Jesse Ventura Speaks With Pilots For 9/11 Truth, The Pentagon Rating Options

[realitycheck77]

They are not "theoretical limitations". They are limitations derived through flight and wind tunnel testing. These limitations are HARD limits. They are also corroborated by numerous verified experts, Boeing, the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, and precedent. You would know this if you would take the time to read the links i provided.

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/767_V-G_Diagram_Illustrated_Guide_To_Aerodynamics.jpg)

Again, please let us know when you find us one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's max operating by 110-150 knots and remained controllable and stable. So far, you fail.

I doubt if limits are derived from flight testing otherwise they would have to fly a large airliner until it breaks up. In a previous post I asked had any of the pilots who said it was impossible for the planes to fly that way had ever actually tried it and you said something to the effect that it would be suicidal to try it. In the video about the WTC planes you say there is no reason for an airline to train pilots outside the aircraft envelope as pilots are trained to keep the aircraft well within it's limitations- so when I hear pilots saying they couldn't fly the plane that way - it's impossible -I just wonder how they are able to say that since they have never done it or tried to do it. Windtunnel testing is not done with a full size airliner but with scale models and also in that video you say that there is not access to that windtunnel data. The planes that hit the WTC towers were surely Boeing 767s and they didn't break up.
I still don't see why anyone who knew the limitations of the plane would fly the plane at those speeds - it makes less sense than someone who didn't know those limitations just pushing the throttles fully forward and crashing into the buildings. Surely a calculation can be made of the speed of the planes from the videos that were taken.

[elreb]

I still don't see why anyone who knew the limitations of the plane would fly the plane at those speeds - it makes less sense than someone who didn't know those limitations just pushing the throttles fully forward and crashing into the buildings. Surely a calculation can be made of the speed of the planes from the videos that were taken.

Whatever hit WTC1 & WTC2…I can assure you that no humans were on board…

No pilots, no crew, no passengers and no bugger men…

"OH! Football is for poofters
And tennis is for queers
Cricket is for batty boys
who take it up the rears
Golfers bite their pillows
And swimmers do the same
But! We are proper men because RUGBY is our game!"

PSS: Thanks for the reminder Rob =

...in respect to the facts, I had already pointed to the airframes in question, as given refurbished engines and instruments; then sent to Mojave Airport in California.

There, BAE Systems turns the aircraft into remote-controlled drones, installing radio antennas and modifying the flight controls, throttles, landing gear, and flaps. (Or whar ever)

Retagged by “Elreb” as KC-911A and KC-911B, they were never originally refurbished to kill WTC1 or WTC2.

It was a drill that went “Real World”. Something Mode S, backdoor remote control sent the planes to new targets. NORAD was at a loss! It is just a drill.

Otis was at Battle Stations “Ready 5” sitting on their nuts for 40 minutes waiting to scramble.

Who held them back and why?




This post has been edited by elreb: Jan 16 2011, 08:24 PM

[rob balsamo]

I doubt if limits are derived from flight testing otherwise they would have to fly a large airliner until it breaks up.

Your argument from incredulity noted. Now learn the facts.





You think they just pull numbers out of their ass when setting airspeed and G Load limits during certification?

In a previous post I asked had any of the pilots who said it was impossible for the planes to fly that way had ever actually tried it and you said something to the effect that it would be suicidal to try it.

It would be suicidal. Because as we already know based on EA990, a standard 767 suffers in flight structural failure 5 knots into the Structureal Failure zone as depicted above in the Vg diagram. Further examination of other aircraft accidents reveals that there hasnt been one aircraft to exceed it's Vmo by 110-150 knots and remain controllable or stable. Let us know when you find one that has been positively identified to do so. So far, you fail.

In the video about the WTC planes you say there is no reason for an airline to train pilots outside the aircraft envelope as pilots are trained to keep the aircraft well within it's limitations- so when I hear pilots saying they couldn't fly the plane that way - it's impossible -I just wonder how they are able to say that since they have never done it or tried to do it. Windtunnel testing is not done with a full size airliner but with scale models and also in that video you say that there is not access to that windtunnel data.

See videos above.

The planes that hit the WTC towers were surely Boeing 767s and they didn't break up.

Please provide evidence that they were standard Boeing 767. Start with Parts/Serial numbers. We have several Aircraft Accident Investigators waiting.

So far, all evidence points to the fact that an aircraft cannot remain controllable or stable at such excessive speeds over it's Max operating. Since it's clear those aircraft did not break up, and remained in control and stable, the only conclusion is that they had a Vmo well above 360 knots. This means they were not standard 767's.

You have failed to provide any evidence to support your theory, not even one verified expert.

I still don't see why anyone who knew the limitations of the plane would fly the plane at those speeds -

Agreed.

it makes less sense than someone who didn't know those limitations just pushing the throttles fully forward and crashing into the buildings.

Are you saying pilots who are able to obtain a Commercial pilot certificate do not know what the Barber Pole means on an airspeed indicator?

(IMG:http://i51.tinypic.com/vphqba.jpg)

Because that is what you would HAVE to be saying if you believe "hijackers" reported to have a Commercial Pilot certificate exceeded such speeds by such a wide margin.

Surely a calculation can be made of the speed of the planes from the videos that were taken.

Surely, you just failed to do the research.

NTSB Video Impact Speed Study (8mb pdf)

Summary
Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)

Source - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10788384

[Johnny Angel]

Interesting links to good You tube Video`s after watching Rob`s video from above.
Check out the real life aircraft testing video.

actual video of wings breaking off a forest fire tanker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBcC8zqNjKk...player_embedded

[realitycheck77]

Hi Realitycheck!

Well, if you don't like the way Americans treated the Native Americans' I'm going to assume that you are not a blind supporter of the US Government version of 911. And I think your Post about the 1972 commercial with the beautiful Flight attendant shows you have good taste in some other really important matters.

I appreciate your Response to my Post in the last page that seems to acknowledge that my concerns about identification of aircraft parts from the Pentagon have some basis. So I'm going to make a little intellectual concession to you, which might, but probably will not, be satisfactory.

There are three steps in the Truth Movement. First, establish that the Government Story is false. Second, it must establish what happened instead in lieu of the Government Version. Third, the guilty parties must be identified(1). AFAIC, PFT's FDR investigation and CIT's North Path investigation have proven that the Government Version of how a plane hit the Pentagon is false. CIT has not proven that the plane did not hit and that there was a flyover, but they have made a damn good case for it by process of elimination once the North Path becomes a fact.

EDIT TO ADD: I could be wrong, but I think maybe your real point is that there is no proof of what happened instead. ,

____________________
(1) Forget this third step for purposes of this Post.

Hi tnemelckram,
I meant to get back on that previous post but got diverted onto other things.
Could I just say that not being an American I am looking at this from the outside and I can't say I'm concerned about believing or not believing the government account - which is a misnomer in itself in many ways as far as I'm concerned anyway.
Just looking at what you say there at the start - the three steps of the Truth Movement - first establish that the Government story is false. Just looking at that statement I would really have a problem with it - surely the first and probably last step is to find the truth no matter what that is , whether it shows the gov. story is false or true. It's almost like having a suspect for a crime and saying the first thing to be done is to show that this person is guilty- and that is actually what it is about , people being accused of a crime, real people. I've seen things written on bloggs and forums about people ,for instance like the BBC reporter who reported about building 7, and the comments that people write about her ,it just makes my blood boil frankly. I see these terms 'the government story' 'the official story' the official account' the 'official fairy story' etc all over the internet -it's just another way of saying a false account , a coverup etc. Anything that is the official story is false. Anything that isn't is apparently credible. If someone said they had found evidence that totally contradicted the official story ,it would just like saying that it was true. I think people should step back and recognise that almost pavlovian response that is being evoked , and look at all evidence in some kind of unbiased way.
I have looked at the evidence about the Pentagon and my assessment of the evidence is that Flight 77 crashed into the building. I think the way CIT and others have assessed the evidence is flawed and doesn't really stand up to any kind of logical analysis. Of all the conclusions people could reach about what happened I think the conclusion they have come to is the least plausible. That doesn't that mean implausible things can't happen but what you can say is that the more implausible a conclusion is then the less sure you can be about it. If you have to step over and disregard plausible conclusions to reach a less plausible one then the concept of reasonable doubt has gone by the board.
I could say a lot more about this but I'd better leave it at that for now.

[elreb]

With all due respect Doctor Watson…and only because I’m starting to like your clear headed thinking…

How does a plane that does not exist…hit anything?

For the record…it was I who searched over 300 airports…

It took me nearly one week…

The airframe under the numbers provided by the official account…did not exist…

Please…please do your home work…brother…


PSS: Over 10,000 post and 100,000 views…not one single person/human on this planet has ever offered evidence to the contrary…Can you?

This post has been edited by elreb: Jan 18 2011, 07:22 PM

[realitycheck77]

Whatever hit WTC1 & WTC2…I can assure you that no humans were on board…

No pilots, no crew, no passengers and no bugger men…

"OH! Football is for poofters
And tennis is for queers
Cricket is for batty boys
who take it up the rears
Golfers bite their pillows
And swimmers do the same
But! We are proper men because RUGBY is our game!"

PSS: Thanks for the reminder Rob =

...in respect to the facts, I had already pointed to the airframes in question, as given refurbished engines and instruments; then sent to Mojave Airport in California.

There, BAE Systems turns the aircraft into remote-controlled drones, installing radio antennas and modifying the flight controls, throttles, landing gear, and flaps. (Or whar ever)

Retagged by “Elreb” as KC-911A and KC-911B, they were never originally refurbished to kill WTC1 or WTC2.

It was a drill that went “Real World”. Something Mode S, backdoor remote control sent the planes to new targets. NORAD was at a loss! It is just a drill.

Otis was at Battle Stations “Ready 5” sitting on their nuts for 40 minutes waiting to scramble.

Who held them back and why?

I still don't see why anyone who knew the limitations of the plane would fly the plane at those speeds - it makes less sense than someone who didn't know those limitations just pushing the throttles fully forward and crashing into the buildings

[elreb]

I still don't see why anyone who knew the limitations of the plane would fly the plane at those speeds - it makes less sense than someone who didn't know those limitations just pushing the throttles fully forward and crashing into the buildings

I’m starting to see you point Watson…

Why would “Operations” push modified airframes to their destructive limits…?

I divert you question to Rob and ask…was the speed data correct or faked?

[rob balsamo]

I’m starting to see you point Watson…

Why would “Operations” push modified airframes to their destructive limits…?

I divert you question to Rob and ask…was the speed data correct or faked?

If the data is fake, it is as alarming as it being accurate.

If the data is fake, it is a felony. Tampering with evidence.

If the data is real, it is a felony, as it does not support the 9/11 Commission Report claims in many significant ways including that a standard 767 is not able to achieve such speeds, remain in control or stable, based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts.

The speeds are corroborated by Radar and Video analysis, done by the NTSB.

If one feels the data is inaccurate, one might want to think twice about getting on another airplane as the very same Radar used for the analysis is used to vector your aircraft for the approach to busy terminal areas with lots of traffic, such as NYC. If the radar was that inaccurate, planes would be bumping into each other and dropping out of the sky over every major city across the globe.

[elreb]

What Doctor Watson is attempting to say is only some crazy “Arab” firing on 4 cylinders would attempt to pussy an airframe beyond its operational limits…just to kiss 14 Virgins in heaven...

I “kowtow” to the god of lunacy…as RC does…

Nuts and Bolts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZw5AC_re6I...eature=related…

(IMG:http://www.extraefi.co.uk/Drawings/Sequential_wave3.jpg)

This post has been edited by elreb: Jan 18 2011, 11:09 PM

[amazed!]

I don't trust any of the radar data, never have.

I think the airplane was at Vmo or slightly over. If the airplane is going to be sacrificed anyway, who cares if limitations are exceeded?

[rob balsamo]

I think the airplane was at Vmo or slightly over.

Video analysis says otherwise, and corroborates the Radar data.

NTSB Video Impact Speed Study (8mb pdf)

Summary
Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)

Now, if you feel the Video's are fake too, then i suppose your theory remains intact.

I tend to trust Radar, especially in the NY Terminal Area, considering i was based LGA for quite some time and shot/shoot approaches to minimums at every runway equipped with an ILS inside the NY Class Bravo, while being assigned speeds so as to not bump into other airplanes also being vectored. Havent hit another airplane yet... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Johnny Angel]

I don't trust any of the radar data, never have.

If the airplane is going to be sacrificed anyway, who cares if limitations are exceeded?

You dont trust the Radar Data.??. So why did Wash DC ATC make statements that they though FL-77 was a military Aircraft because of its high speed approaching at low atltitude..??
If ALQCIA could sabotage the USA ATC radar system, that needs investigated..??

Who care if speed limitations were exceeded... Your missing the point of controlling the jumbo jet..
I Challenge you to approach and land a Jumbo jet at 500 MPH.. (try it with a student pilot)
Before you attempt this dangerous stunt, watch the wind tunnel test & test flight videoes posted above.