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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Pilots Discuss Difficulty Of Wtc Attacks

rob balsamo
post May 15 2007, 02:47 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
Professional Pilots Rob Balsamo and FAA Authorized Flight Examiner/Check Airman Dan Govatos discuss the difficulty of the WTC attacks as well as attempts to duplicate the attack in an Airline Simulator on tnrlive.com.

visit truthorlies.org for archive of full interview.

Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org for the latest information and in depth analysis. (more) (less)





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post May 15 2007, 03:34 PM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Excellent, Rob! thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slick
post May 15 2007, 04:13 PM
Post #3


Life Is A Paradox


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 164
Joined: 29-August 06
Member No.: 31



very interesting smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 15 2007, 10:00 PM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,922
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Great story that nobody could hit the towers.

I still can't figure out why the last second bank on the #2 airplane. If we assume that laser targeting was being used, perhaps that would explain it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post May 15 2007, 10:05 PM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (amazed! @ May 16 2007, 02:00 AM)
I still can't figure out why the last second bank on the #2 airplane.

I never heared of a second Bank.

one and only: Carl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post May 16 2007, 12:55 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Cool thumbsup.gif cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
georgie101
post May 16 2007, 04:31 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 1,221
Joined: 20-October 06
From: south london, uk
Member No.: 114



Well done guy's, great interview.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 18 2007, 08:57 AM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,922
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Carl, I was refering to Flight 175 banking "at the last second" prior to impact. Rather than being wings level, it impacted while turning. I've never been able to figure out what that signifies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carl Bank
post May 18 2007, 09:24 AM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,114
Joined: 21-October 06
From: Berlin
Member No.: 121



QUOTE (amazed! @ May 18 2007, 02:57 PM)
Carl, I was refering to Flight 175 banking "at the last second" prior to impact. Rather than being wings level, it impacted while turning. I've never been able to figure out what that signifies.

I know, amazed. Don't worry.

Carl Bank wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guinan
post May 18 2007, 10:12 AM
Post #10


Location: Netherlands


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 72



QUOTE (amazed! @ May 18 2007, 02:57 PM)
Carl, I was refering to Flight 175 banking "at the last second" prior to impact. Rather than being wings level, it impacted while turning. I've never been able to figure out what that signifies.

Hahahaha amazed, you walked right into that trap !!

1-0 for Carl

G.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post May 18 2007, 07:30 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



In my opinion it is very interesting what was said in the interview, that is, the speed of the wtc planes. And it surprised me that not so much has been talked about that issue before.

Now, the alleged speed for example of the 2.plane is based mostly on the videos. (Kausel talks also about radar but I understand him like he based the last mile or so on the videos) They used a great speed to support a huge damage inside the tower etc.

But there is only one problem. How could inexperienced pilots controle the planes so perfectly at such a great speed ?

And Eduardo Kausel Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering MIT admit that it looks strange to him:

"The above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground
at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal
altitude of 10km (33,000 ft). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorists
were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, consideering
that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at the normal cruising height, the pilots
greatly exceeded VNE (“never exceed velocity”) and thereby risked disintegration of the
aircraft by air friction."
web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
airborneffemt
post May 22 2007, 02:30 PM
Post #12





Group: Newbie
Posts: 25
Joined: 17-May 07
Member No.: 1,059



This old Grunt could see the "PAINTING" on the walls.

WILLNOTBOW!!! salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 22 2007, 04:28 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I wonder if there were some sort of homing devices in the buildings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 14 2008, 06:30 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



A bit on V speeds:

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

V_A Design maneuvering speed, also known as the "Speed for maximum control deflection." This is the speed above which it is unwise to make full application of any single flight control (or "pull to the stops") as it may generate a force greater than the aircraft's structural limitations.

V_DF Demonstrated flight diving speed.

V_FC Maximum speed for stability characteristics.

V_MO Maximum operating limit speed.

V_NE Never exceed speed.

V_NO Maximum structural cruising speed.

V_nd Max structural cruising speed

[EDIT: To our pilots, Is V_nd correct above? That doesn't look right to me- it was from Wiki after all...]

Some like to handwave that these are just like "speed limit signs" on the side of the highway. The aerodynamic properties are not quite that simple, and it is also foolhardy to believe so.... That word "structural" isn't used there just for the hell of it, either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Oct 14 2008, 07:57 PM
Post #15





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



It's been said before, but the alleged maneuvers would create gforces that no human could handle, unless wearing a g suit, and probably not even then.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 15 2008, 10:23 AM
Post #16





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



QUOTE (keroseneaddict @ Oct 12 2008, 10:57 PM) *
It's been said before, but the alleged maneuvers would create gforces that no human could handle, unless wearing a g suit, and probably not even then.....

Particularly the negative G required for the OCT alleged Pentagon strike by 77.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 15 2008, 10:39 AM
Post #17





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



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 12 2008, 09:30 PM) *
A bit on V speeds:

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

V_A Design maneuvering speed, also known as the "Speed for maximum control deflection." This is the speed above which it is unwise to make full application of any single flight control (or "pull to the stops") as it may generate a force greater than the aircraft's structural limitations.

V_DF Demonstrated flight diving speed.

V_FC Maximum speed for stability characteristics.

V_MO Maximum operating limit speed.

V_NE Never exceed speed.

V_NO Maximum structural cruising speed.

V_nd Max structural cruising speed

[EDIT: To our pilots, Is V_nd correct above? That doesn't look right to me- it was from Wiki after all...]

I thought V_NO was speed of normal operation or maximum structural cruising speed and that V_MO was max operating speed but this may help answer some questions if the info in it can be corroborated. I cannot test under MS Flight Simm at moment as my computer died (the recent installation of a new MS keyboard may have been a factor as this new keyboard did not work on this new computer) and I am still getting its replavcement bedded in with all my usual tools (which means nightmare time from keys, registrations etc):

http://www.911weknow.com/forums/index.php?topic=151.0

Edit: Amplification of V_NO description

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 15 2008, 10:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 16 2008, 10:21 AM
Post #18





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,922
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



dMole

Vne, not Vnd

Velocity NEVER EXCEED, the redline. Which can be exceeded, under threat of structural damage to the airframe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tovarco
post Oct 25 2008, 09:25 PM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 1
Joined: 14-October 08
Member No.: 3,938



QUOTE (keroseneaddict @ Oct 14 2008, 04:57 PM) *
It's been said before, but the alleged maneuvers would create gforces that no human could handle, unless wearing a g suit, and probably not even then.....

Can you elaborate on this more? I am not a pilot. I have been discussing the issue with a pilot on www.topix.com - trying to be very open minded. My thought was that flying such a large jet a 500 mphs with all the mayhem that was going on - nearly impossible. And on top of this for 3 of 4 planes to hit there targets. Just did not seem right. He said basically the passengers would feel 1 g on the turn into the pentagon

The guy I have been speaking with says that the manuever was easy and that even a pilot of hanjor ability could do it (8 out of 10 times)

Am I understanding this right? So what the vid says is that basically the manuever could be done by an experienced pilot. The only problem is hanjor was not an experienced pilot and this is where the story does not match.

This guys says he had a license there you go.

Here is one of our exchanges if you are curios and have the time:

Terry wrote:
So tom is the drop at 30 feet per second for AA 77 - is that a big deal?
Is that the same as dropping 30 feet per second straight down?
Also can you (and truth too) explain Lears issue with the "field barometric" and the "altimeter" being set. He said something about getting the field barometric from RR airport from 150 miles away.
Do you know the difference between velocity & acceleration?

tom wrote:

A person dropping 30 ft/sec would have absolutely zero indication that was happening if he did not have an altimeter. Passengers feel nothing.

In order for an altimeter to work properly, you need to set it to the correct local barometric pressure. This is done by turning a knob on the altimeter to show the right pressure. This is called a Kollsman window. If this is not set right, you will have an error in the altitude reading.

When a plane is at the high altitudes that commercial jets fly, there is a different procedure. Everyone sets their reference pressure to 29.97 mm Hg. That way, you're not constantly resetting it as you fly along.

It is unlikely that the hijackers bothered resetting their altimeter, and had an error in their recorded altimeter.

I have no doubt that Lear has what he believes to be a smoking gun of some sort. Unfortunately, Lear is untrustworthy precisely because of his conspiratorial nature and willingness to screw with people.

I also know that pilots are NOT the right people to ask about the esoterica of the workings of aviation equipment. The right people are aviation engineers.

There are 2 factors that affect the accuracy of the reading: barometric pressure & temperature. The altimeter does not compensate for temp. A 20°F decrease in temp compared the a standard temp profile results in a 17 foot error (you would be flying 17 feet lower than indicated). An error of 0.4 mm Hg means about 400' error in altitude.

And a whole passel of NTSB and independent competent aviation engineers have gone thru the FDR data and found it to be completely consistent with Flight 77's flight path.

tk

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBM...49GGG7HFO/p1911

Any input you can provide would be greatly appreciated! TY!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Oct 25 2008, 09:49 PM
Post #20





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



I'll be happy to reply tomorrow, even at the risk of being decimated by some here........just too tired tonight....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 2nd October 2014 - 02:23 AM