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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
South Tower Plane Speed Analysis - Pilots For Truth Research Explained.

EagleEye
post Feb 16 2014, 08:32 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



Just go to this link

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comment...r_plane/cfd0wlc

Any questions?

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Feb 16 2014, 08:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 17 2014, 12:11 AM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 16 2014, 02:32 PM) *

I would like to ask: What "modified military drone aircraft", what military aircraft actually can fly 500+kts near sea level?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 17 2014, 04:30 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 16 2014, 09:11 PM) *
I would like to ask: What "modified military drone aircraft", what military aircraft actually can fly 500+kts near sea level?


It must have had a hardened structure with kevlar composites and the like, along with leading wing edge modification and engine performance 3-5 times greater than standard such that with sufficient hardening, and speed, building penetration could be achieved, as observed.

However, it's not necessary to prove what it was, but only what it cannot have been (flight 175).

The military can modify these types of aircraft as they wish. There was even a program in place to do just that. It doesn't matter however what the "model" name or number was, in reality, only that the plane MUST have been a modified military 767-type aircraft, and it wasn't even the right proportion for a 767-200 variant, but closer to the 300.

The basic plane was a Boeing 767 though, seriously modified and beefed up.

There's no other conclusion that may be drawn in light of all information and phenomenon.

Let's not distract ourselves or our fellow man from the truth at the heart of the matter..

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Feb 17 2014, 04:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 17 2014, 12:27 PM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 16 2014, 10:30 PM) *
It must have had a hardened structure with kevlar composites and the like, along with leading wing edge modification and engine performance 3-5 times greater than standard such that with sufficient hardening, and speed, building penetration could be achieved, as observed.

My rough calculations seem to conclude the building penetraton would be achieved by the momentum anyway - it was a 100ton aircraft against just less than 40 tons of steel panels in it's way/impact cross-section of less than 40 square meters, moreover pulled inwards by statical force exerted by the floors hanging on it and connected to the rest of the wall structure (of which area 40% were windows being no significant obstacle anyway) just by the bolts which could snap upon the impact.

QUOTE
However, it's not necessary to prove what it was, but only what it cannot have been (flight 175).

I agree. It definitely doesn't look to me likely a commercial B767 jetliner would be cappable of such speeds given it's flight envelope.

QUOTE
The military can modify these types of aircraft as they wish. There was even a program in place to do just that. It doesn't matter however what the "model" name or number was, in reality, only that the plane MUST have been a modified military 767-type aircraft, and it wasn't even the right proportion for a 767-200 variant, but closer to the 300.

What is the reason you think it was closer to 300?

QUOTE
The basic plane was a Boeing 767 though, seriously modified and beefed up.

There actually are military versions of B767-200, for example KC-767. Question is whether they're able of such speeds like 500kts near sea level.

QUOTE
There's no other conclusion that may be drawn in light of all information and phenomenon.

As the author of the linked post notes, some have hard time believe a B767 was even there. And I don't much wonder given the known specifications for that type of aircraft and the speed estimated from multiple sources.

I personally still have hard time to see the rationale: Why they would like to fly so fast?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 17 2014, 02:44 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 17 2014, 09:27 AM) *
I personally still have hard time to see the rationale: Why they would like to fly so fast?


It was obviously to achieve penetration of the outer steel curtain wall, and to achieve a speed faster than the north tower plane, which was travelling at 425 knots at impact.

Play the tape back through from the self evident proof of CD.

The second building, impacted lower down, across multiple floors, and at higher speed, "collapsed" first although hit second, which then "sells" the reason for the north tower to follow suit and do the exact same thing about a half hour later.

An analysis of the physics required for complete penetration, wing tip to wing tip was obviously conducted in the design of the operation.

The outer steel of those buildings was something like 2" thick, but if you have enough hardness, even sharpness impacting at the right speed, then into the building the whole plane goes.

Note also with the south tower plane that it executed a turning maneuver, not because it almost missed the building, but because the idea was to hit across multiple floors at the lower level, and somewhat diagonally, such that the incendiary and fuel (it was surely loaded up with fuel and incendiary, the whole plane) would produce the absolutely gargantuan "shock and awe" fireball for the watching world, by which time all cameras were trained on the WTC complex from every angle and perspective. The fireball magnitude then creates in the mind's eye a suspension of disbelief as to the cause of the buildings' subsequent destruction (plane impacts and fire)

Fireball (from across the Hudson River) http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/mdf50846.jpg

In other words, the target acquisitioning and impact was utterly perfect, as intended.

Btw, i'm the author of the thread at reddit, not that i'm bragging just pointing that out.

Here's a link to the whole thread and OP with all comments.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comment...th_tower_plane/

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Feb 17 2014, 02:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 17 2014, 03:03 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 17 2014, 09:27 AM) *
I agree. It definitely doesn't look to me likely a commercial B767 jetliner would be cappable of such speeds given it's flight envelope.


It would be utterly impossible unless seriously modified, along with more powerful engines.

Point being that it simply cannot have been "UA flight 175".

It was however painted with the UA livery.

http://imgur.com/X0GWc04

I'll get back to you on why it looks like a 767-300 vs. a 200, but basically the length proportion is too long, in particular from the leading wing edge/fuselage join, to the nose.

200's are more "snubby"

http://imgur.com/aZNSQi8
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 17 2014, 03:24 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 674
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 17 2014, 02:44 PM) *
The outer steel of those buildings was something like 2" thick, but if you have enough hardness, even sharpness impacting at the right speed, then into the building the whole plane goes.



So many people latch onto the thickness of the steel; whether or not it could be 'penetrated'.
It didn't need to be penetrated or slashed, or cut through like butter.

The steel (whatever was still there) simply needed to be pushed back.
There is a difference between cutting through and just moving something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 17 2014, 03:37 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 17 2014, 12:24 PM) *
So many people latch onto the thickness of the steel; whether or not it could be 'penetrated'.
It didn't need to be penetrated or slashed, or cut through like butter.

The steel (whatever was still there) simply needed to be pushed back.
There is a difference between cutting through and just moving something.


You're right. Pushed back to which i'd add AND broken and smashed at impact.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynold...ter_plane_c.jpg

I'm just glad to see that you're not a "no planer".

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Feb 17 2014, 03:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 17 2014, 06:45 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



What's interesting about the speed analysis, is that is solves the apparent dilemma and questions of the no planer crowd very nicely, in so far as what it proves is a combination of modification and hardening of the structure, as well as the excessive speed required for building penetration, as observed.

Thus, on evaluation, the evidence ought to provide a satisfying solution to the issues raised by the no plane people including John Lear who I understand is still a member here.

You will also note from the reddit link, that the thread received well over 400 votes with a 71% like ratio, revealing that people are ready to begin examining and digesting the evidence and research of Pilots for 9/11 Truth in it's appropriate context, which essentially proves in unequivocal terms, that the south tower plane was not "UA175" but instead MUST have been a swapped-in remotely piloted 767-like, highly modified, military drone aircraFt, as highlighted in the recent documentary

"September 11- The New Pearl Harbor" by award winning film making Massimo Maccuzzo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 17 2014, 07:32 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 674
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



While there are no doubt, scores of government dis-info agents flooding the internet (this site being no exception) with no plane theories and other ones, I don't think Reynolds and Lear have a hidden agenda.

I think they are simply misguided and also wear blinkers at the same time.

They arrived at their conclusion but never really thought it through logically.

For example, holograms could possibly explain the planes traveling to and meeting the buildings, but how about after that?

Their theory doesn't explain the penetration holes, the plane debris flying out the towers and landing on the ground etc. etc.

Were new, individual holograms of plane parts broadcast a second after the planes struck?

How did they achieve that wonder?

I have to admit that for a time I was a no-planer, but that phase didn't last long before I saw the folly of it.

It's nice to be so fully aligned in our 9/11 beliefs EagleEye.
Once all the evidence is examined carefully and reasonably, there really is little room for
manoeuvering.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 17 2014, 11:03 PM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 17 2014, 04:32 PM) *
While there are no doubt, scores of government dis-info agents flooding the internet (this site being no exception) with no plane theories and other ones, I don't think Reynolds and Lear have a hidden agenda.


Doubtful though don't you think that in the face of all information and phenomenon, that such men did not and could not consider that a highly modified military 767-like aircraft COULD do it, with a hardened structure, modified leading wing edges, and a more powerful engine 3-5 times greater than standard?

I think they recognized what might be called "the honey pot" and, in effect kissed evil ass, by feeding it.

The question then becomes whether they fed the honey pot knowingly and unwittingly..

The Honey Pot

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association”
– Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Now, although i've been examining the south tower plane in different ways since the spring of 2003, i only came across all the data and research of Pilots for 9/11 Truth within the last year or so, and i'm just a layman.

These are highly educated and credentialed men of careful discernment and evaluation and i cannot be so much smarter than they in my own understanding as a laymen of the data.

That additional 90 knots past Vd, although extremely impressive and unprecedented as an airspeed, isn't insurmountable in the face of all evidence, information and phenomenon.

What it does for certain is to prove that the plane was not and cannot have been UA175, and that's enough.

What it does not do however is to prove that there was no plane there at all, replaced by some sort of sound making hologram capable of making that fireball the way it was made, and of leaving a plane shaped hole in the building.

What, are we supposed to actually believe that the plane wasn't like THERE there, was a holographic, sound making projection, AND, that the holes in the buildings were made with special shaped charges AND that all videographic and photographic records, recorded in real time were ALL "faked"..?

Do those men REALLY believe that?!

No way. Gimme a break.

Those men recognized the honey pot and due to their prior allegiances, fed it - intentionally, or, if unwittingly, then seemingly hypnotized by the devilish power of the honey pot to make good men do the devilish work of both covering up and discrediting the truth at the heart of the matter, which would mean that they are very weak men, weak minded and weak willed - but is that in their character? Not.

It's simple deductive reasoning, all of it. So it's no wonder we're in perfect agreement in our evaluation of the data - nothing else makes any sense whatsoever, so any rational and scientifically minded objective person, with a little discipline, would arrive at the very same conclusion.

Kudos though to Rob Balsamo and Pilots for 9/11 Truth for hanging in there and standing firm on this matter, and it was wise i think not to ban John Lear simply because John Bursill commanded it in the name of fighting the no planers.

John Lear, whether knowingly or unwittingly is the perfect foil against which to make the truth known, but it would be so much better if he were on the side of the truth, same with Morgan Reynolds, so my own work to understand the research and data of Pilots for 9/11 Truth is as much for them as for anyone, but if after seeing it, they persist - well then at that point we'd definitely know wouldn't we, unless they really are as stubborn as they are ignorant and willing to go to the ends of the earth to cling to a prior conception that was simply wrong simply because it's a "pet theory" that they've affixed their name to, how small minded and selfish would that be?

Men will admit when they made an error.

I think they're men, so time will tell..

Please send them both a link to this thread. Thanks.

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Feb 17 2014, 11:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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 - 06:31 AM