Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed, For Immediate Release Options

[rob balsamo]

Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed

For Immediate Release

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. 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.

[1] http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx...ivalentAirspeed, http://www.csgnetwork.com/machonecalc.html (Equivalent Airspeed and Mach One Calculator to convert Mach into True Airspeed based on altitude/temp and then into Equivalent Airspeed)
[2] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/instruments/q0251.shtml

[SKYDRIFTER]

Boeing hasn't used wind tunnels in decades. What is needed is the demonstrated certification data for the 767. Specifically the dive stability limit speed. That speed will indicate the controlability of the aircraft at a specific speed - within reason. The speed factor has no meaning, besides exposing another lie. The planes hit the buildings; controlled demolition brought down three buildings (including WTC-7).

We know that all the official offices were lying from beginning to end. The only appreciable truth that I've discovered, so far, is that the two airplanes hit the tower on the first try. That took the hands of skilled jet pilots.

After that, it's an exercise in "Eliminate the impossible..."

The only particularly compelling issue is the fate of the other two planes; they didn't crash; that's for damned sure.

[rob balsamo]

Boeing hasn't used wind tunnels in decades.

"The original 767-200 first entered into airline service in 1982" - Wiki

2009 - 1982 = almost 3 decades. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

In other words, the 767 design underwent wind tunnel testing.

Also...

Wind-Tunnel Testing Under Way for Boeing 7E7 - June 2003

"On the 767 program, we performed wind-tunnel tests with more than 50 different wing configurations," said Mike Bair, senior vice president of the 7E7 program. "On this program, we likely will test no more than a dozen."

You may want to check your sources SKYDRIFTER. Boeing still uses wind tunnels.

What is needed is the demonstrated certification data for the 767. Specifically the dive stability limit speed. That speed will indicate the controlability of the aircraft at a specific speed - within reason. The speed factor has no meaning, besides exposing another lie.

Agreed. And we have it. See A1NM Supplemental Type Certificate for the 767. V_D is 420 Knots for the 767. It's all covered in the presentation.

The planes hit the buildings;

This is not disputed. What is disputed is if the aircraft were stock, 767's. According to EA990, they were not.

controlled demolition brought down three buildings (including WTC-7).

Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not have expertise in building design. For such issues, we defer to Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth.

We know that all the official offices were lying from beginning to end. The only appreciable truth that I've discovered, so far, is that the two airplanes hit the tower on the first try. That took the hands of skilled jet pilots.

Again, undisputed, and confirmed by those who have time in the actual aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. Both are featured interviews in our new presentation.

[SlackerSlayer]

Paraphrased,

mod edit: quote tags, time and name removed.

'No 767s hit those towers at the officially claimed airspeed'

Would these claimed airspeeds be within the structural capabilities of the 737-400 series? From what I have seen of the two types, you could not tell the difference between a 767-200 or a 737-400, not in those videos so far released. If you examine the Boeing graphs for the two model types, there are basically three small differences in the profiles, ignoring overall size differences. Has anyone that has the back ground examined the relative size of the flights in question from the available videos? Could it be the smaller of the two models, two 737s that were used?


Radio talk host A.Jones released a video shortly after the attacks of peopel on the streets. This video had the voice of a woman clearly stating "that's not an American Airlines" (paraphrased real close if not the exact words used), but it was supposed to be the United flight flying over her. This always bugged me, why was the voice confusing the first plane for the second if she was supposed to be witnessing the second.

Far too much official obstruction of the crimes and too much mud from others to accept anything told by anyone. Which means Where Is That Grand Jury?




ps, the transponder signal went off because the remote recovery system uses that radio path for the remote pilots live flight data feed. Nice slow 'S' flight for "AA11". Atta do that uh?

[rob balsamo]

Slacker,


1. Please do not place quote tags, time and names around words never said by the person you claim to quote. If you are to 'paraphrase', there is obviously no time, name, or specific quote as a paraphrase is your opinion/interpretation of a specific statement. Please use discretion in your posting.

2. You are asking us to speculate. I'll let others answer regarding P4T speculation.

3. I disagree with your paraphrase. 767 have many different models, perhaps some which are classified?

[onesliceshort]

Excellent job Rob,
Thanks for the layman wording.
Time to spread this info again.
It has always been a ´muddy´ area for me when discussing the ability for a 757 to
travel at such high speed at low altitude with detractors. They always ask for the ´math´
and claim that there are no prior examples to verify this. Now we have both (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Cheers big ears!

[diesel737]

Yes, highly skilled pilots indeed!

OR, I don't think we can rule out remote or automated precision control features such as laser guided, or a satellite based system similar to RNP airline style program.

Those speeds are complete crap. IF, they are real, there is no way any of those rookies could handle the stick.

My two cents.

[aerohead]

Well in my opinion..........

Since we know the whole thing is a lie....... nothing is out of question
except that which can be proved and disproved with evidence and fact.

Precision Guidance could have easily been accomplished though any number
of technologies that have existed for many years. INS (IRS) guidance using ILS
receivers and transmitters to a predetermined GPS/FMC or Lazer designated location
and/or using instant live feed video and autopilot servo's as a means to hand fly it remotely
into the towers just like this......... in 1984

Nasa Crash Test of a Boeing 720 (707-020)


Or the UAV/Preditor program that was started in the 90's ....

UAV Program
Preditor2

And if there is still any doubt........
The QF-4 full scale, fully capable, remote fighter......also since the 1990's.

QF-4 Phantoms
QF-4 Kills


ALL of which, require extensive modification and testing.

IMO, the speeds and maneuvers eliminate the original airframes and instead
insert "drone look-a-likes" capable of these excessive speeds and maneuvers
in the puzzle of the Twin Tower Impacts.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Nov 3 2009, 05:10 PM

[Omega892R09]

The QF-4 full scale, fully capable, remote fighter......also since the 1990's.

Back in the 1960s and 70s Sea Vixens and then Phantoms shot down remote control Meteors.

Then as the Sea Vixen was being withdrawn a drone programme was started based on them and it is that we have to thank for there being a surviving airworthy Sea Vixen XP924 (G-CVIX) that works around the airshow circuit. Was in Red-Bull colours for a few years.

(IMG:http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/AirSea/SeaVixen/640/SV3919H.jpeg)

No, its not using the Sea Harrier Ski-Jump!

[aerohead]

BTW Rob,

Great job on the film. Very well made.
Your hard work is appreciated.

-Aero

[aerohead]

Back in the 1960s and 70s Sea Vixens and then Phantoms shot down remote control Meteors.

Then as the Sea Vixen was being withdrawn a drone programme was started based on them and it is that we have to thank for there being a surviving airworthy Sea Vixen XP924 (G-CVIX) that works around the airshow circuit. Was in Red-Bull colours for a few years.

(IMG:http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/AirSea/SeaVixen/640/SV3919H.jpeg)

No, its not using the Sea Harrier Ski-Jump!

Thanks Omega,
Wow is that ugly tho (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

haha

[Omega892R09]

Thanks Omega,
Wow is that ugly tho (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

haha

Only when you are spotting on the range and they come blasting in overhead loosing off 144 x RPs in ripple!

Otherewise they have a kinda beauty of their own.

I used to use a TAG line:

Hunter for elegance
Sea Vixen for pugnacity
Phantom for clout.

The Sea Vixen was my first front line a/c in 1966 and on HMS Victorious an old WW2 veteran but much modified by then.

[SKYDRIFTER]

My apologies to everyone about the wind tunnel. I was apparently misinformed. I've taken a tour of one of the Boeing computer centers, where the data was strictly calculated. I can't recall where I got the apparently wrong information about the wind tunnels.

If you look to FAR Part 25, there are essentially two dive speeds, one is a minimum FAA certification requirement, the other is the flight test demonstrated speed.

[SlackerSlayer]

Slacker,


1. Please do not place quote tags, time and names around words never said by the person you claim to quote. If you are to 'paraphrase', there is obviously no time, name, or specific quote as a paraphrase is your opinion/interpretation of a specific statement. Please use discretion in your posting.

2. You are asking us to speculate. I'll let others answer regarding P4T speculation.

3. I disagree with your paraphrase. 767 have many different models, perhaps some which are classified?

Sorry for the laymen English usage.


What is to speculate for those with the background in photo analysis to determine what the parameters are for those planes in the video. It is either the size of a 767 or the smaller 737. Maj. Stublebine please take over here?? Are those speed / flight parameters to high for the 737 air frame? I realize any single craft can be modified to take a rougher flight and survive, like those they take through hurricanes.

The line under my name, can you change it to 'less than a student pilot'? The closest I've been to being a pilot was that I had read every book on the flight of helicopters by the time I was in the eighth grade, that the San Diego Library system had to offer.

This post has been edited by SlackerSlayer: Nov 3 2009, 08:04 PM

[rob balsamo]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/9-11-Spee...091102-795.html

[Omega892R09]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/9-11-Spee...091102-795.html

That's great Rob.

How many hits does that site get I wonder?