KIAS), the ground speed was 536 knots and the Mach recorded was 0.9.
The instruments were electro-mechanical analogue of course being an old fashioned aircaft.

The ground speed was recorded from the GPS. Yes I know this aircaft as built did not have GPS but then I don't have the luxury of a 'looker' in the 'coal hole'.

Its no surprise to me but is not obvious to those not used to aircaft stuff that the fuel burn rate is much lower at higher altitude, than even at 10K feet, thus range is increased if one climbs quickly, transits at high altitude and descends late.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: 24th November 2017 - 08:05 AM