IPB




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  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
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
 
paranoia
post Jun 30 2010, 02:04 PM
Post #81


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,011
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
'The Catcher's Mit' portion of the Pentagon had to be obliterated by a missle and embedded demolitions charges put into the building during the 'reinforcing' work, which was so very nicely called out in Barbara Honegger's white paper on the 6 minute discrepancy between the internal explosions in the Pentagon, and the missile strike.


please see:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16449
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15499
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 30 2010, 02:07 PM
Post #82



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (paranoia @ Jun 30 2010, 02:04 PM) *



Thanks my friend... you saved me some time..

I'll add to that by saying once again, please stay on topic!

wink.gif

Obwon, I'm tired of moving your NPT posts. Please take NPT discussion to the Alt Theory forum.

Take any missile discussions to the appropriate threads linked above by paranoia.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jun 30 2010, 03:49 PM
Post #83





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 26 2010, 12:11 PM) *
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.

And it isn't only Mustangs that have to behave at low level as I indicated some while back WRT Concorde:

P4T

I'll drop the diagram here to save traffic



Well said Dennis, I have just caught up on your posts.

From a lowely aircaft engineer but one who sometimes got off the ground in fast heavy metal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jun 30 2010, 03:56 PM
Post #84





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



Heres the thing.

Even if the standard plane could achieve 510 knots, (which it cant)
it would not be controllable by even a seasoned veteran of the airframe,
and absolutely not by a Cessna flunky wannabe.

A smooth bank into near center mass at 510 Knots ? laughing1.gif

When excessive overspeeds are reached, the wings and flight
controls begin to flap and twist like a bird having a seizure as seen
on Robs video of the 747. At that point, on large aircraft, the the yoke controls
you and would begin to throw you around like a rag doll tied to a bulls ass.





It would be a cockpit rodeo for sure.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Jun 30 2010, 03:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 30 2010, 04:08 PM
Post #85



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jun 30 2010, 03:56 PM) *
When excessive overspeeds are reached, the wings and flight
controls begin to flap and twist like a bird having a seizure as seen
on Robs video of the 747. At that point, on large aircraft, the the yoke controls
you and would begin to throw you around like a rag doll tied to a bulls ass.



It would be a cockpit rodeo for sure.


Excellent video aerohead.

From the description:

Flutter is a dangerous phenomenon encountered in flexible structures subjected to aerodynamic forces. This includes aircraft, buildings, telegraph wires, stop signs, and bridges. Flutter occurs as a result of interactions between aerodynamics, stiffness, and inertial forces on a structure. In an aircraft, as the speed of the wind increases, there may be a point at which the structural damping is insufficient to damp out the motions which are increasing due to aerodynamic energy being added to the structure. This vibration can cause structural failure and therefore considering flutter characteristics is an essential part of designing an aircraft.


This is one of the many reasons manufacturers set a Vmo for an aircraft and test pilots stretch the envelope to determine a dive speed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 30 2010, 05:56 PM
Post #86



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Here is a short interview I did today with Dwain Deets. I always meant to do a recorded interview with Dwain before publishing the article, but I didn't record the first interview. Since there seems to be some confusion out there after this article was published, Dwain was gracious enough to do a second interview, this time recorded.



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/interviews/Dw...Deets063010.mp3

10mb download, approx 22 mins runtime.

If you don't feel like listening to the whole 22 mins, just scroll to the last 2 minutes, it sums up the conversation.

Rob Balsamo - "There is no one within our organization who claim the speeds are probable."

Dwain Deets - "I mean, anyone who says that, I would say... are in denial.... of what the issues are..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jun 30 2010, 08:48 PM
Post #87





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



In western history, I rarely let Wikipedia get away with a big mistake.

They get the most hits and get to spread a lot of incorrect data that anyone is allowed to correct.

They have Flight 175 at 473 Knots/545 mph and Flight 11 at 404 Knots/466 mph.

Just changing the speeds is a good start…then give a citation as to how something is wrong.

I do not have the expertise to correct them but a Pilot could.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 30 2010, 08:52 PM
Post #88



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Seems wikipedia doesnt like to source govt provided data when such data doesn't support the govt story...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Dat...AA11,_UA175.pdf (9mb pdf)

Not surprised...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Wiki_Disinformation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jun 30 2010, 09:04 PM
Post #89





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,082
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Looks like some of the structures can withstand quite a lot.


Question remains how exactly would behave our B767 at the given altitude, speed and trajectory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jun 30 2010, 09:08 PM
Post #90





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



The NTSB data should be good enough to submit as an add-on of information.

Where exactly did the NTSB get their information from. (ASR Newark)

During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6000 feet ground speed from 500 to 520 Kotts...thats 598 mph...WTF

Didn't someone say, it's max speed was 568 mph at 35,000 feet?

Note: Every time I correct Wikipedia...it sticks.

To some degree it is about presentation and/or how you word things.

If someone is removing your corrections, then I would go nose to nose with them.

This post has been edited by elreb: Jun 30 2010, 09:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 30 2010, 09:40 PM
Post #91





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,886
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Some great conversation here! salute.gif

I agree with Aerohead that this is Northwoods, version 2001.

And I know I must have read it here at PFT, but can't remember exactly where, that one of Dov Zakheim's several companies was very involved in remote control technology. My bet is that a few of those 767s he delivered to McDill were involved here, with the remote control technology.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Cimino
post Jun 30 2010, 09:49 PM
Post #92





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



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jun 30 2010, 08:49 PM) *
And it isn't only Mustangs that have to behave at low level as I indicated some while back WRT Concorde:

P4T

I'll drop the diagram here to save traffic



Well said Dennis, I have just caught up on your posts.

From a lowely aircaft engineer but one who sometimes got off the ground in fast heavy metal.



from dennis: I liked that diagram!!! I think that the whole point being is that even 'lead sled' MiG-25's, made almost exclusively out of stainless steel and titanium alloy, can't handle the deformation without stress cracks and 'iireversible' damage due to all sorts of ugly things that happen at very high speeds down low. I've seen Citation 500's with all their cabin windows blown out at FL-310, due to improper speeds entering storms, causing the fuselage to deform into a flattened oval shape versus a tube, with the pressurization there to pop the plexiglass out like it's a wine cork. :)

almost any line pilot who flies heavy metal will tell you the 'prudent' thing to do prior to entering turbulent air, is to make a significant speed redux prior to actual storm penetration to lessen the stress loads in the shear. if speed didn't have a part to play, you can rest assured the pilots would not dial up a much lower turbulent air penetration speed, recommended in the flight manual. anyway, thanks for the feedback!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 1 2010, 06:23 AM
Post #93





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 28 2010, 11:40 PM) *
And I know I must have read it here at PFT, but can't remember exactly where, that one of Dov Zakheim's several companies was very involved in remote control technology. My bet is that a few of those 767s he delivered to McDill were involved here, with the remote control technology.

Here you are Amazed, a couple of threads I searched on using Zakheim and restricted to my user name as I recalled making comments:

pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=13606&hl=Zakheim

pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15724&hl=Zakheim&st=0

There were a number of other threads where remote control cropped up. Remote control of aircraft has a longer history than many realise. All through the 60s and 70's I saw such in action as target drones, some converted obsolete war planes old Meatboxes (Meteors) were used for some time as there were comparatively large numbers produced, these replaced things like Fireflies. Even Sea Vixens were converted and flown but never actually used as targets.

But the history in Britain goes back before that to radio controlled Tiger Moths (Queen Bees) used for gunnery practice in the 1930s. The gunnery was crap on a slow moving target - the Germans should have been warned that the Swordfish would present a more significant threat than appearances suggested.

The Germans themselves used radio controlled aircraft in the shipping strike role, with some success and were building up to use air launched V1 (Buzz bombs or Doodlebugs as we knew them) modified to offer more than simple inertial guidance.

EDIT.

PS I agree with you and Aerohead WRT Northwoods and that is as far off topic as I will go.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jul 1 2010, 06:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 1 2010, 08:13 AM
Post #94





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 28 2010, 07:08 PM) *
This vibration can cause structural failure and therefore considering flutter characteristics is an essential part of designing an aircraft.[/i][/indent]

Indeed. And when things go wrong:

REACHING FOR THE SKIES 1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 CRASH

My father was there on a works ticket being a design draughtsman in the industry and by chance my future wife was there as a small girl with her father.

The DH110 morphed into the Sea Vixen of my intimate acquaintance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 1 2010, 03:41 PM
Post #95





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,886
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for the links, Omega.

Systems Planning Corp is the name I must remember. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jul 1 2010, 04:46 PM
Post #96





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 560
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



Ah, Northwoods = PNAC no surprise.
Like the prose here though, rag doll tied to a bull etc., gives an incredibly accurate picture of something I also did not know. If I had known that the controls were so rigidly tied to the control surfaces, I probably wouldn't have asked the questions i did. Instead I'd have asked: Is it really possible for a "robotic" or computer control to function effectively under such conditions?
My guess is, I don't think so. It made me sick just to watch those wings, with those heavy engines underneath, flapping along like a bird in heat. I didn't have to even bother imagining what was happening to the controls and control surfaces. Clearly the aircraft was being tortured.

But something I just read begs another question. Someone sees, in the frame by frame of their video, of the craft hitting the south tower. The plane contacts the building without making a hole. The hole only appears after the plane disappears, they say. I don't know which vid they're looking at, but I thought I'd ask if anyone else has seen this phenomenon?

Obwon

This post has been edited by Obwon: Jul 1 2010, 04:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
panthercat
post Jul 1 2010, 06:13 PM
Post #97





Group: Core Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 14-April 07
From: Pahoa, HI
Member No.: 952



Alas, I wasn't the one who got to break our flying machines, just fix them. The airframe is primarily aluminum and having seen blobs of molten aluminum after a fire, if large twin engine transports did in fact crash into those buildings, where was all of that aluminum debris? Aluminum can't be picked up with an electromagnet, so where did it go? They hauled off the steel, and after digging through the concrete debris, there should have been a lot of aluminum blobs laying around. There was no mention of it and since it melts and does not disintegrate like we were told, around 140,000 pounds should have been strewn about WTC1&2. Fire is capable of a lot of things, but it doesn’t do what we were told it did that day.

As for the videos, something like that could have been manufactured in a studio. A good video editor can make anything appear real. The initial emotional impact clouded a lot of minds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jul 1 2010, 06:53 PM
Post #98





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



This was one of my old points that even if the planes were made of “Gold” or “Lead” the melt would still remain.

I almost believe if the official report claimed that “Bozo the Clown” and “Howdy Doody” flew said planes at supersonic speeds…most people would believe it.

Has anyone watched the “Rubbish” that the History Channel spreads?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 2 2010, 05:57 AM
Post #99





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (panthercat @ Jun 29 2010, 09:13 PM) *
Alas, I wasn't the one who got to break our flying machines, just fix them. The airframe is primarily aluminum and having seen blobs of molten aluminum after a fire, if large twin engine transports did in fact crash into those buildings, where was all of that aluminum debris? Aluminum can't be picked up with an electromagnet, so where did it go? They hauled off the steel, and after digging through the concrete debris, there should have been a lot of aluminum blobs laying around. There was no mention of it and since it melts and does not disintegrate like we were told, around 140,000 pounds should have been strewn about WTC1&2. Fire is capable of a lot of things, but it doesn’t do what we were told it did that day.

Absolutely. My aviation engineering background and front line military, naval, experience leads me to concur with your statement.

As for iron and steel I would like OCT believers to consider how the firebox of a steam locomotive operates. Yes I know about firebricks and arches - BUT...?
QUOTE
As for the videos, something like that could have been manufactured in a studio. A good video editor can make anything appear real. The initial emotional impact clouded a lot of minds.

Which of course Hollywood has been doing for decades.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jul 2 2010, 08:27 AM
Post #100





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 560
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (panthercat @ Jul 1 2010, 06:13 PM) *
Alas, I wasn't the one who got to break our flying machines, just fix them. The airframe is primarily aluminum and having seen blobs of molten aluminum after a fire, if large twin engine transports did in fact crash into those buildings, where was all of that aluminum debris? Aluminum can't be picked up with an electromagnet, so where did it go? They hauled off the steel, and after digging through the concrete debris, there should have been a lot of aluminum blobs laying around. There was no mention of it and since it melts and does not disintegrate like we were told, around 140,000 pounds should have been strewn about WTC1&2. Fire is capable of a lot of things, but it doesn’t do what we were told it did that day.

As for the videos, something like that could have been manufactured in a studio. A good video editor can make anything appear real. The initial emotional impact clouded a lot of minds.


Now that I think about it, it doesn't seem that the final flight paths are achievable so quickly, requiring a change of direction of the huge aircraft in so little time, to actually be lined up to penetrate the towers completely. If the paths were the least bit off perpendicular, when the planes hit, the crafts should have begun to rotate. That's got to yield a vastly different debris configuration than that shown. No?... Then what say ye all?

But that aside! Most people today, unlike people of yesteryear when movies were new, we've learned to watch movies and videos and almost automatically suspend disbelief to allow ourselves to be entertained by them. In the long lost time, people had no such reflexive reactions, thus did they give producers and directors the nightmarish tasks of trying to closely parallel reality as close as they could. Resulting in much expensive film hitting the cutting room floor, I'm sure.

Then too there's the matter of a general level of trust, that people tend to give to their news agencies. They don't expect to see blatant lies put on screen by the news people. But they do forgive "dramatizational" fare. I remember seeing something almost impossible on a tv news program long ago, I reflexively put it down as a dramatization, until the nooze people said it was an actual video. It was flt 800 climbing 8,000 feet, after the nose of the craft had come off! Even with my small store of lay persons knowledge, I knew that was impossible, since the center of gravity was no longer over the center of lift -- and that has to yield rotation instead. But some people brought it, even a person, or two, on usenet who claimed to hold several degrees. Of course, in the end the NTSB claimed they didn't produce the video, and the CIA announced it wasn't their doing, so the FBI stepped forward to take the blame for it, saying they were only trying to help with a dramatization. Ha!

But, with 9-11 things were kept moving at a very fast pace, new things were being claimed as being discovered almost daily, so there wasn't much focus on what had actually happened, and the President and his merry men were out their whipping up a formidable patriotic fervor, easy for things to get "lost in the sauce" as it were. The few of us who were asking questions, found ourselves marginalized by suffocating ignorance and the deafening media trumpet blare. If a chorus arose around any question, the media quickly stepped in, restated the question in a non-critical way, so that it could be answered with easily made-up nonsense, then quickly moved on. Making the questioners look silly, in the eyes of the many who thought the question was either silly and/or that it had been answered adroitly.

Well, way back then, I was the only one I knew who was asking "but... where is the debris?"
I watched the fireball emerge from the south tower on teevee, I waited breathlessly for the much heavier than air and burning fuel, pieces of plane, to exhibit the wake vortexes of solid aircraft debris to come trailing flames down through the fireball. It never happened. And that was funny because... Neither were pieces of furniture, chairs, desks, tables, computers etc., that should have been on that floor, coming through the fireball either. So the fuel that was being ejected from the tower, had to leave after the outer wall had been breeched otherwise it's pieces would have made wake vortexes, which they didn't. Nothing solid came through that fireball and I thought that was extremely odd. Oh yes, if you look you can see trails of burning liquid coming down, but no wake vortexes for anything solid. Go figure!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 07:32 PM