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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
A Conversation With Joseph Keith, aerospace engineer

shure
post Aug 30 2007, 07:16 PM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99





Joseph keith is a retired Aerospace engineer who designed the "Shaker System" for Boeing. He was a founding member of Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) but has since resigned.

Here is part of a conversation where he gives his expert analysis of the events of 9/11

click link below to listen or right click and save target as to download:
http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/joseph_ke...1607_planes.mp3
(19min30sec 3.5mb mp3)

This post has been edited by shure: Aug 30 2007, 07:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 30 2007, 10:27 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



An aerospace engineer is pronouncing upon videos? biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Aug 31 2007, 11:32 AM
Post #3


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Listening to it now Jeff. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Aug 31 2007, 11:50 AM
Post #4


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Any pilots get a chance to listen to this? I'd be real interested in hearing your thoughts on this engineer's claims about the limitations of flight speed at low altitude.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
heliweli
post Aug 31 2007, 03:21 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 177
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 323



I'm not a pilot but it has always bothered me that in the Pentagon scenario, the plane could have flown at such a low altitude and at such a high speed. I found the conversation with Joseph Keith very intriguing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Aug 31 2007, 05:05 PM
Post #6





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Yeah 500 KTS is WAY over Vmo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shure
post Aug 31 2007, 05:12 PM
Post #7





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



I don't know if this helps with the low altitude question but somebody at LC posted this video of proof that a plane can fly at a low altitude: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_vJliayH6co

I sent Joe the video and this was his response:

QUOTE
Jeff,
    I defy anyone to show a video of a 757 flying at 400 mph a couple hundred feet off the ground.  I would have to see proof of speed and altitude and that would be impossible.  The video below showed a plane accelerating at a low altitude in order to gain altitude.  It probably never even gained airspeed as it climbed and that probably was never even 200 mph.
Joe Keith
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
heliweli
post Aug 31 2007, 05:15 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 177
Joined: 14-December 06
Member No.: 323



What's VMO?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Aug 31 2007, 06:28 PM
Post #9





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Vmo is the maximums safe speed in the flight envelope

on small planes it is called Vne --Never exceed

above these speeds structual integrity can be lost, control surface fluttter can happen etc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 31 2007, 06:40 PM
Post #10


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


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



QUOTE (bill @ Aug 31 2007, 01:05 PM)
Yeah 500 KTS is WAY over Vmo

Bill, I wonder if you would take the time to look at and comment in this thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...wtopic=8743&hl=

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 1 2007, 10:30 AM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I'm not impressed. The building wasn't designed to "reject" a 707, at least according to the interviews I've seen with the designers, it was designed to WITHSTAND such a strike.

Yet the engineer here claims that it was meant to "reject" or "accept". Sorry, not too credible.

Vmo=Velocity, max operating.

I think it was Beech who set the record straight on this. The airspeeds thrown around for the aircraft are rather like throwing spaghetti on the wall--very imprecise.

The sim instructor already proved that there were control problems in the simulator with too high an airspeed. We know that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shure
post Sep 1 2007, 02:03 PM
Post #12





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 1 2007, 02:30 PM)
I'm not impressed. The building wasn't designed to "reject" a 707, at least according to the interviews I've seen with the designers, it was designed to WITHSTAND such a strike.

Yet the engineer here claims that it was meant to "reject" or "accept". Sorry, not too credible.

Well if you listened you would know he never said any such thing. Joe was talking about a mathematics teacher he knew that came up with her own logic of a 707 and a 767. He said he couldn't argue with the woman after she said something so stupid as that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Ningen_*
post Sep 2 2007, 11:03 PM
Post #13





Guest






I think what Mr. Keith was implying was that the materials are more important than the mass, and even if there was more kinetic energy in the heavier 767, that extra energy would just be more energy to destroy the airframe. That's how I took his statement that the Cal-Irvine mathematician's argument was stupid.

This post has been edited by Ningen: Sep 2 2007, 11:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 3 2007, 10:55 AM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Shure

I did listen to the tape. How else would I have known he used the terms?

Whether he was quoting somebody else or not is mostly irrelevant, and irresponsible on his part. Why did he, an engineer, not correct the terminology?

The design engineers used the term WITHSTAND. Why did not our hero Mr Keith the Engineer use that term instead of the misleading and incorrect ones he did?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shure
post Sep 4 2007, 07:26 PM
Post #15





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



QUOTE
Its just like a woman I know whos a mathematics professor at the University of California Ervie. She says when I discuss 911 with her. She says that the World Trade Towers were designed to reject a fully loaded 707 in flight. But a 767 is bigger and more massive than a 707 so it accepted it. Now how can I argue with someone like that..............
10min40sec of the audio


Hes talking about what someone else [ the mathematics professor ] said. They were her terms not his. He saying what she said was stupid.

This post has been edited by shure: Sep 4 2007, 07:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PHARAOH1133
post Sep 4 2007, 08:22 PM
Post #16





Group: Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: 31-August 07
Member No.: 1,934



While not being a expert, there are different views. Some say that planes did hit the WTC towers (and don't want to hear anything else) (I tend to believe planes did hit the towers, but what do I know?)
Then there are no planes that hit the Pentagon and flight 93 in Shanksfield, which I believe is true.
So if this is so, it could be possible that no planes hit the towers, I posted a video on another site, and it was not too popular, but I thought it was interesting, and basically it could of been done.
There is a difference between videos being shown on Tv and "What really happened.
Like I have said before, I've been fooled once when 911 first happened, then I was fooled again in learning it was an inside job. So now I'm basically waiting to see what unfolds and to see what develops, I don't want to be fooled again.
However, I think this is a good video to analyze, it could of happened this way, the truth is very hard to find, maybe it was a combination of different things happening all at once, we will learn what the truth is after it is debated and things are ruled out to be false, one step at a time we are getting closer.

Here's the video Link : http://www.livevideo.com/video/B4F468617C2...lastvcid=294652

Here's another one, in which some pilots may confirm to be true or not?
Video Link : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...earch&plindex=0

Let me know what your views are on this.

This post has been edited by PHARAOH1133: Sep 4 2007, 08:44 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: 31st October 2014 - 08:46 AM