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 )

12 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
John Lear A No Planer?

lawson911
post May 12 2008, 02:43 AM
Post #81





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Was the speed possible?

Hello,

I am new to this forum, as I didn’t think that non-pilots could post comments. My field is images, having been a commercials director, a cameraman and an editor for most of my working life. I am now retired and I am the author of “WTC7 – This is an Orange”; “September Clues – Busted!” and “Impossible Speed & Impact Busted!”

“Mercurial”, an administrator wrote: “YOU CAN NOT PROJECT 3D IMAGES ONTO THIN AIR PERIOD!!” Which is quite correct. It would be like trying to see a movie at a Drive-In Theatre from which the screen had been removed. Fiber optic cables are capable of transmitting light-modulated signals in both directions, at the same time, which rules out some kind opto-interferometry process, yet hundreds if not thousands of people say they saw the plane hit the South Tower, and there are about 40 videos which appear to confirm that they were right.

I do not wish to be disrespectful to people I regularly trust my life with, but what I cannot understand is why it seems impossible for a group of concerned pilots to come to a consensus as to whether or not something which looks like a Boeing 767- 200—it could have been a remotely-controlled military-tanker version, or some other adaptation—could have flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at a high speed. That has to be the burning question:

WAS IT POSSIBLE?

John Lear says it wasn’t possible, yet another pilot, Field McConnell, who has an equally impressive flight background (minus once being in the pay of the CIA), says, unequivocally, that it was possible. Some time ago, following some critical comments from the usual armchair experts, I e-mailed the following formally-phrased question to Field:

“Could a Boeing 767-200 have dived from, say 30,000 feet, then levelled off to hit the South Tower moving at 586 mph (509 K)?”

His answer was: "Yes." He also stated that it could probably have achieved that speed in level flight, if all of the conditions, engine-power parameters, etc., had been right.

I also refer to a serving USAF maintenance engineer in the “About This Video” section of my video “Impossible Speed & Impact -- Busted!” as saying that the speed was possible. http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php...916#post3041916

He summed up, as follows:

“Flight 175 went from 31,000 feet to 800 feet in approximately 9 minutes, attaining a maximum 10,000 fpm dive rate during this maneuver. The aircraft would absolutely have built up enough speed to attain ~500 mph+ during the run in to the WTC.

Next time they ask a Boeing Engineer they need to phrase the question correctly: "Could a 767-200, after diving from 31,000 feet at 10,000 fpm, attain a groundspeed of 500+ mph at 800 feet?"


My own calculations, given the information supplied in the FAA's “Type certificate A1NM” for the Boeing 767, indicate that a speed of about 21%, over the approved FAA maximum speed would have been necessary, and I point out that the FAA approved speed, as well as Boeing’s design safety margins would surely allow for this, for at least a short period of time. I mean these things are designed to fly through the odd sudden storm and periods of (human) bone-breaking clear air turbulence, aren’t they?

You guys shouldn’t be messing about thinking about holograms, or video fakery. You are pilots, you should be able to tell the world:

YES, IT WAS POSSIBLE.

or

NO, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

Respectfully,

Anthony Lawson
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 12 2008, 03:10 AM
Post #82



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Good to see you here Anthony. Welcome to the forum.

The only way we can definitively say if it were possible (or impossible) is if we have wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767 or if we have sat in the seat pushing more than 150 knots over Vmo. There is a reason Vmo is an established limit for any aircraft. All kinds of factors come into play when over that limit. Control surface flutter being one (which will tear an airplane apart), along with control surface deflection (controllability, run out of elevator, etc), Center Of Gravity, Center Of Pressure, Mcrit numbers (when the air over the wing goes supersonic), Mach tuck and so on...

We will eventually be looking into the speeds at NYC event in the near future. Of course, we have hit alot of brick walls trying to obtain hard data from wind tunnel testing, but we're still working on it, for all flights.

In the meantime, i have put together this thread regarding speed questions and data provided by a 767 pilot.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9272

Also, sourcing a site known for spin, obfuscation, lies and making excuses for the govt story will get not much of a response here. You'll also notice the forum filters out the url.. more of a spoof than anything. wink.gif

Once again, welcome!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 12 2008, 04:06 AM
Post #83



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I liked your video “WTC7 – This is an Orange”.

Welcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 12 2008, 04:10 AM
Post #84



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (painter @ May 6 2008, 11:46 PM) *
... [snip] so I have no idea why you toss that straw man into this thread. That was NOT the point of my rant.
...[snip]

I wouldn't call it so much a "straw man" as I would prefer the terminology: a "shadowy figure wearing a VERY DARK fedora"-- IMHO...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 12 2008, 06:39 AM
Post #85





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Hello Rob and Lunk,

Thank you for your welcome, and comments.

Rob, you kindly sent me that link, before, by e-mail, but I did not realize that I would be able to post comments or replies. One comment which interested me came from “morninscott”

QUOTE
Hi all,
My experience having flown Boeings for the last 13 years, 8 on the767 is that Mr.Boeing builds them very strong....
I recall an incident quite some years ago where a Chinese registered B747SP got itself into a spin and fell from 35+ thousand feet to below 10 thousand.
It more than doubled its structural G limits not to mention substantial rolling G (turning whilst pullling G, a definate No No!)
Lost a few panels and gear doors, hydraulic systems etc. and popped a few hundred rivets but kept flying. (By the way they didn't want to report this, but that's another story altogether


Although the Chinese-registered aircraft mentioned was a 747, the fact that it may well have “more than doubled its structural G limits” seems to indicate that a speed increase of 21% over the FAA limits, in whatever it was that looked like a 767 and which flew into the South Tower, would only have been excessive from a mandated speed-limit perspective, rather than from a practical one. Let’s face it, cars exceed the mandated speed limit, everywhere in the world, but this does not mean that they tear themselves apart.

Furthermore, if it were known, in advance, that an aircraft was going to be pushing the outer limits of its design envelope, there must be precautions which could be taken to ensure that nothing silly would be likely to cause a disaster, before its self-destruction mission was accomplished.

“morninscott” goes on to write about ground effect, but this would only have applied to the alleged Pentagon aircraft, which is not presently under discussion, and for which there is no video record.

Anthony
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 12 2008, 06:40 AM
Post #86





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Just setting the reply-notification parameter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 12 2008, 07:16 AM
Post #87



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (lawson911 @ May 12 2008, 04:39 AM) *
Let’s face it, cars exceed the mandated speed limit, everywhere in the world, but this does not mean that they tear themselves apart.

Hello Anthony,

So...

Are YOU going to go RACE your [applicable PRODUCTION, "daily driver" car manufacturer] vehicle at [6000-12000] RPM for halves-of- or hours-on-end then-- anytime [hypothetically, of course] soon?

QUOTE
Furthermore, if it were known, in advance, that an aircraft was going to be pushing the outer limits of its design envelope, there must be precautions which could be taken to ensure that nothing silly would be likely to cause a disaster, before its self-destruction mission was accomplished.

Anthony

Anthony, where EXACTLY would YOU place the "outer limits of its design envelope" "to ensure that nothing silly would be likely to cause a disaster, before its self-destruction mission...." then-- NUMERICALLY? [FWIW- I'm a science/engineering type, and I like to have a "number" that I can work with]

EDIT: [P.S. Anthony-- where's chek? Oh wait- here he WAS--
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10564852]

Peace, Anthony.

This post has been edited by dMole: May 12 2008, 06:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post May 12 2008, 09:40 AM
Post #88


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



Doesn't the OGCT have the planes doing a flyover, then pulling a slow U-turn, then slamming into the towers? One question might be could those planes have reached the speeds needed in the space provided. But to answer that requires obtaining official flight paths.

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: May 12 2008, 09:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 12 2008, 02:12 PM
Post #89



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Car speed limits are for public safety. Aircraft speed limitations are for flight safety/structural limits. Apples and oranges my friend.

Aircraft also have "speed limits" in the sky (like cars on the ground), such as 250 below 10,000 feet. But this has nothing to do with speed limitations for the specific aircraft.


Again Anthony, i know you want to strongly believe it was possible, and that is certainly ok. But P4T cannot say either way until we see wind tunnel data. Everything else is speculation and we do not speculate. The speed is excessive, period.

If it makes you feel better, speeds of 500+ mph are possible, depending on the airframe. We wont know if it was possible for a stock Boeing 767 (as reported by the govt story) until we see wind tunnel test data for a Boeing 767. If it turns out it is not possible, one must look into the possibility that the 767 could have been aerodynamically modified (I think this is what Field was referring to as he feels it was a drone). But im sure more brick walls will get in the way.

Also keep in mind you brought up Clear Air Turbulence and T-Storm penetration. All aircraft have maneuvering/rough air penetration speeds (Va/Vra) which are much lower than Vmo. Please see the link i posted. If those speeds are exceeded during rough turbulence, you risk bending the airplane or even tearing it apart. Many airplanes have come out from the base of a T-Storm in pieces. Many airline ops specs will not allow flight into known/reported severe turbulence and many require at least 20 miles separation from any T-Storm cell.

Which brings us to your quoted example of G limits. G limits in regard to the 747 are different than the speed limitations we are talking about here. Again, apples and oranges. A spin is a stalled condition, speeds are relatively low. I dont know details of the 747 incident, but i would bet it was below Va/Vra when it pulled double its G limits (and it still lost pieces). Try that above Vmo, and i could guarantee those wings would have folded like a cheap tent (if in fact it pulled double is structural limit which has been tested to fail at that limit, or if it just pulled double the transport category limit, which would be 5 G's). But again, i dont think the 767 pulled twice its structural G load limit. This is why its apples to oranges. We will be looking into it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 13 2008, 01:11 AM
Post #90





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Not Apples & Oranges

Rob wrote:
QUOTE
Car speed limits are for public safety. Aircraft speed limitations are for flight safety/structural limits. Apples and oranges my friend.

I’ll cop to the lesser charge of comparing Jonathans to Granny Smiths.

Passenger-aircraft limits are also for public safety, which, of course, must include the structural integrity of the “people container.” Therefore flight safety can, in several respects, be compared to road safety. The objective of both is to stop people from being killed or injured, when either inside or outside the respective container.

The analogy I was using was meant to point out such similarities. However, I do recognise that one of the major differences is that road-speed limits apply to all vehicles, unless otherwise specified, while air-speed limits apply to each aircraft type, while certain parameters apply, across the board, such as the limit you mention: "below an altitude of 10,000 feet."

Having been through the hoops, with Underwriters Laboratories in regard to several kitchen appliances I’ve designed, I know that safety standards in the U.S. do not apply to normal, everyday usage. They must cover just about any kind of foolishness that a user is likely to get up to, and be fail-safe even when overloaded to an absurd degree. And I cannot believe that similar levels of safety, although they would be described in different ways, are not required by the FAA or aircraft manufacturers, even for standard, off-the-shelf aircraft.

That was more in my defence, regarding the Apples/Oranges charge, because you’ve actually given me the answer I was looking for. My questions did not refer to a “a stock Boeing 767 (as reported by the govt story)” which is why I wrote:

QUOTE
...whether or not something which looks like a Boeing 767- 200—it could have been a remotely-controlled military-tanker version, or some other adaptation—could have flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at a high speed. That has to be the burning question: [emphasis added this time around]

I also dispute that, I “...want to strongly believe it was possible.” I want to find out as much as I can, and base my conclusions on my findings. Had there not been supporting evidence for real planes, as attested to by the many eyewitnesses and videos, I would have to rely solely on expert opinion, but the supporting evidence undoubtedly exists, so of course I lean towards a belief that real planes hit the Towers. I also lean that way because the “experts” who say that real planes could not have done so have yet to explain away the eyewitness and the videos which, in my opinion, could not possibly have all been faked—using the real explosion and pasted in graphics of the plane—and still “cut together like butter” when edited into time-accurate continuity sequences, calculating each edit point back in time from the moment of impact.

In any event, I now have as definitive an answer as I need to fit into the other evidence:

QUOTE
...speeds of 500+ mph are possible, depending on the airframe.

Which I trust can be accurately expanded into the following statement:

Provided that suitable airframe parameters had been met, it would have been possible for an aircraft visually resembling a Boeing 767 – 200 to have impacted the South Tower of the World Trade Center at a speed of approximately 575 miles per hour.

I’ll plead guilty the apples, oranges comparison charge, with regard to the G-forces, but in mitigation I would point out that it was in the context of what “morninscott” wrote about “Mr.Boeing builds them very strong....”

Thank you for your time and excellent explanations, Rob, I appreciate it.

Dmole: I was using the "outer envelope" in the sense that it was used in "The Right Stuff", I don't believe that Tom Wolfe actually supplied any figures, either, but thank you for your comment. (I've lost touch with Chek; I think he may have misunderstood something I wrote on another forum.)

QUOTE
Part of the [apparently unidentifiable] fuselage of ONE plane on top of WTC5... How exactly do we know that the "fuselage" wasn't "pre-placed" beforehand???? Call me "devil's-advocate" or what you will-- but, PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION [AS ASKED].

One of the most boring shots I've ever had to shoot was to film a bathroom-toilet-facility module being lifted off a container-sized lorry and placed in position on the 12th floor of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank building, in Hong Kong. That was in 1984 or 5. So, believe me, I'm 99% certain that, no matter the time of day, someone would have seen plane parts being lifted onto the top of a building in downtown New York. Of course we can never be really sure of anything, but we can be reasonably sure if there are more than two or three interlinking factors which seem to point towards a reasonable conclusion.

George Hayduke: I've never read anything about a flyover.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 13 2008, 01:24 AM
Post #91



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (lawson911 @ May 13 2008, 01:11 AM) *
Not Apples & Oranges


I'll cop to the lesser charge of comparing Jonathans to Granny Smiths.

Passenger-aircraft limits are also for public safety, which, of course, must include the structural integrity of the people container. Therefore flight safety can, in several respects, be compared to road safety. The objective of both is to stop people from being killed or injured, when either inside or outside the respective container.


Anthony, you're still missing the point.

There are speed limits in the sky which would be your "Johnathans to Granny Smiths" (55 mph on the road, 250 below 10,000 feet, which by the way is a stupid joke some new pilots with their cocky ego play on a cop when he pulls you over for "speeding". Show your pilots license and say "i wasnt speeding officer, its 250 below 10". It may get you out of a ticket, but it also may piss off the cop. wink.gif).

But you are comparing speed limits for a car on a highway to structural speed limitations on an aircraft. They are apples to oranges and if any pilot tells you different, i would personally like to know who it is.

If you want to get closer to apples, try getting tire speed specs for a certain car tire when it starts to become unstable and/or rip apart, its probably near 130-150 mph depending on tire. That is a better comparison to Va, Vra, Vmo.. etc.

The rest of your post i didnt read as this would be like me trying to argue with you about video editing. I would defer to you. Although its not a fair comparison because i do have experience with editing and you have zero with aircraft.

When you have over 20 years experience flying aircraft, teaching numerous students over the years and have earned a paycheck with your aeronautical knowledge, perhaps we can argue the subject matter. But im afraid you just dont have the knowledge and i really dont feel like giving a ground school on an internet forum.

If it makes you feel better, feel free to quote anonymous individuals on the net who support your beliefs and make excuses for the govt story. The rest of us will continue to search for hard data.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 13 2008, 02:43 AM
Post #92



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Anthony,

If you're interested- the FAR code is somewhat informative (albeit in a rather lengthy "lawyerese" way).

I'll save you some time and boil it down for you: +2.5g maximum, 105% of maximum engine RPM for 2 minutes only, and a "factor of safety" of 1.5 on the airframe structure (I'm often the most nervous guy on the flight- I see equations, vectors, strain matrices, and numbers in flight- yikes). I'm not the biggest fan of aluminum for anything other than heat sinks, either. It does give me some comfort that pilots have as much faith in Boeing aircraft as they apparently do, and the B-series have an excellent safety record when operated within design parameters and they are properly maintained (Egypt Air, KAL, TWA800, and Lockerbie being a few "curious" exceptions).

My research, quoted directly from the FAR (and that of UnderTow is nearby) at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10393891

I'm a scientist/engineer, not a pilot, but I haven't existed exactly-independently of the USAF, DoD, NASA, US Navy and a few other "agencies" for the last two decades either. I did work with some Boeing aerospace engineers often (they're a nervous, tight-lipped bunch, and I've posted why somewhere around here). I concur with Rob's assessment above (of course I'm "freer" to speculate than he is wink.gif ). I'm still looking for tangible proof that the Boeing turbofans would operate in that 500mph+ "low altitude" "high [wave?] drag" envelope. For the record- I've seen and reviewed your "Impossible Speed- Busted" video long ago.

I CAN tell you definitively that US combat and cargo military aircraft are nearly always designed to much higher standards than commercial transports, however. That's a MIL-STD fact.

EDIT: On the WTC5 "fuselage" question- a large blue tarp comes to my mind- I know I saw some photos of those taken at the Pentagon, but maybe they don't have tarps in NYC. I've seen them over many a haystack out in the country though. Many/most people don't generally look up "for the hell of it" from my observations (don't most people busily scurry about in NYC, often honking incessantly?). I know that JFK was a real zoo when I was there.

This post has been edited by dMole: May 13 2008, 04:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 13 2008, 02:54 AM
Post #93



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dMole @ May 13 2008, 02:43 AM) *
I'm still looking for tangible proof that the Boeing turbofans would operate in that 500mph+ "low altitude" "high [wave?] drag" envelope.



Good to see some know what Mcrit means around here wink.gif. If anyone can locate Mcrit for the B767 (and the B757) at or near sea level, that would be a big help.

I'll PM one of our 75 drivers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 13 2008, 05:44 AM
Post #94





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Hello Rob,

Okay, I understand what you are saying, so I will drop my defence of mixing apples and oranges, because my analogy about everything having to do with safety obviously did not satisfy you.

Where you left off had to do with what you wrote later, because you seem to have misread another section of my original post.

My questions did not refer to a “a stock Boeing 767 (as reported by the govt story)” which is why I wrote the following, in my original post:

QUOTE
...whether or not something which looks like a Boeing 767- 200—it could have been a remotely-controlled military-tanker version, or some other adaptation—could have flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at a high speed. That has to be the burning question: [emphasis added this time around]


I also dispute that, I “...want to strongly believe it was possible.” I want to find out as much as I can, and base my conclusions on my findings. Had there not been supporting evidence for real planes, as attested to by the many eyewitnesses and videos, I would have to rely solely on expert opinion, but the supporting evidence undoubtedly exists, so of course I lean towards a belief that real planes hit the Towers. I also lean that way because the “experts” who say that real planes could not have done so have yet to explain away the eyewitness and the videos which, in my opinion, could not possibly have all been faked—using the real explosion and pasted in graphics of the plane—and still “cut together like butter” when edited into time-accurate continuity sequences, calculating each edit point back in time from the moment of impact.

In any event, I now have as definitive an answer as I need to fit into the other evidence:

QUOTE
...speeds of 500+ mph are possible, depending on the airframe.


Which I trust can be accurately expanded into the following statement:

Provided that suitable airframe parameters had been met, it would have been possible for an aircraft visually resembling a Boeing 767 – 200 to have impacted the South Tower of the World Trade Center at a speed in excess of 500 miles per hour.

Anthony
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 13 2008, 11:30 AM
Post #95



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Anthony,

It may be possible for a stock Boeing 767 to "impact the south tower at a speed in excess of 500 mph". The difference here is that we like to have hard data and then come to a conclusion. You seem to want to get an endorsement and/or statement from P4T to confirm your theory that possibly a modified Boeing 767 impacted the south tower before we have any hard data from wind tunnel tests. It would be speculation on our part if we made such an endorsement/statement and we do not speculate. Our statement currently on the reported south tower impact is that the speeds are excesssive for a Boeing 767. Period. Read our mission statement.

Im sure anything is possible if there is enough time and resources to modify any airframe, perhaps speeds in excess of Mach 1 depending on modification. But that would be speculation. We do not speculate.

If you want us to say "Its Possible" or "Not possible", help us get the wind tunnel data and/or Critical Mach numbers at or near sea level for a 767. You asked how you can help lift some burden? This is how. Please be sure to provide solid source, names, etc.

It would also be helpful if you can get a "Vg" diagram for the 767. It looks like this... of course, this isnt for a 767.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 13 2008, 05:55 PM
Post #96





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,909
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Anthony

I would be interested to know how you arrived at the numbers you are using for airspeed.

I can only assume you are using government radar data, and as far as I'm concerned, that is very much like using government data on any other aspect of the events that day--passenger and crew lists, departure times, gate numbers, etc, etc.

The bad guys spoofed the radar that day. As far as I can see, that makes any and all radar information to be virtually useless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 13 2008, 06:42 PM
Post #97



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hi amazed,

I and tume went through these same "586mph" hoops a while back. I believe that Anthony is using the MIT and RAF "expert" opinions based upon video frame analysis IIRC. I don't know which video source they were using though (I think I've expressed my "faith" in video "evidence" elsewhere at least once before).

Anthony,

Don't several of the NYC eyewitness and video accounts contradict each other for the WTC events? I know the FDNY firemen's accounts weren't too well publicized for several years (and those kind of make plane/no-plane a moot point IMHO, in an RDX sort of way).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 13 2008, 10:16 PM
Post #98





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Hello Rob,

I cannot see any point in pursuing the stock 767 angle, exclusively, because there is no credible evidence which conclusively indicates that it was United Flight 175; a Boeing 767 – 200 passenger aircraft, which hit the South Tower. At the top of the official “information” tree is the “9/11 Commission Report”, much of its findings being provably false or misleading, therefore there is no reason to believe what it says about any of the planes.

Because there is a lot of disinformation floating about, for example, on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, yes, it would have been good to have had an endorsement from Pilots for Truth—regarding it being possible for a plane to travel at that speed, every time someone cites Morgan Reynolds or “September Clues” or Jeffrey Hill of pumpshitout or Ace Baker or John Lear regarding the impossibility of that flight—but it looks as though that’s not going to happen, even though it seems, from what you’ve written, that, given certain parameters, it would have been possible for a plane which looked like a Boeing 767 to have hit the building at around 575 mph.

Thank you for your time. Until further data is available, I’ll just keep beating the eyewitness-and-video-evidence drum.

Hello Amazed! and dMole

The speed data has been published on several websites, and is as follows:
MIT – Massachusetts Institute of Technology 503 mph
RAE – Royal Aircraft Establishment (not the Royal Air Force) 575 mph
FAA – Federal Aviation Authority, 586 mph
NIST – National Institute of Standards and Technology 546 mph
FEEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency 590 mph

My own calculation, based on the distance from the Towers and time to impact, which was averaged from data taken from two videos, was 572 mph. My son arrived at the same figure, based on the Evan Fairbanks video. The figure I prefer to work on is, therefore, the RAE one of 575 mph.

I’ve never seen a radar report which has given a speed at impact.

There were several firemen who observed the North Tower impact, and, to my knowledge, none of them has ever denied seeing the plane which Jules Naudet captured on video.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 13 2008, 11:16 PM
Post #99



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Anthony,

I apologize, but you are asking us to speculate. We dont. We are searching for data based on govt reports.

If the data says a 767 cannot perform such speeds, we will report it

If the data says a 767 can perform such speeds, we will report it.

The former will prove the govt story false (among the many other conflicts), which is all we have to do. We do not need to come up with a theory of our own. The govt has to prove theirs. The burden is square in the lap of the US Govt.

If you want to branch out from there and debate modified aircraft vs. No planes, you are entitled. But i think its spinning your wheels (for both sides) when and if the govt story is proven false regarding these speeds being possible for a stock Boeing 767 as reported by the govt and we should all be marching up the steps of the Capitol demanding answers at that point. Not bickering about modified vs. No Planes.

If you want my opinion, those who do get drawn down in such debates could be disinfo on both sides in order to cause confusion and distraction among the masses instead of marching up the steps of the Capitol.

The difference with Lear and others, is the fact they put their name on it and are marching up the steps of the justice system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post May 14 2008, 04:29 AM
Post #100





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Hello Rob,

I don’t think I am asking you to speculate, I am asking, on the basis of your undoubted experience, whether or not you think it was possible for two planes which looked like Boeing 767s to have impacted the WTC Towers on 9/11 in the manner which the videos seem to indicate they did.

But it will obviously be pointless to pursue this, on the Pilots for Truth website, so I will just state: I cannot see the point in waiting another few years to find out whether or not the Bush administration was telling the truth, on this particular issue, when there must be enough seat-of-the-pants information floating about for someone to make an intelligent guess as to whether or not any planes could have been adapted to do what was seen to have been done, in New York, on 9/11/2001

John Lear says: No planes. Field McConnell says: Drones. One all.

Disappointing, but thanks for your time.

Over and out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
Closed 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: 31st July 2014 - 09:41 PM