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 Others, mostly anonymous, attempt to use this outdated video in a poor attempt to discredit seasoned 757/767 Captains speaking out.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. email@example.com
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, 04:06 PM
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690
ROb, Painter, Albert, Panther, Dmole and Paranoia. . . .
It looks like you guys have already done a good job of thanking these Dutchmen for coming to the party, giving them a nice pat on the ass, and sending them and their two cent's worth on their way.
All I can add is that they are just like Legge, trying to prove something that is meaningless in the first place. I think everyone can agree that it is not impossible for an inexperienced pilot to perform the flight maneuver1" (my emphasis added). Sure, Hani could have gotten almost miraculously lucky and that makes this stunt "not impossible", but it remains well nigh impossible, as a practical matter impossible. Stated another way - Hani has the same vanishingly small chance of success that Painter, Dmole or I would have.
Instead of settling on "not impossible", they could have avoided these implications by concluding that their data suggested a 1 in 3 chance of success, or found reasons to discount it to say, 1 in 6, or 10, or whatever. But for some reason they didn't even try to quantify their conclusion and just said "not impossible". This choice of words looks very deliberate, designed to say exactly what they mean and no more; unfortunately, when you think it through what they mean is meaningless.
We have seen this pattern before. The body of the paper contains numbers for GL's and others to seize on and spread along with the claim that those "1 in 3" numbers are the real conclusion instead of the unquantified and meaningless "not impossible". But they don't base their conclusion on the numbers and instead state their conclusion in the weakest possible form so that the proposition is not entirely negated. Structural Failure Caused By Hot Jet Fuel Fires and The South Flight Path seem to be the result of similar techniques where direct statements of untenable conclusions were avoided and instead things were sprinkled out that enabled others to conjure the same conclusions.
1. I suppose "flight maneuver" includes (1) the tight, steeply descending 330 degree turn that ended bearing straight on target at low altitude; (2) keeping the 77 foot high target in sight even though it was in a hole with the 9:30 AM sun in the eyes; (3) flying 300 feet or less above ground at about 300 knots for a considerable time and distance while missing several tall buildings; (4) then dropping the plane into the hole at 300 knots to a final altitude that is both (a) high enough to not mark the grass and miss 8 foot high coils; and (B) low enough to dash the entire plane (?40 foot from engine bottom to tail top?) on the building without striking the top 15 feet of its wall. Hmm . . . 8 plus 40 plus 15 equals 63 feet, so there is a 14 foot high margin for error at 300 knots.
This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Oct 21 2009, 04:12 PM
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 02:35 AM|