Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Lobby _ Pilots Discuss Difficulty Of Wtc Attacks

Posted by: johndoeX May 15 2007, 01:47 PM

QUOTE
Professional Pilots Rob Balsamo and FAA Authorized Flight Examiner/Check Airman Dan Govatos discuss the difficulty of the WTC attacks as well as attempts to duplicate the attack in an Airline Simulator on tnrlive.com.

visit truthorlies.org for archive of full interview.

Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org for the latest information and in depth analysis. (more) (less)





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78

Posted by: painter May 15 2007, 02:34 PM

Excellent, Rob! thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif cheers.gif

Posted by: Slick May 15 2007, 03:13 PM

very interesting smile.gif

Posted by: amazed! May 15 2007, 09:00 PM

Great story that nobody could hit the towers.

I still can't figure out why the last second bank on the #2 airplane. If we assume that laser targeting was being used, perhaps that would explain it.

Posted by: Carl Bank May 15 2007, 09:05 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ May 16 2007, 02:00 AM)
I still can't figure out why the last second bank on the #2 airplane.

I never heared of a second Bank.

one and only: Carl

Posted by: Sanders May 15 2007, 11:55 PM

Cool thumbsup.gif cheers.gif

Posted by: georgie101 May 16 2007, 03:31 AM

Well done guy's, great interview.

Posted by: amazed! May 18 2007, 07:57 AM

Carl, I was refering to Flight 175 banking "at the last second" prior to impact. Rather than being wings level, it impacted while turning. I've never been able to figure out what that signifies.

Posted by: Carl Bank May 18 2007, 08:24 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ May 18 2007, 02:57 PM)
Carl, I was refering to Flight 175 banking "at the last second" prior to impact. Rather than being wings level, it impacted while turning. I've never been able to figure out what that signifies.

I know, amazed. Don't worry.

Carl Bank wink.gif

Posted by: Guinan May 18 2007, 09:12 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ May 18 2007, 02:57 PM)
Carl, I was refering to Flight 175 banking "at the last second" prior to impact. Rather than being wings level, it impacted while turning. I've never been able to figure out what that signifies.

Hahahaha amazed, you walked right into that trap !!

1-0 for Carl

G.

Posted by: behind May 18 2007, 06:30 PM

In my opinion it is very interesting what was said in the interview, that is, the speed of the wtc planes. And it surprised me that not so much has been talked about that issue before.

Now, the alleged speed for example of the 2.plane is based mostly on the videos. (Kausel talks also about radar but I understand him like he based the last mile or so on the videos) They used a great speed to support a huge damage inside the tower etc.

But there is only one problem. How could inexperienced pilots controle the planes so perfectly at such a great speed ?

And Eduardo Kausel Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering MIT admit that it looks strange to him:

"The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground
at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal
altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorists
were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, consideering
that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at the normal cruising height, the pilots
greatly exceeded VNE (“never exceed velocity”) and thereby risked disintegration of the
aircraft by air friction."
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf

Posted by: airborneffemt May 22 2007, 01:30 PM

This old Grunt could see the "PAINTING" on the walls.

WILLNOTBOW!!! salute.gif

Posted by: lunk May 22 2007, 03:28 PM

I wonder if there were some sort of homing devices in the buildings.

Posted by: dMole Oct 14 2008, 05:30 PM

A bit on V speeds:

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

V_A Design maneuvering speed, also known as the "Speed for maximum control deflection." This is the speed above which it is unwise to make full application of any single flight control (or "pull to the stops") as it may generate a force greater than the aircraft's structural limitations.

V_DF Demonstrated flight diving speed.

V_FC Maximum speed for stability characteristics.

V_MO Maximum operating limit speed.

V_NE Never exceed speed.

V_NO Maximum structural cruising speed.

V_nd Max structural cruising speed

[EDIT: To our pilots, Is V_nd correct above? That doesn't look right to me- it was from Wiki after all...]

Some like to handwave that these are just like "speed limit signs" on the side of the highway. The aerodynamic properties are not quite that simple, and it is also foolhardy to believe so.... That word "structural" isn't used there just for the hell of it, either.

Posted by: keroseneaddict Oct 14 2008, 06:57 PM

It's been said before, but the alleged maneuvers would create gforces that no human could handle, unless wearing a g suit, and probably not even then.....

Posted by: Omega892R09 Oct 15 2008, 09:23 AM

QUOTE (keroseneaddict @ Oct 12 2008, 10:57 PM) *
It's been said before, but the alleged maneuvers would create gforces that no human could handle, unless wearing a g suit, and probably not even then.....

Particularly the negative G required for the OCT alleged Pentagon strike by 77.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Oct 15 2008, 09:39 AM

QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 12 2008, 09:30 PM) *
A bit on V speeds:

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

V_A Design maneuvering speed, also known as the "Speed for maximum control deflection." This is the speed above which it is unwise to make full application of any single flight control (or "pull to the stops") as it may generate a force greater than the aircraft's structural limitations.

V_DF Demonstrated flight diving speed.

V_FC Maximum speed for stability characteristics.

V_MO Maximum operating limit speed.

V_NE Never exceed speed.

V_NO Maximum structural cruising speed.

V_nd Max structural cruising speed

[EDIT: To our pilots, Is V_nd correct above? That doesn't look right to me- it was from Wiki after all...]

I thought V_NO was speed of normal operation or maximum structural cruising speed and that V_MO was max operating speed but this may help answer some questions if the info in it can be corroborated. I cannot test under MS Flight Simm at moment as my computer died (the recent installation of a new MS keyboard may have been a factor as this new keyboard did not work on this new computer) and I am still getting its replavcement bedded in with all my usual tools (which means nightmare time from keys, registrations etc):

http://www.911weknow.com/forums/index.php?topic=151.0

Edit: Amplification of V_NO description

Posted by: amazed! Oct 16 2008, 09:21 AM

dMole

Vne, not Vnd

Velocity NEVER EXCEED, the redline. Which can be exceeded, under threat of structural damage to the airframe.

Posted by: tovarco Oct 25 2008, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (keroseneaddict @ Oct 14 2008, 04:57 PM) *
It's been said before, but the alleged maneuvers would create gforces that no human could handle, unless wearing a g suit, and probably not even then.....

Can you elaborate on this more? I am not a pilot. I have been discussing the issue with a pilot on www.topix.com - trying to be very open minded. My thought was that flying such a large jet a 500 mphs with all the mayhem that was going on - nearly impossible. And on top of this for 3 of 4 planes to hit there targets. Just did not seem right. He said basically the passengers would feel 1 g on the turn into the pentagon

The guy I have been speaking with says that the manuever was easy and that even a pilot of hanjor ability could do it (8 out of 10 times)

Am I understanding this right? So what the vid says is that basically the manuever could be done by an experienced pilot. The only problem is hanjor was not an experienced pilot and this is where the story does not match.

This guys says he had a license there you go.

Here is one of our exchanges if you are curios and have the time:

Terry wrote:
So tom is the drop at 30 feet per second for AA 77 - is that a big deal?
Is that the same as dropping 30 feet per second straight down?
Also can you (and truth too) explain Lears issue with the "field barometric" and the "altimeter" being set. He said something about getting the field barometric from RR airport from 150 miles away.
Do you know the difference between velocity & acceleration?

tom wrote:

A person dropping 30 ft/sec would have absolutely zero indication that was happening if he did not have an altimeter. Passengers feel nothing.

In order for an altimeter to work properly, you need to set it to the correct local barometric pressure. This is done by turning a knob on the altimeter to show the right pressure. This is called a Kollsman window. If this is not set right, you will have an error in the altitude reading.

When a plane is at the high altitudes that commercial jets fly, there is a different procedure. Everyone sets their reference pressure to 29.97 mm Hg. That way, you're not constantly resetting it as you fly along.

It is unlikely that the hijackers bothered resetting their altimeter, and had an error in their recorded altimeter.

I have no doubt that Lear has what he believes to be a smoking gun of some sort. Unfortunately, Lear is untrustworthy precisely because of his conspiratorial nature and willingness to screw with people.

I also know that pilots are NOT the right people to ask about the esoterica of the workings of aviation equipment. The right people are aviation engineers.

There are 2 factors that affect the accuracy of the reading: barometric pressure & temperature. The altimeter does not compensate for temp. A 20°F decrease in temp compared the a standard temp profile results in a 17 foot error (you would be flying 17 feet lower than indicated). An error of 0.4 mm Hg means about 400' error in altitude.

And a whole passel of NTSB and independent competent aviation engineers have gone thru the FDR data and found it to be completely consistent with Flight 77's flight path.

tk

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/p1911

Any input you can provide would be greatly appreciated! TY!

Posted by: keroseneaddict Oct 25 2008, 08:49 PM

I'll be happy to reply tomorrow, even at the risk of being decimated by some here........just too tired tonight....

Posted by: rob balsamo Oct 25 2008, 09:21 PM

welcome to the forum tovarco,

Please review this thread http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163 as many common arguments are addressed including ones you cited above....


As for Hani, please review http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3550 thread.

Any reasonable pilot reading such a well sourced article and the comments made by Hani's instructors combined with thorough knowledge of the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=14670 required can only come to the conclusion that it was highly unlikely Hani was at the controls of a 757 as some would like you to believe.

Posted by: amazed! Oct 26 2008, 04:53 PM

29.92

And somebody talked about the g force in this maneuver as making humans black out. I doubt this very much. The maneuver could be done in the right airplane, and it would not cause black out.

As I understand it, the g forces at the end of the maneuver would be the toughest, as the >4000fpm descent must be stopped for the airplane to fly across the lawn without making a divot. There is no way that could be done by a Boeing in the hands of a rookie. My bet it would be near impossible by an experienced Boeing pilot.

Posted by: keroseneaddict Oct 26 2008, 07:31 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 26 2008, 05:53 PM) *
29.92

And somebody talked about the g force in this maneuver as making humans black out. I doubt this very much. The maneuver could be done in the right airplane, and it would not cause black out.

As I understand it, the g forces at the end of the maneuver would be the toughest, as the >4000fpm descent must be stopped for the airplane to fly across the lawn without making a divot. There is no way that could be done by a Boeing in the hands of a rookie. My bet it would be near impossible by an experienced Boeing pilot.


Amazed, you may be right about the blackout...has anyone replicated this in an aircraft (at altitude, of course)?

I agree, with that kind of inertia, I am not sure I could have done it (with sig Boeing experience).....It would be like trying to fly the computer generated trajectory of the Shuttle without the computer...

Rob, sorry for the ignorance, has anyone tried it in the B757 sim (without the g of course)?

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