Dutch Pentagon Attack Recreation A Fraud? - Simulator Not Certified, Not A 757
Oct 19 2009, 05:48 PM
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1
Click here for video and full article including email exchanges with the National Aerospace Laboratory.
Spread it everywhere!
Dutch Pentagon Attack Recreation A Fraud? - Simulator Not Certified, Not A 757
(Pilotsfor911truth.org) - Some may be aware of a video in which Dutch Researchers at the National Aerospace Laboratory recreate the Pentagon Attack in a flight simulator with what they claim is an "inexperienced pilot", in an attempt to prove that it is "not impossible" for Hani Hajour --the alleged hijacker pilot of American Airlines Flight 77-- to have performed such a maneuver. Others, mostly anonymous, attempt to use this outdated video in a poor attempt to discredit seasoned 757/767 Captains speaking out. Since the release of "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" featuring interviews with 757/767 Captains from United and American Airlines who have attempted to recreate the maneuvers reported on 9/11, Pilots For 9/11 Truth have once again come under fire. Captains from United, American and other airlines have attempted to recreate the maneuvers performed on 9/11 and found it highly unlikely to impossible for any inexperienced pilot to have accomplished such maneuvers (See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" and "Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org for more details).
The Dutch simulation test was performed prior to the release of the Flight Data Recorder information, so clearly the Dutch researchers did not have any scientific data to examine the maneuver, nor implement the maneuver properly. Their main focus was to debunk claims made that the turning maneuver was impossible, which we agree is possible according to the data now released. However, other aspects of the flight path are impossible (See "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org).
After review of the simulation, here are the unknowns. They claim to use a speed of 800 km/h, which is 30 knots less than reported by the 9/11 Commission and the since released Flight Data Recorder information. A 30 knot difference at such high speeds can be a major factor in control effectiveness and structural integrity (See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"). They also do not show the simulator reaching this speed. We also don't know the exact maneuver performed. Although they show a diagram prior to entering the simulator, there is no way of knowing if they actually followed such a flight path. We also don't know type of aircraft configuration nor any weather conditions they may have set for the maneuver. Although the sky was clear on 9/11, there was an almost direct cross wind at 10 knots which is a factor when maneuvering (See METAR's at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon). We also don't know experience level of the simulator pilot. The video compares Hani Hanjour to Mr. Ruigrok, the simulator pilot, as "inexperienced" and having flight time in light aircraft and flight simulators, but how much? Mr. Ruigrok works for the National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR). It is fair to say he has a lot of time in simulators and is very familiar with such a device. As Mr. Ruigrok enters the simulator, the narrator goes on to state Mr Ruigrok had "practice" as "Hani probably did too" suggesting Mr. Ruigrok has practiced the attack maneuver prior to the taping as Hani "probably" would have done prior to 9/11. This is scientific research? No, this is creating more experience for an alleged "inexperienced pilot" based on speculation. When asked, NLR refused to offer credentials and experience level of Mr. Ruigrok in order to determine their definition of "inexpereinced". (See below).
This is what we do know about their simulation:
It is not based on data; The crash logic was disabled; The over-speed warnings were disabled; They did not include topographical obstacles; The light poles on Washington Blvd are non-existent, and, most importantly, the simulator is not a 757! All of these are major factors when attempting to recreate a real-life maneuver which Pilots For 9/11 Truth have shown, based on data, is impossible.
Keep in mind, jumping in any old simulator attempting to hit the Pentagon is very easy to do. The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world. But for the purpose of this recreation attempt, the Dutch researchers claim they are a "...technological institute [focusing] on scientific research and.. therefore only present information to the media directly based on this research" (See email exchanges below). NLR claims to be presenting a scientific approach for the purpose of performing the maneuvers reported and impacting the area of the Pentagon attacked, concluding the attack as possible.
On first attempt during the taping of the video, Mr. Ruigrok hits the top northwest corner of the building which would have spread large pieces of wreckage everywhere, unlike the alleged object that hit the Pentagon which left very little wreckage. The second hit plowed into the front lawn and foundation. No such damage is observed at the Pentagon. The third time looks like a more direct hit but again plows into the foundation.
Conclusion - It took 3 tries on video to get it close. How many times did Mr. Ruigrok "practice" prior as the video admits? The simulator crash logic being disabled is a major factor as the simulator would have crashed long before getting to the Pentagon due to excessive speed (See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"). The over speed warning also being disabled is another major factor as it's a huge distraction to the pilot while flying. Combined with the fact the light poles on Washington Blvd are missing and the fact the simulator is not that of a 757, how can anyone take such recreation for this purpose (ad-hoc and incidental) as scientific?
Pilots For 9/11 Truth contacted the National Aerospace Laboratory in the Netherlands in an attempt to clarify some details of this simulator test.
These were the questions asked:
1. Prior to the above simulation, how long has Mr. Ruigrok worked for NLR and in what capacity?And the first reply:
Dear mr. Balsamo,Bolding emphasis added. The National Aerospace Laboratory uses a simulator which is not certified to compare a real life flight maneuver? Why isn't it certified? Because it doesn't behave like a real airplane? This is scientific research? We attempt to contact Mr. Vos again pointing out we were not looking for a conclusive statement regarding 9/11.
And the reply:
Dear Mr. Balsamo,Again, bolding emphasis added. Hmmm, feels a lot like the replies we get from the National Transportation Safety Board and the FBI. First Mr. Vos acknowedges NLR demonstrated/recreated a reported event on 9/11 due to a request made by journalists, when asked to clarify, Mr. Vos now claims it's against NLR policy to contribute? Contradict much?
Our final reply to Mr. Vos,
Dear Mr Vos,If anyone would like to email Mr. Vos for inquiry, please feel free, although you may not get much of an answer. firstname.lastname@example.org
Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data does not support the government story. See <a href="http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease" target="_blank">http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease</a> for a summary of Pentagon Analysis. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.
Oct 21 2009, 08:55 AM
Group: Valued Member
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095
I used to get angry when I saw comments like Lapmanīs. Now I just feel pity.
Loyalists are like stubborn kids that refuse to believe Santa doesnīt exist. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blahblah1.gif)
Could you imagine if WE were pushing their arguments to expose an inside job?
Hani Hanjur could have pulled this manouevre because..umm..I say so. Never mind the massive number of instructors who totally ran him into the ground. I rest my case.
Of course Lloyd englandīs story is true. It is perfectly feasible that that bigass pole skewered his cab and didnīt damage his bonnet. Nobody saw it? What about the unidentified īsilent strangerī?
He admitted on camera īit was plannedī? Ummm...Lloyd is a senile old man and should not be listened to...apart from when he backs up my argument. Case closed.
Of course Flight 93 buried itself halfway into the ground. Pff..why would you doubt it?
WTC7 fell because of fire...FEMA says so..wait, no it doesnīt..freefall speed? 9/11 physics my friend..
Corraborative NOC testimony? They are all wrong. My reasoning? We have the governmentīs word on plane parts and DNA. Next!
The gatecam is not fraudulent. Yes, one witness saw this low level flightpath with the white plume..the camera.
Yes the ASCE report claims that 1000šC temperatures were reached in the Pentagon. Thatīs why it collapsed. How was the DNA identified? Unimaginable technology. Didnīt a passenger strapped into his plane seat survive this Danteīs inferno?
Yes I will admit we had our thumbs up our asses that morning and had absolutely no air defences.
CRAZY that Arab extremists had the ability, total professionalism and knowledge of transponders, radar blindspots and safety through the coincidental wargames exercise which rendered NORAD helpless. AND the incredible pilotting skills that had 75% (or maybe 100%) succes rate. But it happened.
So Rob. please donīt ban this guy. He helps our cause more than you can imagine! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)
Excellent post btw.
All these half-baked īscientificī experiments have got to be exposed. Ridiculous.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 04:00 PM|