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.

###

[Obwon]

Now, as Rob suggests, back to the topic at hand:

I don't see a mention of a duration for the excessive flight speeds! Does anyone know
when each flight began to exceed it's design limitations?

Also, when a craft exceeds it's design limitations, how long can it be expected to survive?

As a lay person I get the general impression that, even if these unskilled pilots managed to somehow exceed the speed limits, they would not be prepared for what happens next.
Since, unless I miss my guess, the flight characteristics of the aircraft become very different from what is normally expected (not that the skyjackers would even know "normal" from special).

So to my mind, an 'x' or an arrow and/or a number of minutes or seconds, during which the aircraft were flown past their design parameters, would be most helpful.

This post has been edited by Obwon: Jun 28 2010, 07:51 AM

[rob balsamo]

Now, as Rob suggests, back to the topic at hand:

Thank you.

I don't see a mention of a duration for the excessive flight speeds! Does anyone know
when each flight began to exceed it's design limitations?

I am so glad you asked.

Those who make excuse for the govt story love to claim, "The aircraft was only at this speed for a few seconds and then crashed. It can sustain this speed for a few seconds you idiot!"

Of course they offer zero proof for their claim. Not to mention the fact they are wrong.

I cut some scenes from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" due to the fact it was technical enough. I have calculated the speeds based on radar data for the last minute, a full 60 seconds.

The average speed over this straight line path is 501 knots. The average speed over the last 2 radar sweeps (24 seconds) is 509 knots. Remember, this is groundspeed. True airspeed will be a few knots higher due to a turn into a headwind. This is also straight line distance measurement over time. Actual speed will also be a few knots higher as the path is curved (the aircraft was changing direction), covering more distance (again, I don't want to get too technical when the simple measurements will serve its purpose. K.I.S.S.)

During this time, the aircraft is changing direction and pulling out of a dive, ie. Pulling G loads.

As pointed out in the presentation, please familiarize yourself with a Vg diagram.

Here is a basic Vg diagram.

(IMG:http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/images/vg_diagram.gif)

Now, the above diagram is for a primary aircraft used to instruct student pilots. But it gives you a good idea of what to think about when an aircraft exceeds its design limits.

It is not so much "duration" as it is a hard limit of combined stress on the airframe, speed and maneuvering.

As stated many times, we have been pressuring Boeing to release Wind Tunnel data (which would include the above Vg diagram for a specific aircraft). We hit brick walls.

Now, I just noticed this diagram pop up on the web the other day when I did a search (it wasn't available when I made the film). It is a Vg diagram for the P-51 Mustang.

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/p_51d_v_g_diagram_119.jpg)

Notice the structural failure shaded area occurs in the P-51 at roughly 505 mph/438 knots.

Notice the "Limit Dive Speed" in the above diagram. The "Limit Dive Speed" (Vd) for the 767 is 420 knots. 425 KEAS is when Egypt Air 990 broke apart in flight.

The govt expects us to believe a 767 with its bulky airframe can pull G loads and maneuver to stike a target with a 25 foot margin for error each side of wing tip -- almost 80 knots faster than the structural failure limit of a slick P-51 airframe?

I dont think so.

That is why you see so many experts speaking out.

http://pilotsfgor911truth.org/core

The list grows.

Also, when a craft exceeds it's design limitations, how long can it be expected to survive?

Again, it's not so much duration rather that when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period. (Edit: This statement needs clarification as duhbunkers are trying to spin it... They love to cherrypick and spin... This does NOT mean that 1 knot over Vd and it breaks, there is a difference, we are speaking in terms of a "design limit" of anything... note the quotation marks. If you bend a pencil, when does it break? At it's "design limit". When anything breaks, it is safe to say it hit it's "design limit". This is why I put "design limit" in quotation marks. This was clarified with my original statement below, but duhbunkers apparently weren't able to comprehend the meaning of the language in context. Hopefully this clear it up for them, but I doubt it. The duhbunker most responsible for this type of cherrypicking is trebor/pinch/sweetpea/streetxcar + 15 other socks. His real name is Bill Paisley. He is a Military flight school washout who couldn't make it to the front seat nor obtain an FAA pilot certificate and now works for the Pentagon as a Blogger cyber-stalking our work and me personally. It wasn't until I threatened to report him for cyber-stalking that he stopped sending harassing emails. Now all he can do is attempt character assassination through his daily obsession. Learn more here on Trebor)

Keeping it simple, how long can you hold a pencil at its breaking point? You cant, because it already broke. Its called a breaking point for a reason.

American 587 lost it's tail during a wake turbulence upset, losing control, killing all on board.

(IMG:http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa587/4.jpg)

I think it's safe to say it hit it's "design limit"?

This happened well below Vd, at departure speeds.

Edit2: As expected, duhbunkers still don't understand my edit above and are in full spin mode piling in as many clowns as they can. Let me see if I can further clarify.

Note in my original post I stated "Notice the "Limit Dive Speed" in the above diagram. The "Limit Dive Speed" (Vd) for the 767 is 420 knots. 425 KEAS is when Egypt Air 990 broke apart in flight."

Now if I thought an aircraft "breaks apart at 1 knot over Vd", my original statement above based on the analysis found in 9/11 World Trade Center Attack contradicts such a premise as EA990 did not suffer structural failure at 1 knot above Vd. It happened at 5 knots above. This was it's "design limit" in the context of this post. Other aircraft suffered structural failure at 20, 30, 50, 70 knots over their Vd (Dive speed), some well before (as is the case with AA587). This was their "design limit", again, in the context of this post. Not one positively identified aircraft in the history of aviation has EVER exceeded Vd (Dive speed, end of flight envelope and beginning of the structural failure zone on every V-G diagram) by more than 150 knots and maintained control, stability and/or structural integrity. We are still waiting for the duhbunkers to provide one.

It is also interesting to note that duhbunkers like to call me a fraud, yet I can be verified in the FAA database. Meanwhile, every single person they source who claims to be a pilot (maybe three total.. .as not many more will endorse their crap), do not know the difference between Vne and Vmo, cannot determine the difference between an A320 and a 757, and are all anonymous.

Now, since the duhbunkers still won't comprehend what was just written...

If Obwon had asked - "Also, when a craft exceeds Vd, how long can it be expected to survive?"

I would have told him - It depends on conditions and aircraft. But if comparing apples to apples, based on EA990, the aircraft reached 425 knots before suffering structural failure. This is 5 knots into the structural failure zone of a 767 V-G diagram. This is 85 knots less than the speeds reported for the South Tower aircraft. As speed increases, flight conditions become exponentially worse. Also keep in mind that the South Tower aircraft pulled more G's than EA990 as well.

Duhbunkers still won't get it, or will try to spin it, but layman and real pilots will be able to understand.

Bottom line, I never claimed an aircraft "instantly breaks apart at 1 knot over Vd" or "as soon as a plane passed the red zone on [the] diagram then it would instantly break apart". Our own analysis proves we never would make such a statement based on EA990 analysis alone. Duhbunkers have nothing but strawman arguments, character assassination, are obsessed with our work yet will never confront us... and will certainly never debate the facts. As usual.

Again, you don't get flak unless you're over the target.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Feb 15 2012, 03:47 PM

[Obwon]

Thank you.

I am so glad you asked.

Those who make excuse for the govt story love to claim, "The aircraft was only at this speed for a few seconds and then crashed. It can sustain this speed for a few seconds you idiot!"

Of course they offer zero proof for their claim. Not to mention the fact they are wrong.

I cut some scenes from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" due to the fact it was technical enough. I have calculated the speeds based on radar data for the last minute, a full 60 seconds.

[sniped]

Ah, live and learn! So "design limits" are breaking points, not merely "red zones", because the "red zones" are the yellow caution zones, where within which the aircraft is stressed, but does not immediately break (unless it's already weaker than expected, by say age or previous usage)

So, then, how well these craft are likely to hold up in the caution zone, is credibly impacted negatively by their age? I must guess that as aircraft age, they become less tolerant of stress.

My best guess is that such a plane could never last long enough to hit the tower, even with a robot, remote controller or anything else "at the wheel".

I also took another, cursory, look at the skyjacker distribution claimed. So, with 9 of them found alive, one dead a year prior, that left 5 or 6 on flight 11 with Madeline Sweeney, and 3 or 4 on the flight with Bremmer, total 9 or 10 and we have only to account for 9.

So two of the planes in the 9-11 attacks had no skyjackers on board, and yet all the evidences of them being skyjacked, flown to targets and crashed, exists! Oh my! I say "oh my" because what this means is that all of the evidence from all four flights, it is now demonstrated, can be faked. Because two of these flights had to be faked, and it was done just as well for them all.

If the official story were true, then there would be aircraft parts littering lower Manhattan and the towers would still be standing. Or destroyed like WTC 7, without explanation there for.

But like I said, they knew that the risks of trying to fly planes into the towers was way too high a failure prone operation. They could not risk failure, they would not get another chance, and they could not keep the prepped buildings both secret and ready for long. They had to have the towers struck by planes, because that's the only way they could blame the affair on Islamic extremists and initiate their intended wars. So, the only way to ensure the greatest measure of success, is to dispense with reality and focus on creating the illusions needed.

Same old stuff, different century! tsk tsk tsk.