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

[rob balsamo]

I think you are really grasping a straws here.

Firstly, the max speed adjusted for altitude, temp and pressure will be about 370kt

Secondly a tail wind can easily increase this by 20-30 kt (and it looks like a tail wind to me) or 400 kt.

This looks like a tailwind to you?

(IMG:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mjv-0TcTrhw/RlgjMzXvevI/AAAAAAAAAJE/FT6bXsEMWz8/s400/070904flight175.jpg)

No, that's a headwind. (See the smoke? That is the direction of the wind)

Actual True Airspeed is closer to 520-530 knots. Surface winds at JFK, LGA and EWR were out of the Northwest at 10-15 knots. Clearly the winds were stronger out of the north 1000 feet above the surface.

Thirdly, if you don't mind busting your aircraft, you can fly any speed you like.

How do you "fly" a busted aircraft? When an aircraft is busted, you no longer "fly" it, you become a passenger. And then a smoking hole.

A China Airlines 747 did a half loop, losing some 30,000 ft in the process, and survived (full of passengers). A Bae 146 went supersonic (after the pilots were shot) and survived (until it hit the ground).

A 747 and a Bae 146 are not a 767.

The Concorde can go supersonic, does that mean a Cessna 172 can as well? I suppose if the 172 is "busted" you can fly at any airspeed you like, right? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

There is no mystery here - we all saw the videos of a 767 flying.

You need to watch the video we linked above.

[dMz]

So the 757 and 767 frames can not take those forces,,, but what about the 737? They found 737 parts at the site, so what about that airframe?

There are several decades' worth of B737 varieties- could you be a little more specific (as in serial number, and hopefully accompanied by a relevant B737 Flight Manual, perhaps)?

The FAA TCDS ("data sheet") for the B737 says this on page #1, 2, & 4:

Airspeed Limits: See the appropriate FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual listed in NOTE 2.

For several of the other B737 varieties, I found the following:

Airspeed Limits: VMO/MMO - 340/0.82 (KCAS)

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...;FILE/A16WE.pdf

340 knots < 360 knots (and 0.82M is also < 0.86M/0.91M [V_D] ).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10377946

The Boeing company has tended to refine things, possibly exponentially with the advent and increased usage of CAD/CAM/CAE, over the generations (but I've read/heard several conflicting opinions on the new B787 however).

[onesliceshort]

What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.

From John Bursill's alleged sim "findings"

At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my altitude.

I'm sick of seeing pseudoskeptics making claims and then totally contradicting them on other forums.
If CIT or P4T had made such a contradictory statement, no doubt the "Visibility" crowd or their new found "friends" from all walks (the govt loyalist site to Jeff Hill) would be harping on about it.

That's the difference. CIT and P4T use hard verifiable facts and evidence against the detractors' now seemingly "acceptable" black is white bullshit.

Nice work Rob. As always (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jun 24 2010, 05:58 PM

[amazed!]

It is true that airspeed limitations CAN be exceeded, and it is true that the certification regulations require a structural cushion, I think around 10%. I assume those same rules apply to transport category aircraft.

If the airspeed limitations are exceeded, damage can occur, perhaps even fatal damage, but not necessarily. It's a dynamic situation. Of course g loading would have alot to do with it.

Vmo +20 would not be unrealistic IMO.

[lex]

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.

###

[lex]

all i know is that jumbo jets do not vapourize on impact. they leave wreckage when will there be a focus on this?

[elreb]

Rob,

Do you have a thread for blithering idiots?

I have looked into almost every air craft crash since September 2001 and only on the 11th day of September did every single law of Physics and every grain of common sense vanish from Earth, as if we floated into “Black Matter” or some freak dimension.

Over 120 elements do not add up, yet you still have “Morons” (Maroons) clinging to the official “Government” (cover-up) story.

Isn’t there some kind of “ACID” we can dip them in?

[rob balsamo]

all i know is that jumbo jets do not vapourize on impact. they leave wreckage when will there be a focus on this?

13 pages of threads right here using our wonderful search engine.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...ite=%2Bwreckage

[JohnS]

Thanks for the link, Rob. I have seen the presentation but it's nice to have a nice official FAA link to point somebody to. (It's also nice not to have to re-watch an entire presentation to locate one fact.)

So I'm confused though: There's the FAA giving a VMO of 360 knots. What's with all the sources giving a "max cruising speed" of 493 knots? E.g., http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Is max cruising speed different from VMO? Are there different assumptions about altitude? The FAA document didn't seem to mention altitude with regard to its VMO number, but the "max cruise speed" seems pegged to 35000 feet. Again, apologies if this was all explained in the presentation, I admit it's been a while since I've watched it. But I think this is an important point to clarify. Grateful to anyone who can spell it out for me!

[Dennis Cimino]

I think you are really grasping a straws here. Why not be a little more clear about 'what' exactly Rob is grasping at straws about? the fact the planes were going too fast in a straight and level flight regime without thrust augmentation or other things beyond the capability of the engines that come on those planes when they're built at Boeing? That's not a grasping at a straw, it's an AERODYNAMIC FACT, which cannot be overcome by wishful thinking, supposition, or superhuman boxcutter wielding arabs who flew around unopposed in controlled airspace for way too long without any attempt by NORAD to intercept them.

Firstly, the max speed adjusted for altitude, temp and pressure will be about 370kt THAT IS RIGHT

Secondly a tail wind can easily increase this by 20-30 kt (and it looks like a tail wind to me) or 400 kt. DID YOU CHECK THE METARS FOR NYC THAT DAY BEFORE MAKING THAT ASSERTION??? what were the surface winds in NYC that day?

Thirdly, if you don't mind busting your aircraft, you can fly any speed you like. Normal loading requirements for airframes is 1.6 x max load, so there is plenty of excess strength available. WRONG ANSWER, AERODYNAMICS WILL LIMIT THE SUSTAINED SPEED OF THE PLANE DUE TO PARASITE DRAG AND OTHER DRAG COMPONENTS

A China Airlines 747 did a half loop, losing some 30,000 ft in the process, and survived (full of passengers). A Bae 146 went supersonic (after the pilots were shot) and survived (until it hit the ground). NO, THE BAE 146 BROKE UP IN FLIGHT, DID NOT IMPACT THE GROUND INTACT. as for the B-747 IN A LOOP, AS LONG AS IT DIDN'T DO IT IN A SITUATION WHERE LOSS OF THE AIRCRAFT'S CONTROL OCCURRED DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE LOOP, THERE'D BE NO PARTICULAR REASON FOR MUCH MORE THAN MINOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT WITHOUT BREAKUP.

There is no mystery here - we all saw the videos of a 767 flying. MAYBE, but do we know for absolute certainty they were stock airliners which had not undergone extensive modifications?? we don't, do we?

This post has been edited by paranoia: Jun 24 2010, 09:49 PM

Reason for edit: fixed formatting

[rob balsamo]

Thanks for the link, Rob. I have seen the presentation but it's nice to have a nice official FAA link to point somebody to. (It's also nice not to have to re-watch an entire presentation to locate one fact.)

So I'm confused though: There's the FAA giving a VMO of 360 knots. What's with all the sources giving a "max cruising speed" of 493 knots? E.g., http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Is max cruising speed different from VMO? Are there different assumptions about altitude? The FAA document didn't seem to mention altitude with regard to its VMO number, but the "max cruise speed" seems pegged to 35000 feet. Again, apologies if this was all explained in the presentation, I admit it's been a while since I've watched it. But I think this is an important point to clarify. Grateful to anyone who can spell it out for me!

493 knots is True Airspeed.

360 is Indicated Airspeed.


True Airspeed increases with altitude.

Google the above airspeed definitions or visit your local flight school.

The "pilot" you are debating is not very much of a "pilot" if he doesn't understand the difference.

Bring him here. We'll teach him quick.

From what I have seen, it appears the "pilot" you are debating has no more experience than flying his computer chair on Microsoft.

Feel free to quote me.

[SanderO]

I don't know why no one has done a pixel trace analysis of the video at least of the south tower strike which was on several vids. Chandler manages to determine the speed of things coming off the towers. Where are the clever fellas with software to analyze the plane speed of UAL 175?

The data taken from ATC radar can be inserted by a phantom transponder located in an outhouse. Weren't we told that there was data inserted that day, or possibly inserted because of military exercises? If the technology exists, then all the ATC data is suspect.

I don't know how airframes actually fail, but I suspect that it is not catastrophic at a particular speed... different components will fail at different times as conditions move beyond spec.

We need facts.

[Dennis Cimino]

I don't know why no one has done a pixel trace analysis of the video at least of the south tower strike which was on several vids. Chandler manages to determine the speed of things coming off the towers. Where are the clever fellas with software to analyze the plane speed of UAL 175?

according to someone I spoke with last year, some british experts did detailed video frame by frame speed analysis, but I have not seen this personally so I cannot attest to the veracity of the claim it was done.

The data taken from ATC radar can be inserted by a phantom transponder located in an outhouse. Weren't we told that there was data inserted that day, or possibly inserted because of military exercises? If the technology exists, then all the ATC data is suspect.

actually with regard to the NEADS sector, the information the other sectors saw was delayed by almost 26 seconds in time, and this never took place before sept 11th, nor afterwards. the only constructive reason you would 'sample and hold' the radar feed that long, would be either to 'inject' targets, or 'delete' them, before allowing the feed to go to the other users in the air defense system. Constructively, I personally have worked on that kind of military technology and know how it works and it's very very nifty in exercises where you want to change the radar feed in any way you so choose, before the rest of the users can see it. There can be no other legitimate reason to delay radar data to other user sites by nearly half a minute in time.

I don't know how airframes actually fail, but I suspect that it is not catastrophic at a particular speed... different components will fail at different times as conditions move beyond spec.

what is even more important is the instability and loss of control that is inherent in flight regimes where the airplane is outside it's normal load factor limits by a significant margin, in unstable, dense air, down low.

[Obwon]

It is true that airspeed limitations CAN be exceeded, and it is true that the certification regulations require a structural cushion, I think around 10%. I assume those same rules apply to transport category aircraft.

If the airspeed limitations are exceeded, damage can occur, perhaps even fatal damage, but not necessarily. It's a dynamic situation. Of course g loading would have alot to do with it.

Vmo +20 would not be unrealistic IMO.

That is very likely the case, but my question then would be: How do pilot skills impact the matter of planes being flown in the "red zone"? Is it likely that these planes could exceed their limitations at the hands of relatively untrained pilots and still accomplish their missions? Clearly, the experts have said that they found they could control a plane easily while exceeding limitations, but only for level flight. The WTC craft were not in level flight when the design limitations were exceeded... So, is controlling them after design limits are exceeded so simple that the unskilled pilots could get luckly? Or would they be so difficult to control that even a skilled pilot could only hope to get lucky?

Obwon

[onesliceshort]

That is very likely the case, but my question then would be: How do pilot skills impact the matter of planes being flown in the "red zone"? Is it likely that these planes could exceed their limitations at the hands of relatively untrained pilots and still accomplish their missions? Clearly, the experts have said that they found they could control a plane easily while exceeding limitations, but only for level flight. The WTC craft were not in level flight when the design limitations were exceeded... So, is controlling them after design limits are exceeded so simple that the unskilled pilots could get luckly? Or would they be so difficult to control that even a skilled pilot could only hope to get lucky?

Obwon

I transcripted the Pilotsfor911truth "Speed" video and found this section very compelling.
It is not open to detractor obfuscation regarding undocumented and unverified "sim tests" or leaching off the refusal of the withholding of vital data which pseudoskeptics live off.

Hope it's useful (particularly for laymen such as myself). Regarding "Control".

PILOT SKILLS - CONTROLLABILITY

27:35 IN VIDEO

Imagine parking your car at 150 mph, without hitting the side of the car off the garage walls. The operator of the vehicle has to be VERY precise.
Considering that the best alleged hijacker was Hani Hanjur, and he wasn't allowed to rent a Cessna due to the fact that he couldn't control it at 65 knots,it's highlt unlikely that a pilot of lesser capability could control a heavy jet, with zero training in type aircraft, at almost 10 times the speed with a 25 feet margin of error for each side of the wing tip.

Ever driven into a "Jiffy Lube" or similar place to get your oil changed?
Imagine driving in at 150 mph without scratching your car, however, you are familiar with your car, many hours operating it, so this scenario isn't exactly the same.
So, imagine yourself behind the wheel of a tractor trailer for the first time while attempting the same manouevre. Could you do it?


INTERVIEW WITH SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY
TRIED TO HIT THE WTC TOWERS IN A SIM
WITH OTHER EXPERIENCED COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
PILOTS WITHIN WEEKS OF 9/11

DAN GAVADO (?)

Dan : "After their Sim training period I said 'Hey, let's try something. Let's see if we can hit these buildings...uh..like we saw happen.
We used a 737, a smaller much more manouevreable airplane.
So, I set it up for these pilots and keep in mind these pilots have many years experience..
They all took turns trying to hit the buildings AND THEY COULDN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY SLOWED DOWN TO ALMOST LANDING SPEEDS.
THEY COULD NOT HIT THOSE BUILDINGS. AT HIGH SPEEDS THEY COULDN'T DO IT"

Interviewer: " I guess they were getting into 'Dutch Roll' and everything, right?"

Dan : " That's right, that's EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING"

Onesliceshort -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_roll

(IMG:http://i39.tinypic.com/24qsuh4.gif)

30:40 Dutch Roll shown in actual flight

Dan : "PEOPLE DON'T REALISE TO HAND FLY AN AIRLINER AT THOSE SPEEDS
IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT...PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE A NOVICE.
..IF YOU EXPECT TO MOVE THE CONTROLS OF AN AIRLINER AND EXPECT IT TO REACT THE SAME AS A LITTLE AIRPLANE (CESSNA), YOU COULDN'T STAND THE G-FORCES. EVERYTHING IS FINGERTIP CONTROL.
SO BASICALLY OUT OF THE TEN TIMES THAT EACH PILOT TRIED NOBODY COULD DO IT. I WAS ABLE TO DO IT AT THE LAST ATTEMPT.
THAT WAS WHAT OPENED THEIR EYES AND SAID 'SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT'

WE WERE FINDING THIS ALL THE TIME. EVEN THESE AIRLINE PILOTS, WITH THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF EXPERIENCE HAD A HARD TIME CONTROLLING..THE AIRPLANE AT THOSE SPEEDS.

EVEN WHEN I WAS MAKING THE FILM AND I WAS DOING ALL THOSE DIFFERENT MANOUEVRES TO SET IT UP TO HIT THE PENTAGON..COMING IN FROM THE TOP, COMING IN FROM THE SIDE, COMING IN FROM THE OTHER SIDE GOING INTO WHERE RUMMY WAS SITTING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND THEN I TRIED TO LINE IT UP EXACTLY HOW THE OFFICIAL STORY STATES, IT TOOK ME 5 OR 6 TRIES.."

Landing speeds are around FIVE times less than the speeds recorded at the WTC. The interviewed pilots were able to impact the WTC as seen on 9/11 on the first attempt AT LANDING SPEED.
IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL WHEN ATTEMPTING TO DO IT AT OVER 150 KNOTS OVER MAX OPERATING SPEED.

THE SLIGHTEST PRESSURE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE AN ACTUAL MOVEMENT ON THE STEERING WHEEL OR WHAT WE CALL 'YOKE'...IT PRODUCES VERY LARGE CHANGES IN AIRCRAFT DIRECTION OR EVEN PRODUCE STRUCTURAL FAILURE.

THE GOVERNMENT EXPECTS US TO BELIEVE (AS DETRACTORS DO) THAT INEXPERIENCED 'HIJACKERS' MANAGED TO PENETRATE ALL 3 BUILDINGS WITH MARGINS OF ERROR AS FOLLOWS:

ALLEGED PENTAGON IMPACT - 33 FEET MARGIN FOR ERROR

SOUTH TOWER - 25 FEET MARGIN FOR ERROR

NORTH TOWER - 25 FEET MARGIN FOR ERROR

AT OVER 400 KNOTS??

YOU DECIDE.

AGAIN, THERE IS A REASON THE MANUFACTURER SETS SPEED LIMITATIONS.

- AIRFRAME FLUTTER

- CONTROL SURFACE EFFECTIVENESS

- CENTRE OF PRESSURE VS CENTRE OF GRAVITY

- TRIM CHARACTERISTICS

To name just a few.

When design limits are exceeded, control surface effectiveness become increasingly non existent.
FOR EXAMPLE, AS AIRSPEED INCREASES THE WING GENERATES MORE LIFT, THEREFORE THE PILOT NEEDS TO PUSH THE NOSE DOWN.

TRIM IS USED TO RELIEVE THESE PRESSURES.

39:40 - VISUAL PRESENTATION OF THESE FORCES SHOW THAT THE AIRCRAFT WILL BE OUT OF CONTROL WHEN THE PRESSURE ON THE TRIM BECOMES TOO HIGH.

40:00 EXPLANATION OF EFFECTS ON CONTROL SURFACE EFFECTIVENESS.

BASICALLY THE MORE YOU WANT TO ACCELERATE, THE MORE THE NOSE WANTS TO PUSH DOWN. KNOWN AS 'MACH TUCK'



Onesliceshort -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_tuck



AGAIN,THE AIRCRAFT IS OUT OF CONTROL.

40:35 'AILERON ROLL'

Onesliceshort -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron

(IMG:http://i39.tinypic.com/2lu272d.gif)

"Ailerons are hinged control surfaces attached to the trailing edge of the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft. The ailerons are used to control the aircraft in roll. The two ailerons are typically interconnected so that one goes down when the other goes up: the downgoing aileron increases the lift on its wing while the upgoing aileron reduces the lift on its wing, producing a rolling moment about the aircraft's longitudinal axis."

AT EXCESSIVE SPEEDS THE 'DOWN AILERON' GRABS MORE AIR FROM THE RELATIVE WIND AND ACTUALLY CAUSES MORE DRAG, PULLING THE AIRCRAFT IN THAT DIRECTION. OPPOSITE TO TURN. THE PILOT WANTS TO TURN RIGHT BUT THE AIRCRAFT TURNS LEFT.
THIS IS CALLED 'CONTROL REVERSAL'.
AGAIN, THE AIRCRAFT IS OUT OF CONTROL.

These are just some of the basic reasons why an aircraft manufacturer sets speed limitations for particular airframes.

EVEN IF THE STRUCTURE DID REMAIN INTACT AT SUCH EXCESSIVE SPEEDS, COULD THESE 'HIJACKER PILOTS' COUNTER SUCH FACTORS?


CONCLUSION
PILOT SKILLS - CONTROLLABILITY

SOME MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE THE WTC BUILDINGS WERE SOME OF THE TALLEST BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD THAT THEY WOULD MAKE EASY TARGETS TO HIT WITH COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT.

NAVY PILOTS KNOW THE SKILL IT TAKES TO HIT SUCH A TARGET (AIRCRAFT CARRIER), EVEN AT LANDING SPEEDS, IN HIGHLY MANOUEVREABLE JETFIGHTER AIRCRAFT. IT IS CONTRADICTORY TO SUGGEST THAT THE WTC IS SO LARGE AS AN EXCUSE FOR 'HIJACKER PILOT' ABILITY.

42:20 - COMPARISON OF WTC BESIDE AIRCRAFT CARRIER.

COMBINE THAT WITH THE CONTROLLABILITY FACTOR AT HIGH SPEEDS AND DYNAMIC PRESSURES. IT IS ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT THESE 'HIJACKER PILOTS' WHO COULDN'T CONTROL A CESSNA AT 65 KNOTS COULD EASILY HAVE
HIT THEIR TARGETS, COMPLETELY AND THOROUGHLY. THREE OUT OF THREE!

THE BLACK BOXES FOR AA11 AND UA175 ARE CLAIMED TO NOT EXIST.
THE DATA THAT THEY HAVE SUPPLIED SHOWS IMPOSSIBLE SPEEDS.

THOSE EVENTS FRO 9/11 WHICH DO NOT HAVE (OR HAVE EXTREMELY LIMITED) VIDEO OR PHOTOS AND VERY LITTLE WITNESSES, MOST CONFLICTING WITH THE GOVERNMENT STORY, DO HAVE DATA AVAILABLE FROM THESE AIRCRAFT.
UNFORTUNATELY ALL DATA WHETHER FROM BLACK BOXES OR RADAR DOES NOT SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT STORY OR IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

WRITE TO YOUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ADVISE THEM TO BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.

Peace.
OSS.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 30 2011, 08:05 AM

[Maha Mantra]

As mentioned, it should be fairly easy to time the aircraft in the videos and use the width of the towers as a measure of distance traveled. Proffessor Chandler has replied to me several times. I suggest you email him at dchandler@ae911truth.org, Rob. Or actually it seems that there are people able to do that here.

Its great to see more and more qualified people expressing their perceptions.

I am looking forward to the fighter response analysis and hopefully interviews with the actual pilots that day.

I'm thinking about the connection methods on the twin towers between the columns and comparing the total penetration of the towers to the limited penetration of the Pentagon.
The connection systems are yet unexplained or shown in pictures, so how the towers may have fallen as they did, as well as how the aircraft knocked the perimeter columns in, seemingly all the way out to the wing tips is one area of contemplation for me.
The columns are extremely strong, but if they were only surface-welded together at their ends, then such a weak connection has to be factored into the "collapses" as well as the effect the aircraft wings had on the columns. This is off-topic, but it does have something to do with whether these were modified 767s regarding wing strength.

I don't know if the military used any 767s or if a 767 made for military use has any stronger of an airframe.

I think Saddam having WMDs or ties to Osama Bin Laden is far greater "hot air" than what anyone will find on 'Pilots for Truth', yet we've spent a $trillion to kill, maim and displace millions of people over it. I suppose to some, that's not a waste of time.

[rob balsamo]

This is a huge time waster!


PS - My last post have fun with your beat up...

Seems instead of John remaining here to discuss the matter civilly and trying to work together, elected to find time to personally attack me and our organization at Blogger.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-24/nasa...#comment-234142

The following sent to All Core Members and friends of the organization, and Bursill. Feel free to post it wherever you like.

John Bursill Slamming Pilots For 9/11 Truth Due To Latest Deets Article

Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:18 AM
From: "Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>


To All Core Members,

If I were to sum up this situation with just one sentence, it would be, "You don't get flak unless you're over the target".

This notice being sent to you based on a specific critic of our latest article released on 6/22.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html

As some of you know, John Bursill claims to be a skeptic of the govt story regarding 9/11. He is a resident of Australia and claims to work for Qantas as an Avionics Tech. He also hosts a very small internet radio show yet is perhaps the loud minority in this context, hence the reason for sending out this notice. Most of you don't even know who he is and this will be the first you ever hear his name, and probably the last. However, most of his time is spent attacking our work, our organization, and me personally. I have tried to remain civil with John in hopes we could agree to disagree on certain issues, yet work together on others. You can read this here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10787046

John has refused to return and discuss the matter civilly and instead is libeling you, me and our entire organization all over the web and on his little internet radio show with guests who do not have the expertise to have an opinion on the matter nor have reviewed the data or presentations. Bursill attempted to rope Bob Bowman into this argument, but Bob gracefully declined to enter any "pissing contest" between Bursill and myself. The intelligent choice.

All of you are aware of and many of you were consulted for our latest project "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". John Bursill claims that the work we perform and place our names, credentials and professional reputations somehow discredits him and others who do not have the expertise, knowledge, nor place their name on our work (or have even viewed our work). That we create "division" and are spreading "disinfo". I mostly ignore Bursill and his rants as I too do not have time to deal with any "pissing contest". Especially with those who do not understand the subject matter, but this has gotten to a point where the responsible thing to do is make the organization at least aware of this issue.

I was recently made aware our latest article being posted to another site where members claim to question the govt story with respect to 9/11. Here is just one rant of many John Bursill is writing in reply to our latest article, "NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The Elephant In The Room"

Quote -
"It's not complicated, experience has simply demonstrated that P4T are bad news for our credibility.

It is obvious to any one with their eyes open that Rob Balsamo et al are not following the scientific method.

They rely on opinion and guess work to make broad statements as if fact but support no theories?

They create division and support disinformation both indirectly and directly, they also harbour dangerous high profile members.

One question as a "layman", if you don't have the data and don't do the experiment how do you have the conclusion?

Regards John "

It appears John Bursill has not reviewed any of our work as all of our work is based on data, mostly provided by the NTSB. We are also not the organization who focuses on a particular individual or other organizations, claiming they are "making US look bad", as does Bursill.

I normally would not waste your time (nor mine) and send this out to the entire Organization and leaders of other organizations, but the libel has gone on long enough (almost 2 years). Again, the responsible thing to do is at least make you aware of the issue.

If you come across John Bursill in the future (highly doubtful for most of you), and he starts ranting about our work, specifically the reported speeds of the 9/11 Aircraft, remind him of his own words,

"...but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction." - John Bursill
(Bursill wrote this in another rant at another site before he fled from a debate challenge)

And then remind him that the airplane reported to have struck the south tower was not only changing direction right up until impact, but pulling significant G loads at such excessive speed. Then perhaps tell John Bursill to learn the fundamentals of a Vg diagram and why aircraft manufacturers set limits on their aircraft.

I have given John the opportunity to debate this topic civilly and posed a few short questions as a prerequisite to make sure he understands the subject matter, that the debate will not turn into a Ground school. John Bursill fled.

I would also highly recommend you decline any invitation to be interviewed on his internet podcast or any event in which Bursill is one of the organizers as you will only end up in a circular argument of mostly libel directed at me personally, or the organization as a whole and the debate will no doubt turn into an impromptu form of ground school. You teaching John. I would also recommend the Radio hosts included in this email to not invite John onto your program as much of the same will occur. John had his chance to debate the topic, he chooses personal attacks instead.

"Ye shall know them by their fruit."

If anyone has any questions on this matter, feel free to call and/or email.

Hope you are all doing well.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
Pilots For 9/11 Truth

BCC:
Full Core member list
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Friends of the organization
John Bursill

[Dennis Cimino]

Seems instead of John remaining here to discuss the matter civilly and trying to work together, elected to find time to personally attack me and our organization at Blogger.

Rob,
this is my problem with this kind of crap going on here. These non-pilots don't know anything about aerodynamics, they haven't flown anything in real life, and they have no clue that there are limitations on airplanes for real reasons, not just because someone published a max speed somewhere in a manual. the numbers come from REAL limits on the airplanes, not some suppositions about being able to fly the machine beyond physics laws and aerodynamics rules and get away with it. ANY large airplane of this type, once in very low altitude, straight and level flight, will 'decellerate' rather fast once it has leveled out from a dive, due to the drag component. And this John character has no idea what an 'accellerated stall' is, has no clue why those occur, and doesn't know what the ramifications of those are in real flight in a heavy airplane.

So, I'm going to have to say that when we let non pilots come in who are not AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS with years of design experience, then they are going to make statements in here that are flat bullshit. And when this guy had no clue 'why' the speed numbers are different relative to altitude, this told the WHOLE STORY, because that fundamental lack of understanding shows that even simple things about AIR DENSITY aren't kicking in with him, or the fact that IAS is a function of altitude as well as speed. Just about any moron knows that air molecules at altitude are further apart and air density is less, and therefore, IAS numbers will always vary with altitude due to this density difference.

to not know that accelerated stalls occur in any high speed flight regime, is also inexcusable and indicative of NO CLUE.

so my recommendation is to not let non-pilots, in particular, non-pilots without any idea how airplanes have limitations, come in an post about speed issues, is a good one to follow. When they have no idea that airplanes have these limitations and that infinite thrust doesn't mean INFINITE SPEED, due to drag components that are not overcome, then they have no business being in here posting anything.

I hate to be an asshole about this, but jesus christ, this gets old, debunking GARBAGE assertions by NON PILOTS!

it's one thing to have a question, but to be argumentative when you are not a pilot. Get the fuck out of here, go back to spanking your fucking monkey! Don't come in and argue aerodynamics with people who've spent more time in flight than you've spent playing with your pitot tube!

[rob balsamo]

it's one thing to have a question, but to be argumentative when you are not a pilot. Get the fuck out of here, go back to spanking your fucking monkey! Don't come in and argue aerodynamics with people who've spent more time in flight than you've spent playing with your pitot tube!

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Dennis Cimino everybody!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html#Cimino

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

The even more hilarious part is that Bursill thinks the article is the sole product of myself, that i "spun" Dwain Deets words, unfortunately Bursill missed the fact I already told him Dwain approved the article (and in fact helped write it to clarify some points), not to mention the fact Dwain and i chatted on the phone for about 2 hours prior.

[DoYouEverWonder]

The columns are extremely strong, but if they were only surface-welded together at their ends, then such a weak connection has to be factored into the "collapses" as well as the effect the aircraft wings had on the columns. This is off-topic, but it does have something to do with whether these were modified 767s regarding wing strength.

The curtain wall columns were not welded, they were only bolted together. For a building that was designed to sway, I would say this was not a very good idea.