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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Member Of 911movement Speak To Client Retired Boeing Engineer

9/11 Justice Now
post Feb 16 2009, 01:18 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



Hi there one of the members at my forum AmandaReconwith www.911movement.org was fixing a clients computer
who just so happened to be a retired boeing engineer and talked to him about the hudson river incident and then eventually asked him questions about boeing jets, before bringing up the 911 topic.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=6099

Boeing Engineer Discovers 9/11 Truth

"A Boeing Engineer Discovers the Official 9/11 Airplane Story Is a Big Fat Lie
John Herold - January 29, 2009
You'll have to pardon my giddiness at what happened yesterday.
In my work I drive to homes and businesses to solve computer problems. Every now and again I meet someone with knowledge or experience that directly relates to my understanding of 9/11. And when I detect that I'm in the presence of a real expert, I'll start a verbal dance where I quiz them about 9/11 without mentioning 9/11. For a brief window of time, I can get some honest answers without evoking the natural resistance people often have when they realize what they believe is incorrect. Once that happens, emotions often take over and the rational discussion usually stops. All this while fixing their computer.
This time my client was a kind, retired gentleman. After I got to work we started chatting about subjects other than his computer. He ruminated about airplanes and informed me that he's a retired Boeing engineer.
Sweet! I love quizzing people about planes, and here I am talking to someone who really should know!
He then went on: "The 787 is a mess. In for another delay. Composites are very tricky. The interface between metals and composites is difficult. Titanium+composite is OK. But when aluminum meets composite, they literally rot each other over time. This is why there's so much talk about these fasteners. Ultimately the 787 will be heavier, more expensive, less efficient, way delayed, and more technically tricky than promised. Unless these problems are solved, it'll probably be less safe than promised, too. They should just stick with what they know. All this hassle isn't worth it."
He then mentioned that the Hudson River water landing wouldn't have gone so well had it been in a Boeing 737 rather than an Airbus A-320.
He had my attention. "Why?" I asked.
He then explained that it's due to the fact that the cross-section of an Airbus fuselage is ROUND. Before the 777 he said, Boeing airliners are what I believe he called "double-lobed" -- meaning that if you view the fuselage end-on it would NOT be round. Instead, he equated it to a compressed "figure-8" shape. It's wider on the bottom, and then the bottom half is joined to a smaller-diameter upper piece and those two pieces have to be joined together and fastened carefully. That joint is naturally not as strong as if there were no joint at all. That's what an Airbus is. It's round without interruption. Like an egg, this continuous [uniform] curve [curvature] lends strength since no one point is any more vulnerable than another. It's all round. The superior strength of a seamless circle as he put it, is just common sense.
He suspected that a 737's fuselage would probably have come apart in the stress of said water landing.
So bottom line, fly Airbus, he told me. Their design makes better sense and he said there are more and more Boeing engineers who are willing to admit the same. Being retired gave him a certain advantage in the candor department, I suspect.
So naturally I began to think, if this retired Boeing engineer is ready to admit that Boeings are fragile in a water landing, then surely he'll have no problem rejecting plane-shaped holes in the WTC.
Of course this subject is kind of tricky to approach with my computer clients. In this case, the more questions I asked about the vulnerability of airliners, the more suspicious he became that I was planning to show up in the evening news.
"Trust me, I have no intent to hurt anyone or any planes," I assured him.
"You're not going to fly a plane into my house, are you?" he said half-jokingly.
Then we discussed my work on his computer...for a little while.
Ten minutes later I returned to the more important matter.
"So humor me: if I locked you in a hangar with a Boeing 767 and a 9 pound sledgehammer, do you think you could make it unflyable in 15 minutes?" This is one of my very favorite questions and it gets all sorts of responses.
Without pausing, he quickly replied, "I don't need 15 minutes, and I don't need a hammer. I'll just unplug a few wires and I'm all done."
"What about from the outside of the plane? Could you do it then?" I wanted to hear what a sledgehammer does to a plane. This guy was too smart for the my first version of the question.
Calmly he stated, "It would be so easy. I could do with my hands. But with a sledgehammer, sure, even easier."
I asked where the plane is the most fragile. He then told me that most of the strength in a Boeing is on the bottom of the plane. The top is where it's most fragile. Parts of the tail are pretty delicate, too.
"How thick is the skin?" I could barely contain my excitement at what he had to say.
"It varies," he said. Some places it's more than 1/2 inch (I think he even said 3/4 inch in the strongest places like where the wing and fuselage meet). Multi-layered aluminum.
"What about the frame? What's it made from?"
With an expression as if he didn't even need to say so, "It's all aluminum, John."
Playing dumb, I asked, "So the frame isn't made from steel."
"No way. There's no steel anywhere except for stainless steel cargo doors on certain models, and a little in the back in case the plane scrapes its tail on the runway. But it's not much."
You should have seen his face. The thought of a plane made of steel (frame, skin, whatever) was laughable. I might as well have asked if his house was made from soap bubbles.
So at this point I'm thinking, this guy's open-minded enough...let's see if he'll "go there," as it were.
I spilled the beans and told him about what I very gently described as a "debate" regarding whether planes actually crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Incredulous, he raised his voice and started talking faster: "My wife told me to turn on the TV and I saw it happen! The plane looked like it flew behind the tower, but it actually hit it. And the explosion and fire, you know fire weakens steel. Eventually the building started to collapse and it couldn't stop."
He just went on and on about how he saw it happen. It was really pretty funny to watch.
"Yes, but is that what a Boeing 767 would do when encountering the WTC?" I asked. "Some people don't think so."
"John you have to remember that the plane was fully fueled and was going quite fast, probably 170 or maybe even 200. And then all that fuel would just weaken the whole building and there you have it."
HOLD UP, I'm thinking. I didn't hear him specify whether he meant mph or knots, but who cares? This guy is under the impression that this plane was coming in for a mid-air refueling with the WTC, not balls-to-the-wall full throttle as government and media described it.
I informed him that NIST claims United 175 was going over 500 mph.
"What? No way. That's wrong. Commercial jets don't fly even close to that fast at that low an altitude. That's incorrect."
"Why not?" I asked rhetorically.
Confidently he replied, "Because of the air resistance! Sure, they can achieve high speeds like that at 42,000 feet, but it's very thin up there."
I wonder what was going through his mind at this point. Here he's discovered that his knowledge of airliners directly contradicts what he believes happened on 9/11, on multiple fronts.
So I paused for a while...returned to fixing his computer and let it go.
Then I asked him to humor me again.
"What would happen if, while flying a 757 at very low altitude and high speed (whatever that means), what would happen if you hit a light pole with the wing?
"You mean the cast metal kind or wood?"
"Take your pick." I said.
He paused for a second. "Well...I think the wing could cut the light pole down whether it was made of wood or aluminum. It would definitely damage the wing but I don't think it would take the wing off."
To review I asked, "So a light pole wouldn't stay standing, and leave a hole in the airplane's wing shaped like a light pole?"
He started laughing. "No."
"OK, how about this?" I asked. "What if you took a big beefy, load-bearing steel column from a skyscraper, buried some of it in the ground and then hit THAT with the wing?"
Without hesitation, he responded, "Oh, now there you'd have a problem. The wing will not sheer a steel beam. Instead the beam will destroy the wing and there you have it. The pilot is not going to have a good day. That plane, what's left of it, is in big trouble."
"So the wing will not sheer the steel and keep going?"
"Of course not, John."
"But that's what you were told! That 'plane' into the World Trade Center left behind a plane-shaped hole, all the way out to the wings!" Now I was the one having trouble staying calm.
"What? No!" He seemed to think I got my "facts" wrong.
"YES! That's how the official story goes!"
Talking faster without even thinking about it, I asked, "Another question -- how hard would it be to maneuver a Boeing into the WTC and hit it, wingtip-to-wingtip at 500 mph or so?"
"John you can't go that fast at that altitude, but if you could -- it would be tough! You can't easily make adjustments and correct your errors like you can when you're getting ready to land. That IS what those hijackers were doing. They had just taken off, you know."
I had to correct him: "No, actually the maps they showed us depict a much more circuitous route and again, NIST claims United 175 was going 500 mph when it hit the WTC." It was really getting good watching his face.
He quipped, "Somebody's lying about that. They're not telling the truth."
At this point all I had to do was watch him go.
"But...but John, the strongest part of a building are those load-bearing core columns that hold the stairways and elevators! The concrete floors and exterior in a building, other than the corners, is really not that strong. If the plane had hit the core columns, or one of the corners, THAT would be like the steel beam you're imagining."
I then informed him that the WTC towers were unusual that way, with much of its load-bearing steel on the outside perimeter, and that really as buildings go, it's probably a poor candidate for a plane-shaped hole with a Boeing.
And that was it. I finished fixing his computer, his wife wrote me a check and I was on my way. I wonder what's going through his mind. I wonder if he hears a faint voice...Houston, we have a problem!
If he decides to hire me back, I'll see how he's progressed.
You can email John at behave_pc@yahoo.com"

I cant beleive it this guy didnt even realise how fast the planes where travelling when they hit wtc,
so i guess it is true what many have suspected a boeing 757 cannot fly 500mph 700ft altitute because
of the thicker air and the wind resistance against such an aircraft. And he is right that somebody is
lying and that is NIST

NIST National Institute Of Stupid Technicians lol

And this also contains some answers about your flight 77 supposidly taking down the light poles on
it final journey towards the outer pentagon wall.

We could use solid testimony from a boeing engineer.

I strongly reccomend somebody send this guy an invite e-mail to the forum he might prove very helpful if he is interested.

Maybe i should send NIST an e-mail regarding this discussion between the forum member and the boeing engineer, i bet they will not reply.

Boeing 767 flying at roughly 500mph 700ft altitute = bs

NIST = bs

ohmy.gif ohmy.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Feb 16 2009, 01:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Feb 16 2009, 03:26 PM
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



I think this is a sign we may be approaching the "hundredth monkey" or "hundredth couch potato" phase transition in social awareness regarding 9/11.

The deception of 9/11 has been kept in place for lo these many years by an unconscious agreement to not compare either logic or testable reality against repeated, "authoritative" narrative. This is the passive, blank-stare attitude common to most people in regards to the "news": If someone on TV wearing a suit says it, especially if it is said by all of them consistently over and over again, then it must be true.

It can be very useful to analyze the way these things work in terms of understanding what is necessary to deconstruct the official narrative.

Most of us don't know anything about the "reported news" other than what we are told. A lot of what goes on in the political arena is "discourse," -- that is, a form of controlled debate. As Chomsky put it: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." However, case in point there are obviously some "opinions" that fall outside the "strictly limited spectrum" of what is "acceptable." These "opinions" are not debatable; they can only be brought forward (that is, into public awareness) wrapped in derogatory terms. As Gore Vidal put it in August of 2001, "America is a country full of conspiracy, and yet when you mention the word on television the interviewer giggles, so that people will think only nuts who believe in abduction by aliens believe in conspiracies. But don't they know they are being had? They are being lied to every day." About a year later he said, "Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth."

Unspeakable truth: That is not only truth that can't be spoken but truth that can't be given any attention, value or "currency" in the public mind because it has the potential for calling into question the entire edifice of lies upon which "civil society" is based. This is why 9/11 Truth remains important, even though the event is rapidly receding into the rear-view mirror of history. The events of 9/11 happened at certain designated locations on a certain day in history but the usefulness of those events for manipulating social perception remains to this day. Moreover, taken in the context of a strategy of social manipulation that pre-existed those specific events (in other words, social deception didn't begin on 9/11), the events themselves and how they have been made to form a coherent (albeit deceitful) perception of reality en mass can help us understand HOW social control is sustained through time.

People who could not see through the deception as it happened and was presented more-or-less "live" on TV that day are left with a continually reinforced narrative in their minds. Whether in print or on TV, no one ever says "alleged" hijackers, for example. No "experts" are ever given sincere air time to "debate" whether or not steel frame buildings can "collapse" at near free fall speed or whether or not big Boeings can cause cooker-cutter cutouts of themselves in steel frame facades all the way out to wing tips, or whether the data in the FDR allegedly found at the Pentagon contradicts the physical evidence -- and so on. To the extent that any of these come into the public arena of discourse, they must always appear in the context of the "kooky" of the "not to be taken seriously" of the "easily ignored as unworthy of your attention." (As in the old Jedi Mind Trick: "these aren't the droids you are looking for.") This continually reinforced narrative is eventually allowed to sink-back into the "history" of personal and social consciousness (especially as the social attention is perpetually shifted day by day from one "item of interest" to another). It is only in moments when the contradictions between rational and demonstrable observations are compared to the enforced, false narrative that "glimmers" of awareness rise to the level of conscious thought.

This is what we're seeing in this subject. Time has passed. He didn't really "think" about it at the time, or, if he did, his "thought" was pushed into the background and subsumed by the emotionalism, the "shock and awe" of the situation as it was presented unfolding before him on "live" TV. Now, however, something is brought into his attention that was not anticipated or expected and he has to reconcile, on one hand, what he knows must be true on one hand with the actuality that he was led more or less passively to not think about it but to "believe" something else on the other. We all know this as "cognitive dissonance," the disruption of our cognitive functions which can create within some an enormous energy to reconcile this "dissonance," to finally come to some deeper understanding which "reconciles" this dissonance within the mind.

Many outspoken people are now questioning the narrative of 9/11. It remains to be seen whether this outspokenness will ever reach a societal consensus such that our many legitimate questions will be sincerely and openly debated by "experts" on national TV -- or investigated as the crimes they are and argued in a court of law. That this is precisely what must happen if we are to rescue our society from the dark-ages of the post World War II, Cold-War, National Security Act of 1947 era, I think is undeniable. I hear much talk of "hope" and of "moving forward," but for us there is no "hope" without truth and there is no "moving forward" without an imperative to reconsider what "national security" actually means, especially in the light of a Post-9/11 Truth world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 17 2009, 12:50 AM
Post #3


dig deeper


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



hey i just wanted to point out that the original exchange took place with a guy named John Herold,
not amandarekonwith:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...ineer_discovers

thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by paranoia: Feb 23 2009, 12:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 17 2009, 01:44 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Does anyone know the name of the "Boeing Engineer" and what type of engineering he performed? Was he an aeronautical engineer?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Feb 23 2009, 12:37 AM
Post #5


dig deeper


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



from what i could gather rob, the whole thing is hearsay.
doesnt make it true or untrue,
but it is unsubstantiated.

i did a search, and so far havent really found the john herold in question.
given there are many with that name, and the article doesnt give many clues
i doubt i could ever find out anything relevant or useful:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%...tart=0&sa=N


a search for the name from the email addy, the "behave_pc at yahoo",
turned up only the boeing engineer article.


the name by itself did bring up 2 results:
http://www.zillow.com/profile/behave_pc/

and an ebay user:
http://myworld.ebay.com/behave_pc

who was the winning bidder on an item worthy of note:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=220348420973

dunno.gif

This post has been edited by paranoia: Feb 23 2009, 12:42 AM
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: 23rd February 2019 - 11:11 AM