IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nasa Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The " Elephant In The Room ", PilotsFor911Truth.org

Rating 5 V
 
Obwon
post Jun 26 2010, 11:08 AM
Post #41





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 25 2010, 10:30 AM) *
I trnascripted 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".




Onesliceshort -

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



30:40 Dutch Roll shown in actual flight

Peace.
OSS.


Thanks a bunch! This is exactly the dissertation I was looking for. I'm also quite sure that this is a "quick and dirty" representation of the problems, a skyjacking pilot would face.

Some time ago on usenet, someone posted an analysis of the time, the skyjacker pilots, would have had to line up their planes for their finals. I believe he mentioned it would be like trying to hit a pencil from some 3 to 4 miles out (the distance from where the tower view became large enough to take a general aim), then to the 1 to 2 mile distance, where a precise aim would HAVE to be taken with no margin for error. Turns out that closing that last distance yields approx. 20 seconds. A magical feat, to take aim, if the plane is operating within it's design parameters, an impossible feat if it's outside it's design parameters -- AND IN THE HANDS OF AN INEXPERIENCED PILOT! Because even an experienced pilot would be overwhelmed by the complexities of the variables that must be kept under fine control.

----------

Thus this reduces the need for skyjacker pilots to mere ideological fare, they could not have supplied anymore than a "target for blame". That being their only utility in these events, it's hard to believe they would even be trusted to be aboard such aircraft, if they existed at all and were to be used for this purpose. A remote or computer driven control scheme yields substantial more utility, but that can't happen either, remote controls cannot be utilized on this mission, because they'd be detectable and no such chance could be taken.

That would leave on board programing, but there's not sufficient time and/or information available to any would be programmers/operators to accomplish such a task. So the only pratical solution is not to employ any planes at all, or; limit their use to merely supplying visuals.

The "planners" would realize that they cannot get the planes to the buildings, so they have to devise elaborate plans to "get the buildings to the planes". Thus the explosions must come from inside the buildings and that fact covered up and papered over with noise.

Oh, and btw, of the 19 skyjackers, one died a year before the attacks and another 9 were found alive in the aftermath of the attacks. Leaving only 9 to be distributed among 4 planes.
Sweeney has 5 or six aboard her plane, leaving only 3 or four to be distributed among the other three planes. I sincerely doubt that one single skyjacker on board a plane is going to easily overcome the flight crew. Which means, of course, that whatever anyone wants to think about the 9-11 attacks, at least one plane has to be completely eliminated, unless they want to explain why the flight crew decided to carry out the attack on their own.

So, if one plane can be eliminated, because it could not be manned, why not eliminate all four? After all, they couldn't be flown.

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 26 2010, 11:16 AM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 26 2010, 12:08 PM) *
Thanks a bunch! This is exactly the dissertation I was looking for.



Obwon,

Please watch the presentation so people do not have to type out a transcript for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 26 2010, 12:03 PM
Post #43





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Maha

The USAF took delivery of about 25 Boeings back in the mid ninetys, at McDill AFB. They were part of a program to replace the aging KC-135 aircraft, refuelers.

There are other more interesting angles to the story....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 26 2010, 07:22 PM
Post #44



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Email sent to me from Ted Muga in reply to this whole Bursill issue.

(posted with full permission from Ted Muga)


QUOTE
--- On Sat, 6/26/10, "Ted Muga" wrote:


From: "Ted Muga"
Subject: Re: John Bursill Slamming Pilots For 9/11 Truth Due To Latest Deets Article
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 7:31 PM

Rob, I agree with you completely. And thanks for all of the great work that you are doing with P4T.


Ted


Ted Muga credentials and experience:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Muga

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots#Muga

San Diegans For 9/11 Truth
http://sdcgj.netrootz.com/web_pages/view_w...30&page=109
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Cimino
post Jun 27 2010, 12:25 AM
Post #45





Group: Guest
Posts: 31
Joined: 19-November 07
Member No.: 2,496



First, I have read the blog at 911blogger.com, and found it to not be too very forthright and or fair to Pilots For Truth's assertion to support Mr. Deets in his statement that the speeds that these planes striking the towers, allegedly had achieved, were not too very likely or were they too very possible.

I read Robin Hordon's fairly thorough dissertation there, and I have problems with it from a number of valid places. First, I want to say that I find it quite ludicrous to support the utility of a B-767 at low altitude or 'sea level' flight at speeds anywhere near 510 knots. My fundamental reason for this is that the drag coefficient of this airframe, like any other airframe, goes up by the square, with every knot beyond normal operating speeds, and therefore requires unusually high thrust levels and fuel burn rates for sustained flight at these speeds, so low to the earth. In addition, there are control issues that become very apparent in overspeed realms of airplanes of this size, strictly because the pre mach shock waves begin to form on sections of the near sonic wing, and manifest themselves not at Mach penetration, but before you get there. Such things can cause 'aileron buzz' like early Lear Jets would experience hen they went beyond their normal limits in dense air at low altitudes, as well as a phenomena known as 'mach tuck' where the nose abruptly drops in flight regimes in some jet airplanes which are not intended to be operated for ANY periods of time beyond normal MMO limits, due to the potential loss of control and or loss of the aircraft at these speeds so low to the ground in dense air. To even remotely theorize that there would be an application of a B-767 at near sea level at 510 knots either is, on it's face, totally 'goofy' but kind of goes in the direction of not just foolhardy, but lies in a realm called 'flat hatting' by naval aviators who are intentionally flying their machines in a careless and reckless fashion down in the nape of the earth where the airplane was never intended to be flown at these speeds, by any design engineer, ever for a number of good sound safety reasons, the least of which is merely structural integrity.

For this reason, I have a problem with Boeing or any other test pilots, for data collection purposes, operating any B-767 during certifications phases of flight training, down low, at 510 knots or beyond 400 knots, for ANY REASON. This would be a 'destructive' or potentially destructive test, and for what purpose? For data collection? I have never seen the wing of any B-767 ever outfitted with the instrumentation to collect drag coefficient data of the wing itself, as this is normally done with scale models in wind tunnels, not in real airplanes for the obvious reasons.

And I will go even further here with my argument about the Hordon assertions about the 'impossibility' of knowing whether a B-767 can be maintained in sustained flight at 510 knots at near sea level altitudes, strictly because on the face of that assertion, one can state that a B-767 can be operated at these speeds in a 'side slip which is 90 degrees with the relative wind', and safely so, because Boeing would have, during certification of the airplane, had to have explored this flight regime as well, and incorporated that data in the flight simulator algorithms they use to program existing fleet training flight simulators world wide. If you believe this, I think I have a problem with you also taking the other statement for granted as wholly genuine and hence, also very valid.

And here's my issue with it. First, Boeing does not operate their airplanes in these flight regimes during normal flight tests, for the reasons stated. They can derive enough baseline data in a WIND TUNNEL to intentionally take a plane and subject it to structural failure during certification. Have they ever done 'structural failure' in flight during certifications?? Absolutely they have. Intentionally?? No, not with first item airframes which are so critical for F.A.A. certification work to sacrifice them to irreversible or severe structural damage that either destroys the machine altogether, or renders it 'useless' until it can be returned to use after extensive reconditioning and repair work has been done to 'undo' the wholly unnecessary damage done to it.

My point being that to lambaste Pilots For Truth for supporting the Nasa Flight Director's statements about the probability of these speeds being achievable, is, on it's face, a problem for me, strictly because even as I found Hordon's dissertation to be pretty thorough, he makes statements about aircraft certification work and data collection that are not wholly factual or true, and then summarizes that 'we' at Pilots For Truth cannot make the determination about the maximum speeds that any B-767 can sustain in straight and level, non thrust augmented flight regimes, without truly making a cogent and thorough case as to 'why' a law of aerodynamics that deals with PARASITE DRAG suddenly no longer are in any flight equation any longer, and with that, the assertion that parasite drag components do not increase by the square root for every extra knot the aircraft goes beyond the designed structural limit speed versus thrust availability, at a low altitude where the drag component makes such speeds not only not likely, but entirely not in the possible realm without changing air density numbers or thrust numbers, and yes, even parasite drag coefficients on that airframe and wing, or the total aircraft itself, for sea level flight beyond 370 knots.

Not unlike a ship, an airplane cannot 'undo' drag without fairly exotic tapering of the fuselage to get rid of some of this parasite drag the plane itself has no way of escaping as it moves thru heavy, dense air down low. A ship with a hull limitation or max speed cannot exceed that speed in water, no matter how fast you turn the screws beyond the normal efficient speed they are optimized for, or increase the available power to the engines that move the screws, for the same reasons. The hull drag in the water is a coefficient that not unlike airfoil or form drag or parasite drag, without changing the shape of the rather tubular fuselage to overcome this, the increase of thrust in and of itself is not necessarily the magic solution to get the plane to go faster in a given density of packed air molecules down low. It is for this reason that airplanes are intentionally operated in the UPPER REGIONS of our atmosphere, to reduce this drag coefficient and increase the forward speed by drag reduction that comes with lesser air density and the drag that is inherent in much more dense air.

For Hordon to flatly state we cannot know this is true, that the airframe itself has a speed limit, in and of itself is a statement that flies in the face of aerodynamic facts of life you cannot avoid in airplanes. If you take his statement for truth that we cannot know, and in essence, there is likely to be no real speed limit for the B-767 in dense air down low, then you also should be able to buy that Boeing routinely flew these airplanes sideways in sustained sideslips at 500 knots as well, to obtain data during flight testing. Neither statement is correct, but to allow it to stand that we don't know what we are talking about by making a very correct maximum low altitude speed of approximately 370 knots, is almost as bad as making a statement that the Pilots for Truth airmen never ever in all of their years of cumulative experience, would have to laugh at that and say that it sounds good to a layperson, but to an airman who's been around a bit, he or she knows that airplanes do have limits, they are not mere numbers, and they are based on physics, not someone's supposition or a statement by the N.T.S.B. that 'xx' airplane was clocked going into the towers at 510 knots. That's very very incorrect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Cimino
post Jun 27 2010, 01:31 AM
Post #46





Group: Guest
Posts: 31
Joined: 19-November 07
Member No.: 2,496



I didn't want to come in here and beat up anyone. I just have a big problem with either 'non pilots' making suppositions about laws of aerodynamics that experienced pilots don't just learn in books or in classrooms, but in real life flying of aircraft of various types and capabilities. Nobody can possibly know it all, none of us do, but I am going to go out on a limb here and state that most 'experienced' pilots with 20+ years of experience in props, jets and whatever, balloons even, know the difference between a lot of verbosity and reality.

Hordon I personally know and have drank coffee with on occasion, and done C.I. work with in the past, and hence, for that reason, I am kind of hard pressed to nail him to any cross in here for making statements I cannot and WILL NOT ever agree with, regarding airplane certification and or laws of aerodynamics and flight regimes of airplanes. I've never flown with him, and probably never would get that chance, but I can tell you that it's very strange that suddenly 'we' here in P4T are a bunch of ignoramus' who have no flight experience in our decades of flying all sorts of equipment for each of us, but collectively, and hence 'cannot know' or state that we support Flight Director Deets in his statements about the improbability of these B-767's ever achieving these speeds in a sustained or accellerating fashion down so close to the ground, without having significant issues from any number of aerodynamics rules that never go away, ever.

So, I'm not going to machette Hordon, but I will not even go anywhere near this other gent's claims that he knows from a simulator ride that the airplane can easily breach the 370 knot realm and sustain it in straight and level flight so low to the earth like that without something very odd going on with the machine.

What I think is more likely, is that the non-pilot, did his theoretical run using computer software, not a bona fide simulator, which though totally is possible, is hard to accept because of the costs involved in operating them, and who would then just grant him time in one when I know that most are booked solid for months in advance for flight checks and training reasons, and seldom sit idle for some 'non pilot' to walk in and play with. If he has done this truly, why not tell us which facility, what simulator instructor can validate it, and let us then accept this as a fact and not worry about the claim any longer?? I'm willing to go that route.

As for Hordon coming at us, as I told you, Rob, I think there's more to it than what meets the eye. To spend so much time trying to discredit this organization, without also providing information you asked him to provide, is kind of not too very fair to us, in return. If Robin can state where he got the airplane certifications experience at, and how many airplane certifications he's participated in, once again, we are willing to allow that into our forum and not get testy about it. To come in here and just state we cannot know the speed limitations of a B-767 airframe with the engines it had on that day, on it's face, is pretty untoward and quite nasty given the fact that with all of us, I think we have the cumulative, and individual experience in a bevy of aircraft, that give us all the ability to make these statements. I have been flying airplanes of all sorts, for more than 3 decades, and I have not just operated them inside of their safe flight regimes, but flown many of them right up to their limits, not out of being irresponsible or a test pilot, but because I have long felt that for a pilot to not know his machine he operates as best as he can know it in all known flight regimes that make sense to explore, then that airman is going to someday find himself in a machine he no longer is pilot of command of, by accident.

But I can tell you that thought I am far from all knowing and all seeing, I am also quite aware of a 'chop job' thrown at us by Robin Hordon, and I truly don't know why he is so compelled to do this without making a stronger case that we all are neophyte's and therefore lesser qualified than he is in any airplane we might fly. I kind of like to think that as a community, as airmen, as pilots with years of experience in all sorts of weather, all sorts of machines, and all sorts of situations over the years, that I know that we here at Pilots For Truth are much more professionally experienced and knowledgeable than a person who either hasn't flown for so many years in so many machines as all of us have, and who have had extensive airplane certification backgrounds, inclusive of major research and development work with aviation platforms, to know that there ARE SPEED LIMITS for any airframe, and these are not some number you breach by as much as 150 knots in these cases here, and do without some form of controllability issue or loss of aircraft structural integrity due to accellerated stalls and loss of control issues that can occur when you take such a machine well beyond it's intended design envelope and run it there.

If Robin Hordon has the experience under his belt that makes the rest of us morons and idiots, unknowing, and unable to do research and get facts, then I'd like him to show how we at Pilots For Truth know absolutely NOTHING and he and this other guy, John, know it all, and are vastly superior to our combined years of flight experience in a whole lot of real flying airplanes of all types and propulsion systems.

Then we can accede to him he is all knowing and we are mere bozos here at Pilots For Truth, which we are not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 27 2010, 01:38 AM
Post #47



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jun 27 2010, 02:31 AM) *
I didn't want to come in here and beat up anyone. I just have a big problem with either 'non pilots' making suppositions about laws of aerodynamics that experienced pilots don't just learn in books or in classrooms, but in real life flying of aircraft of various types and capabilities. Nobody can possibly know it all, none of us do, but I am going to go out on a limb here and state that most 'experienced' pilots with 20+ years of experience in props, jets and whatever, balloons even, know the difference between a lot of verbosity and reality.


This is a great point.

The reason why I say you bring up such a good point, is that Bursill et al claims "...how could Capt Kolstad and Capt Aimer claim the airspeeds "impossible" if they never flown such a speed?"

Well, for one, they both have, but not on the same aircraft type.

Imagine yourself in a car on a wet surface (or not). You are going around a turn at high speed, hugging that corner, or even on a straight highway at high speed. You know you are right on the edge of out-of-control. If you give it a bit more gas, or if you tweak that steering wheel a bit more, the car will spin and you will be 'in the wall'.


Would you take a corner in a Hyundai at the same speed you would a Corvette? No.

How do you know such limitation differences if you never lost control of a car before?

Because you have experience in your machine and can feel the forces. Add decades of education and experience in your machine, and you are an expert.

This is a concept people like Bursill and Hordon cannot grasp.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Cimino
post Jun 27 2010, 01:55 AM
Post #48





Group: Guest
Posts: 31
Joined: 19-November 07
Member No.: 2,496



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 27 2010, 07:38 AM) *
This is a great point.


This guy Bursill also had an 'agenda' when he came in here. He wasn't just a 'non pilot' who has no flight time in any real airplane of any kind, but the kind of insidious 'LURKER' who waltzes in here and then defames actual pilots of real airplanes like we're a bunch of crash test dummies he can cold cock and not get a reaction out of.

We're not! I don't want to drive all 'non pilot' participation out of here, but in light of this, I think that truly, if you're not an experienced pilot with more than say, 1500 plus hours as 'pilot in command' time and real hard IFR flight time, and years of experience in the airspace system of at least one country, not necessarily ours, but somewhere, then you shouldn't be in here telling us about airplane performance and characteristics. Not only is that 'rude' but it's also 'asinine' to think we won't call you on it. We are real pilots, with real experience, in real airplanes of all sorts of types, weight ranges, and descriptions, and though we all are not 45,000 hour pilots, many of us are quite experienced and certificated, not just with some bench tech certification as an avionics black box jockey.

When guys like Bursill come in here, or over at 911blogger, and, not unlike Hordon, 'just hatchet job' us and claim we don't know what we're talking about, it's now time to say to those individuals; "okay, xerox your flight logs, and send them to us for examination" at the very least. If you don't have any, don't be in here maligning and attacking us. We neither deserve that crap, nor will we put up with it, when you clearly, obviously, do NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE with regard to airplane flight regimes and hence, their aerodynamic limitations.

It's that simple. If you don't have the credentials, don't swing a broad axe at people who forgot more about airplanes and systems on them than you will ever in your wildest dreams ever, ever learn or know!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 27 2010, 02:32 AM
Post #49



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jun 27 2010, 02:55 AM) *
This guy Bursill also had an 'agenda' when he came in here.


Correct. And he admitted as such.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10787160

Again, this all stems from the fact Bursill wanted to join our organization years ago, if only I boot John Lear.

When I replied to Bursill, "Who are you?"

His pride/ego took over his emotions, as described by Bursill himself in the above link.

Bursill isn't about "truth". He is about himself.

Bursill never recorded the FBI nor NTSB as we have done.

Bursill has never stood up to any govt agency in the USA, and instead attacked those who do, claiming it discredits him/Bursill.

Bursill refuses to acknowledge his blatant lies and spin.

Agenda? Bursill has been on an "agenda" for more than 2 years.

I have taken a 'time out' from my research on "9/11: In The Air" to address this issue with Bursill as the libel has gone on long enough. I will spend not more than 3 days exposing him and placing the final nail in his coffin for those who wish to inform themselves thoroughly. Bursill is already loosing support at Blogger for his personal attacks and inability to discuss the evidence, from those who regularly support him. (Blogger mods are deleting his posts, and no one is running to his support. Bursill isn't even able to construct a coherent sentence on most of his posts)

Bursill is done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jun 27 2010, 03:30 AM
Post #50





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Can someone please give Bursill a helmet.

If a pilot who has flown the type Acft says that the
plane cannot do what they say it did, you should believe
it. There are some things that happen in aviation that never make
it to "public consumption" . Most pilots (and mechanics) have a bit of "hidden"
experience of the "super pucker factor" variety.
A pilot knows his plane.

Same goes for mechanics.
I dont need to trash an engine to know that if i dont cut fuel
at max EGT im gonna smoke a turbine wheel.......its a certainty.
Ailerons, rudders and elevators begin to depart the plane
when emergency max speed is breached. And breached it
was, by a long shot.
We dont do overspeed inspections for nothing, and this
was beyond anything ive ever even heard of.


Thanks for the hard work brothers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 27 2010, 08:16 AM
Post #51



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
When guys like Bursill come in here, or over at 911blogger, and, not unlike Hordon, 'just hatchet job' us and claim we don't know what we're talking about, it's now time to say to those individuals; "okay, xerox your flight logs, and send them to us for examination" at the very least. If you don't have any, don't be in here maligning and attacking us. We neither deserve that crap, nor will we put up with it, when you clearly, obviously, do NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE with regard to airplane flight regimes and hence, their aerodynamic limitations.

It's that simple. If you don't have the credentials, don't swing a broad axe at people who forgot more about airplanes and systems on them than you will ever in your wildest dreams ever, ever learn or know!


handsdown.gif

Posts like this put more fuel in my tank.

Cheers!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jun 27 2010, 08:54 AM
Post #52





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 26 2010, 12:16 PM) *
Obwon,

Please watch the presentation so people do not have to type out a transcript for you.


While I appreciate your cause for admonishing me, you should know that I had viewed
the video. Even so I still had no choice but to either post my own rendition of it, which could be seen as a self serving extract designed by me to make my points, or ask for some one to post their own summary.

I hope you can appreciate that by doing so, I'm actually elevating the video for many who might not otherwise watch it, without having a specific question in mind.

Remember, the answers to lay people questions seem distressingly obvious to you pros. biggrin.gif

Obwon

This post has been edited by Obwon: Jun 27 2010, 08:55 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 27 2010, 09:29 AM
Post #53





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jun 26 2010, 08:06 AM) *
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.


The twin towers were not curtain wall construction. A curtain wall is non structural. The facade of the twins WAS structural and contained the columns to support the outboard ends of the floor trusses.

The facade "columns" were fabricated as panels consisting of 3 "box" columns and 3 spandrel panels. All of this was welded together and they spanned 3 floors and were 36' high x 10.04' wide. These assemblies were bolted together as most steel framed buildings are. The spandrels had "splice plates with minimum 24 bolts for each splice. Spandrel steel was 5/8" plate x 52" high.

Column wall thickness for the facade panels were as thin as 1/4" at the top and as thick as 2 or more inches at the bottom. The columns were bolted together with 4 bolts

The 3 story facade panels were arranged in a staggered pattern and in the aggregate the facade acted as a huge "steel" web and the four facade became rigid tube which was also intended to resisted wind loading as well as floor loads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jun 27 2010, 09:34 AM
Post #54





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 27 2010, 09:16 AM) *
handsdown.gif

Posts like this put more fuel in my tank.

Cheers!


As a lay person, never flown anything at all, I came here knowing that things have limits and looking to learn what those limits were. But there is no excuse for laymen making the mistake that they can figure things out exactly, from simply reading. Anyone who has ever gained any hands on expertise at anything, learns very quickly the differences in knowledge of hands on experts and those who have merely read somthing about that field of study. Those differences apply whether it's Adobe Photoshop, Stock Car Racing, Boating, Painting or anything else. The person who has done it is going to have special knowledge that no reader can ever gain.

That rule apples no matter how simple the matter under study happens to be, and only increases as the number of variables, and the chance to experience their effects grows.

When reading, I always keep in mind that; "Words can be found to support any cause!"
Which in this case means that, it can be said that planes can easily fly, at any speed with any level of skill available. Of course we know this cannot be true, so we have to listen and look for the why's and wherefores, which we can only get from the people who have actually done it. Otherwise, we're going to leave our readings, believing that anything, even the impossible is possible, which itself, defeats the purpose of reading.

Before I saw Rob's video, I had no ideas about "flutter". Why? Because I have never been in a position where flutter was a concern to me. I have never had to be concerned about "trim", "pitch", "yawl" or dozens of other things I've read about here, and I sincerely doubt that many lay people have either. But most especially, they've never ever had to deal with countering the effects of these things, even if they knew they existed. Because countermeasures are only of concern to those who actually need them. thus the readers will note that there is very little written here about countermeasures except perhaps in passing.

So it is that I enjoy seeing that plainly incorrect assertions, furthered in the name of supporting failing theories, effectively countermanded.

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 27 2010, 09:53 AM
Post #55



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



NPT conversation split and merged here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18096
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 27 2010, 09:59 AM
Post #56





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I have trouble with the term "dis-information agent". I think this is tossed out way to cavalierly and this is, in itself a mechanism for de legitimizing the debate about what happened on 9/11.

The idea of a "disinformation agent" brings to mind an organized effort directed by "higher ups" who disburse these agents into the "truth movement" to sow seeds of confusion and cause disunity. While such activity might be taking place by the "leaders of the 9/11 conspiracy", I tend to doubt it. I do suspect that there are "conservative" people who support the "America was attacked by AQ" and then naively support the conventional official line not bothering to look at all the contradictions in that story.

Having been inside the truth movement and accused by some very high up folks in the truth movement of being a "disinformation agent" and someone who was "sent" in to destroy the growing and gathering movement, I can say that at least in my case, this charge is completely baseless. I have no handlers, and no contacts with anyone whatsoever informing me of what to think, say and write about 9/11.

I have expressed what I see, based on my experience as an architect of 40 years and my own examination of the structures and the videos etc that is in the public domain. While I don't accept the official theory, neither do I accept all the conclusions of the truth movement. And I certainly don't accept the idea of a conspiracy of moles and disinformation agents.

There is nothing wrong with honest, open spirited debate based on science, and observation. People can disagree a bit on observation and interpretation, but not on the basic science and engineering. When I use the phrase "a bit" I am referring to describing what we see. A case in point is the collapse of the twin towers. Some see the facade panels ejected and interpret it as they being exploded off the building, while others see them peeling away forced outward by the collapsing debris of the upper stories. These interpretations can be and should be subjected to scientific analysis. That is precisely what forensic science is about.

Likewise, there are many problems with the air speeds and accuracy of the flight paths reported. On the face they seem to defy what we know about the planes and the pilots. We only have observations and reported data. And we don't have the black box data. But we do know for certain, that digital data can be falsified, inserted and so forth. A found black box, might even be one pre programed and planted on the site for example. How would be know? We would be left to trust the government reports on what that data shows. The same for RADES data etc. How reliable is it? If there was a conspiracy, how difficult would it be to plant false data?

So we are left with analysis of the video evidence and eyewitness reports and in some case the absence of eyewitness reports or video evidence. We don't have the videos of the pentagon. Multiple videos would settle a lot of the dispute. So why aren't they being released? One obvious answer is that they would expose the official story as a lie and reveal a far more sinister conspiracy. Can you think of any other reason that this information has not been released to the public? Certainly if there was conclusive video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon as claimed, they would release it.

So much of the story of 9/11 is speculation and narratives built on assumptions which may or may not be true. The narrative needs to be internally consistent and the conventional one is not when examined.

So how much real evidence can be teased out of the videos and eyewitness accounts? After the first and certainly the second plane strikes the entire nation should have become "eyewitnesses" and certainly those at the location of the events. There should be hundreds if not thousands of witness reports. Where are they?

So in the end the speculation and fighting over theories is having the effect of destroying the real search for the truth. I suppose it turns many away who lose patience. I am often wasting my time trying to "debate" people who haven't a clue about structure and who even question my experience as an architect.

The 9/11 truth movement unfortunately has degenerated into a rather chaotic movement with all sorts of bizarre stories and theories put forth and in the aggregate is looked on as a collection of nut jobs despite the fact that there are serious investigators trying to assemble the facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jun 27 2010, 01:51 PM
Post #57





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



What is true and what is not........

Yes the truth movement has "cooled" a bit due to
yet another crisis of historical proportions and disinfo
agents dispatched to do just that. And that my friends
is how you cover up the biggest fraud and murder in
US history.
In 2004 the FBI warned that there was an epidemic
of mortgage fraud by the banks. Nothing was done.
That (and astronomical oil prices by the same powers)
were the push over the cliff for the American people into
what will be the greatest depression, its coming.
Now we have the largest oil spill known to man, that has the
capability of destroying 1/3 of the worlds oceans. And this was
absolutely convenient for Obama's (but really his elite handlers)
agenda for Global Governance through carbon taxes and a world
currency. The economic collapse and the oil spill are being used
hand in hand to destroy our country and bring in the new world
order. One crisis covers up the last crisis and brings in opportunities
to pass legislation that furthers the agenda of the psychopaths
controlling our government and wish to control the world.
Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) knows all about the
opportunities that crisis can bring for them and their bosses.








-Norad stood down, for the first time in US history, fighters did
not intercept rouge aircraft, 4 of them.
-The Speed of the aircraft was beyond controllable flight for the
standard airframes and amateur pilots.
- The explosives HAVE been found in the WTC debris.
- The flight path at the Pentagon has been proven by many
eyewitnesses including police officers as introduced by CIT.
- Over 50 videos of the pentagon are being with held and the 5 frame
video we were shown shows nothing.
- the list is endless, the proof is all there.

Will we ever get a new investigation? Will patriots within the
government ever stand up to these bastards ?
It doesnt look like it. They will start WW3 with IRAN before they
let that happen. The ultimate crisis to cover up them all. These
men need to be brought to justice, eveything else be damned.
And the world needs to know that it wasnt America that did this,
it was the mega-rich, psychopathic bastards that hijacked our beautiful Republic
that did this. They've used our military, they've raped us through taxes
and fraud, they are destroying us from within............the only way America
could be destroyed. This disturbs me to my core. Our beloved America
is being dismantled and burned to the ground right in front of our eyes.
The world hates us because of what these men have done. I hate them also,
with a deep loathing that is beyond description. They have no concept of
Liberty for anyone but themselves, they have no soul, they have no concept
of morality or a free market. Competition is their enemy. Consolidate and
dictate is their philosophy. These men are globalists, America means nothing
to them in the big picture of things. The world is their goal and they are using
America to take it. My countrymen have become cowards who refuse to see
the truth and refuse to stand up and be counted among the Free and the Brave.
Even as their rights and Liberties are being stripped from them. These are
dark times indeed for America, and it completely breaks my heart.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 27 2010, 03:24 PM
Post #58



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



SanderO, I know what you mean by throwing the accusation "disinfo agent" about, but when somebody is actively promoting statistics or stating that what they say is fact, even though they have been pointed to the correct information, ie the truth, and continue to promote the same "information" in the knowledge that it is such beyond any doubt, they are promoting "disinformation".

Whether the reasons are nefarious, coordinated, based on ignorance or purely for egotistical reasons, it is still disinfo.
When the term "agent" is added, that is a direct accusation of coordination.

The recent spate of attacks on CIT and P4T, has mainly been, IMO for mainly egotistical reasons but there are those who are actively coordinating this campaign at all levels.

One thing is a government controlled disinformation campaign, but when somebody actually promotes crap to score personal points over individuals at the cost of that "break" which could finally get to the truth, warts and all, I find it even more disgusting.

As for government disinfo agents, they are having the easiest of times at the moment adding to the paranoia and feeding off the discord that much of the planted and ambiguous "evidence" was designed to create. For years down the line.

It's not CIT or P4T that is actively pursuing this "infighting". They (they know who they are) are the ones who plant the seeds yet haven't the balls for direct, live debate.

BTW, this wasn't directed at you mate, just having a controlled rant.

ETA typo

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jun 27 2010, 03:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 27 2010, 08:49 PM
Post #59





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Establishing what is an indisputable fact is the issue. Most of this is driven by observation and occasional measurements made from the images.

If we try to establish what are the facts in the collapse of the twin towers we need to begin with honestly describing what we saw. We can use software to analyze images to help us. In the case of the twins the collapse was largely hidden by the canopy of falling debris and some of it was at free fall and reached terminal velocity. If the destruction or collapse was slower (and it was) we couldn't possible see most of it because of the cover provided by the debris.

But we can see various object emerge from the debris canopy and we can measure the size of the debris canopy and compute the energy which might create it. We all observed the top of the south tower tilt and then disappear into the debris cloud and the top of the north tower tilted a bit and it's antenna seemed to plunge through the building as the top was being destroyed at about the crash zone. We observed material being ejected through the windows, leaving the facade columns intact all around the building for a few seconds before the canopy of debris covers it all. Were we seeing a gravitational collapse or a simulated one made by a precise sequence of explosions top to bottom? It's apparently one or the other. One is fact and the other is an "illusion" or a fiction.

Most of the truth movement seems to see the destruction as a timed top to bottom sequence of "explosions" and disparage the idea that once initiated the collapse could be gravity driven. Some (me included) see the collapse as gravity driven but question the cause of the initiation - fires and plane strike damage and suspect that there may have been some foul play to get the collapse going using the cover of fire and plane strikes. This is a legitimate debate and this is not about disinformation.

If it turns out that the destruction was a gravity driven collapse initiated by explosions and incendiaries with got the tops dropping then those such as AE911Truth would have been spreading "disinformation" by their assertion of explosive demolition from top to bottom or it could be characterized that they simply were wrong. But what happened after initiation has not been conclusively agreed upon and the debate rages on. I don't think those on either side of this debate are disinformation agents. But it would help if there was more "engagement" and discussion about this matters as opposed to taking sides and name calling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Cimino
post Jun 27 2010, 08:57 PM
Post #60





Group: Guest
Posts: 31
Joined: 19-November 07
Member No.: 2,496



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 27 2010, 02:16 PM) *
:handsdown:

Posts like this put more fuel in my tank.

Cheers!



I think that the earmarks of an 'agenda' are pretty obvious to most of us. First, anyone coming in here and personally attacking a member, for whatever reason, not their information but going after 'them' in person, isn't just some nimrod who's badly informed. The information that is out there about the tactics used by COINtelpro persons of the F.B.I. when they defamed and discredited people they had issues with, pretty much go down the line of laying it on thick and heavy in the personal character assassination gig. They have no valid stuff to really offer the forum in support of their positions, so they come in and character assassinate. In 911blogger, same difference. Not too very long ago I tried to be the 'peacemaker' or 'go between' when it broke out here and it nearly got me tossed off the listing, for sure, not because I was trying to engender the divisive behavior, but because I stepped to the fore and tried to STOP IT in it's tracks. For any of us to get into pissing contests over stuff in public forums where people who are not aviators, read it, it does a major job on our credibility no matter who comes out on top of the argument. This in and of itself doesn't mean; "oh yeah, acquiesce when a turd has been floated as reality" but it does say, "look boys, we don't have to be doing WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE, which is divisive behavior, ad hoc attacks on each other for sport, or gratuitously character assassinating each other. We are better than that.

Not too many years ago, I underwent a lot of unjust attacks because I was amongst the first to say the flight 77 FDR data load was 'bogus' because it was lacking '2' identity data fields in the core dump that always are there on a certificated fleet airplane..the discrete airplane identity number (not the N-number, by the way) and the fleet ID number. When I saw those were blanked out, then I pretty much knew from personal experience that this is not reality in that file. Anyway, I began to digress too much there, but the hour and ten minute audio interview of mine garnered a lot of right wing assholes coming at me and calling me a 'liar' then. I told Rob that any day he wanted to go to BUPERS and pull my service record and look at it, we would do that, and then the asshole attacking me would have to then suffer the consequences in a court of law for essentially slandering and libeling me in this forum. I am not a public figure, and therefore, publishing hit pieces about me in here with nothing to substantiate them would in fact lead to a legal battle where the other ass whould be on the financial hook for damages. Well, that kind of put that crap to bed, because it's one thing to infer that a person is
full of crap about an airplane parameter, but to say things about their character in here that you cannot substantiate, is another matter. That has legal ramifications and I am not too bashful to find the I.P. of that poster and have them served with a subpoena to appear in court for that crap.

So, the point being, is that personal attacks, demands that members be 'removed' as was the case where this guy demanded John Lear be removed from the P4T list for his UFO studies, calling a person a liar and otherwise defaming them, all come from COINTELPRO scum, not just ignorant tools who have no clue what they're up to in here.

That's the way they operate. That is their modus operandi. The government uses it as something you all know as 'divide and conquer' when they intentionally politicize a debate in LEFT vs RIGHT terms and then let the fur fly. People at each others throats seldom ever stop to wonder who benefits (qui bono) for their being that way. If they did, they'd rethink their tack in here.

The purpose of this forum is to get to the truth about the false flag attacks on Sept. 11th. We're not here to pull out our dicks and compare sizes. This is about serious stuff that to be quite frank about it, means members of the U.S. government, with Mossad help, committed TREASON and MASS MURDER that day, and so far have kind of gotten away with it. Well, we don't have to be at each other's throats to get to the bottom of that TREASON.

so, attacking Hordon or this Bursill guy is not my forte. If they can back up their assertion we are stupid, moronic, and ignorant fools with no idea what's going on, let them bring it on. But they better do it with more facts, and less bullshit, because some folks can really see the difference between shit and shinola.

non-pilots with zero flight experience touting they know everything, really chap my goddamned hide. But what bothers me the most is when on 911blogger, they get away with it unchallenged. We need to make sure that never, ever happens. We can never let that crap stand. Ever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th December 2017 - 06:19 AM