Nasa Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The " Elephant In The Room ", PilotsFor911Truth.org Rating Options

[rob balsamo]

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"


06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

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.

###

[elreb]

Personally, I do not see any plane “Swaps”. We know the two AA flights never existed!

The twin tower flights appear to be remote controlled from the get go.

The third non- existing flight was intended to hit #7. Oops…something went wrong.

These planes were specially modified and tested by the good old boys. (Perhaps at Edwards AFB?)

I was wondering if it would be necessary to plant a honing device, in the towers to insure a perfect target or does external control work as well?

This post has been edited by elreb: Jun 28 2010, 07:34 PM

[rob balsamo]

I was wondering if it would be necessary to plant a honing device, in the towers to insure a perfect target or does external control work as well?

Check this out...

Less than 1 Meter accuracy.

See attached.

Attached File(s)

 FS_OPATS.pdf ( 124.67K ) Number of downloads: 291

 

[Dennis Cimino]

Check this out...

Less than 1 Meter accuracy.

See attached.

No homing device needed. laser illumination of the target if the drones used IR homing, as I felt they did for the 'terminal phase' could have been done from a number of locations around the city, from any number of heights. It'd be interesting to see if anyone had any 'valid' IR photo's of the area, say, an hour or two before this happened? Not likely but worth a thought.

One thing I wanted to point out is that the GPS systems out there with WAAS augmentation would have made target illumination wholly not necessary, it
would be nice as a terminal phase augmenter to the GPS stuff out there, for a false flag op of this type, you'd want to make sure you had a plan 'B' just in case of the freak accident that day that GPS was locally 'jammed' somehow, which requires very low power to effectively and locally 'jam' the system (who would jam is also a good question, but you wouldn't want to take the chance that it wasn't possible, is what I am getting at).

but the final ballistics trajectory final course changes would be far better handled by a high speed processor doing the job of keeping the plane on the
mark than a human brain. We're good, but not nearly as good as a computer that's got good solid accelerometer data being fed to it, to compensate for side slipping and low level wind shear.

but back to the speed thing, the ONLY constructive reason you'd want to go 'faster' into the buildings with these drones, is to minimize the amount of time that a camera could get good clean shots of the airplanes before impact. As it is, we don't have good clear pics which show that there is NOBODY IN THESE MACHINES on the other side of the oval cabin windows.

one last note I have spoken extensively about, is that the FMS systems on the stock airplane would have to be 'locked out' to prevent the airplane from trying to protect itself from structural overload from overspeeds and high roll rates in the final phases of the flights. if that wasn't done, it's unlikely that a human pilot could command the kind of speeds and roll rates demonstrated by at least one of the '2' airplanes just prior to impact with the WTC towers, and the FMS system not override that. What I am stating is that these airplanes have flight limits built into the flight managment systems that are there as SAFETY FACTORS, and they trump pilot imputs in circumstances where a command by the pilot actually threatens the structural integrity of the machine. Without this being locked out, extreme agility, way out of tolerance airspeeds, are not too very real. The plane's FMS computers won't allow
the planes to go intentionally to these realms of overspeed and roll / pitch which would result in structural failure of not just control surfaces, but the
wings and engine pylons which hold the 7 ton powerplants on the wings. Once an airplane begins to structurally fail, the failures aren't necessarily going to happen in a predictable, redundant system keeps you flying fashion. Boeing would have programmed the FMS systems to 'self preserve' the airframe and powerplants but not taken all the control away, just limited 'actual' control surface movement versus 'commanded' control surface movements at high speeds. Remember, load factor goes up very fast as a function of speed, and even a momentary 'stop to stop' rudder or elevator command at 510 knots would have consequences such as horizontal stabilizer deformation and possible separation, as well as vertical stabilizer failures like the Airbus off of New York suffered while well below Va (maneuvering speed) when the pilots tried to compensate for wake turbulence from a heavy jet they had just flown thru before the vertical stabilizer (rudder) came off the machine.