Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Nasa Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The " Elephant In The Room "
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > General > Latest News
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
rob balsamo
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"


06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:


A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?


The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career


It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

###
Craig Ranke CIT
Excellent!

Thanks Rob and Dwain!

Is there an interview?
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jun 22 2010, 05:46 PM) *
Excellent!

Thanks Rob and Dwain!

Is there an interview?


I didn't record the interview. It was mainly a chat just to confirm Dwain's concerns on the information since his post here regarding his entry at the AIAA, and asking permission to publish an article on the topic.

If anyone has any questions, Dwain is a forum member and can reply in this thread. His forum name is dadeets.
datars
Cool! Rob
ChrisPDX
Thanks for keeping us updated. It is always a pleasure to get an email regarding a new post.
tinynate
Rob it's about time for you to come on with charles giuliani again thumbsup.gif

I will email him if you want?


Michael Herzog is on oraclebroadcasting too, I am pretty good pals with him too if you would like to be on either, just let me know ... Would love to hear you back on with either of them.


thanks
gregg
John Bursill
Hello all,

I agree with what Dwain has said.

Notice he did not refer to your video and he did not make any unsubstantiated claims. He simply called for the organisations that "can" to make comment and clear the air, maybe you could learn from that here at P4T?!

Boeing knows what that airframe can do, Rob Balsamo does not.

Making mileage out of what Deets has said in his well reasoned statement will lead to him pointing out the flaws in your video, so be careful now:) Good luck!

Kind regards John
rob balsamo
QUOTE (John Bursill @ Jun 23 2010, 12:15 AM) *
Boeing knows what that airframe can do, Rob Balsamo does not.


Hi John,

How about Capt Rusty Aimer, Capt Ralph Kolstad, and Capt Jeff Latas? Do they "know what an airframe can do"?

John, why do you keep suggesting I'm the sole person responsible for this information while ignoring the experts who were consulted and credited? What you are doing is known as intellectual dishonesty and may give people the impression that your arguments are personal, and not in the best interests of truth.

So you now agree the aircraft speed is "An aeronautical improbability" as voiced by Dwain above to the AIAA?

John, throughout our presentation and supplemental press release, we have been voicing the same exact concerns Dwain has outlined above. What do you think motivated Dwain to write the above entry to the AIAA?

Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves. - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed


For almost two years, you have been on a campaign of "nothing to see here folks, move along" regarding 9/11 aircraft speed. You have attempted to prove the speeds were probable and have failed, all the while attacking me personally. You did it again with, "Rob Balsamo does not".

John, it is clear you do not understand the knowledge I possess with respect to what an airframe can do. Dwain and the other experts I have consulted and credited, do.

It is why this list grows.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

With that said, it's good to see you came to your senses and you now agree the speeds are "An aeronautical improbability" and you now acknowledge the "Elephant in the room". Will you still be attempting to get people to look the other way with regards to this "Aeronautical improbability"? Are you going to now inform your past guests you now agree the speeds are "aeronautically improbable" as voiced by Dwain and other experts?

QUOTE
Making mileage out of what Deets has said in his well reasoned statement will lead to him pointing out the flaws in your video, so be careful now:) Good luck!


Dwain approved the article before it was published. Good luck to you.
John Bursill
Hello Rob,

I agree with Deets's argument in it's essence, not that it is improbable the aircraft were 767-200 because of the aircraft speed. The aircraft did the speed and you have no proof they were not the aircraft we are told they were. We need the data which you do not have so Rob you do not know. If the speed stated officially is wrong I'm sure some one would of proved that by now by using the video footage?

What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.

The simulator does the speed Rob and your video is full of hot air! Show us the data or don't make statements about what is or is not impossible. That is what my campaign has been about, it is about being reasonable.

Your pilots that say they know what the frame could do, how do they know that Rob? Stop and think a while. Yes they may have done 360 Knots maybe 370 Knots during an over speed but they are not allowed to fly anywhere near 500 Knots...so how Rob do they know? 767's are very powerful planes and many pilots I talk to every day say they think they could do that speed. THEY DO NOT KNOW, THEY THINK!

This is a huge time waster!

Regards John

PS - My last post have fun with your beat up...
rob balsamo
QUOTE (John Bursill @ Jun 23 2010, 04:13 AM) *
Hello Rob,

I agree with Deets's argument in it's essence, not that it is improbable the aircraft were 767-200 because of the aircraft speed.


That's not exactly what Deets said. He specifically states "An Aeronautical Improbability" based on speed and aircraft type reported. Not that it is "improbable the aircraft were a 767-200". Do you understand the difference?

With that said, it appears you don't agree with Deets. Thanks for clearing that up.

QUOTE
The aircraft did the speed and you have no proof they were not the aircraft we are told they were.


Logical fallacy. Attempting to prove a negative. That is the same thing as you saying, "You have no proof Santa Claus isn't the person I was told he was by my parents". Legge tried the same tactic in his now defunct "What Hit The Pentagon" opinion piece.

A proper way to structure the statement would be, "What proof do you have that the aircraft observed is a standard 767-200, or specifically, N334AA and N612UA?"

So John, where is your proof?

So far, we have "...established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room"..."

You disagree. That's OK John. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree with you. I'm sure many of the experts consulted and credited are as well.

John, it's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?



QUOTE
We need the data which you do not have so Rob you do not know. If the speed stated officially is wrong I'm sure some one would of proved that by now by using the video footage?


It is proven based on the best data set we have and were able to obtain, Egypt Air 990, which suffered structural failure at 420 KEAS.

QUOTE
What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.


Dwain is getting at both issues. Improbable speed (Hence, "...this wasn't a standard 767-200;"), and Hijacker pilot skill, (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target."). Although the latter you will note the sarcasm in his tone.

QUOTE
The simulator does the speed Rob and your video is full of hot air!


John, are you able to make one post without attacking me personally?

John, each simulator has it's purpose. A Cockpit simulator is not designed to measure airframe stress. It is designed for training Cockpit Crew with respect to Cockpit procedures. This is discussed in our presentation. Cabin Simulators are designed to train Cabin Crew with respect to Cabin Procedure. Wind tunels are utilized to measure aircraft stress. Furthermore, the crash logic was clearly disabled on your alleged test, whether inadvertantly or intentional, as pointed out by Capt Ralph Kolstad who has thousands of hours in 757/767 Cockpit Simulators and the actual aircraft at American Airlines.

John, why didn't you get a plotted print out from your supposed sim test? All Level D Simulators have the capability to record and plot the flight. Just like a FDR, but even more thorough as it will give you an actual plot.

It would be nice to have some tangible evidence that your sim test actually took place. Regardless, we already know it isn't a very valid test.

QUOTE
Show us the data or don't make statements about what is or is not impossible. That is what my campaign has been about, it is about being reasonable.


We have shown you data and precedent. You choose to ignore it. Your campaign has been about attempting to police the "Truth Movement" and dictate to others what they should and should not research. This is all based on a conflict with me personally stemming from the fact I wouildn't boot John Lear from our organization when you made such demands.

John, why do you continue to ignore these questions?

How about Capt Rusty Aimer, Capt Ralph Kolstad, and Capt Jeff Latas? Do they "know what an airframe can do"?

John, why do you keep suggesting I'm the sole person responsible for this information while ignoring the experts who were consulted and credited? What you are doing is known as intellectual dishonesty and may give people the impression that your arguments are personal, and not in the best interests of truth.


QUOTE
Your pilots that say they know what the frame could do, how do they know that Rob?


If you view the presentation thoroughly, you will know.

QUOTE
Yes they may have done 360 Knots maybe 370 Knots during an over speed but they are not allowed to fly anywhere near 500 Knots...so how Rob do they know? 767's are very powerful planes and many pilots I talk to every day say they think they could do that speed. THEY DO NOT KNOW, THEY THINK!


Have they viewed our presentation?

John, I agree the 767 is a very powerful airplane. But do you understand why Boeing sets limitations, even on powerful aircraft?

Give them the presentation, then let me know what they "think". Let me know if they will put their name to their claims. Hearsay doesn't mean much on the web John.

Again John,

You think we should ignore the speeds. You think they are "probable". I'm ok with that. I'm ok to agree to disagree on this issue. Can you do the same? Or will you still go around claiming we are promoting disinfo? (Granted I haven't read or listened to much of your work, but I'm sure Craig can dig it out if needed).

Personally, I think It's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?

Have you seen this article?

Whistleblower Reveals "backdoor" 757 Remote Control And Flight Crew "lockout" Technology

That is right up your alley John. Why no comment?
tumetuestumefaisdubien
I remember the question of speed was the very question which led me to P4T some years ago. If you don't know something, go ask the professionals. I remember I was then asking Rob about the possibility of such a speed and he swiftly directed me to the P4T forum.

Later I was always insisting this question should be answered. I derived with dMole some groundspeed estimations from the 84Rades data, which was way above the Vne speed for B767-222, although now we know we really can't be sure the 84Rades data are authentic.

Nevertheles even later I asked achimspok if he could make another of his famous 3D simulations, and he did from the quite many available videos (http://www.youtube.com/user/achimspok#p/u/16/ClDtwOR-3wQ and further videos), which precised the "UA-175" speed estimation, suggesting airspeed maybe even a bit above 600 mph in the final phase (which almost at the sea level where the air is much more dense than at the cruising altitude is quite unheard of and even in the flight tests of civil B767 such a speed reportedly even closely never was achieved at such a low altitude and some credited professionals think it is utterly impossible because the engines would break and/or flutter would shatter the plane into pieces, and pump_it_out was calling in Boeing asking the question about speed and the technician there laughed, when asked if such a speed is possible...) and also rendering very interesting final maneuvre pattern which strongly suggests a computer was steering the plane into the building against the counterwind, hiting the south tower on all three axes exactly perpendicular to the southface ...and on the other hand the 3D simulation rendered the "no-plane theories" into realm of high improbability, because it btw. confirmed the airpaths of the plane on the many diferent videos fit each other in the simulated 3D space and so quite disprooved some of the key claims from "September Clues".
So I don't much understand, why especially in connection with the question of speed somebody tryies to play this "no-plane card" again...

So now here we are on this speed question again. Even somebody from NASA acknowledges a proboscidian in the room. Niiice. thumbsup.gif

I was also forced to delete this post immediatelly after it was written, and write it again, because the post appeared without me at all writing it authomatically rendered the word "pump_it_out" writen together as "pumpshitout", even i the text in editor wasn't anything like that. Why ????!!! (screenshot: http://xmarinx.sweb.cz//pump.jpg )
JohnS
Where does the figure of 360 knots max operating speed come from? The max cruise speed of a 767 (according to Wikipedia -- "it must be true!") is 493 knots. I guess that's at normal cruising altitude. Is it 360 because of the altitude? Where can this be looked up?

Thanks for the help -- I'm arguing with a very skeptical pilot friend of mine, I need your help with intellectual ammo!
rob balsamo
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...%20Rev%2026.pdf

It is also all explained in the presentation.
Obwon
Hi Rob:

The naysayers continue to argue "tautologically". But they fail to apply the same standards to their own thinking. That discredits them and saves the discriminating reader time and effort, because, as we all know -- and as any good reader should; "words can be found to support any cause", therefore, if a writer continues to ignore and fails to even bother to explain, why his own discourse should be absolved of being subjected to the very same disciplines he is subjecting other materials too, then their writings are a complete waste of time.

Case in point is: (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.").

Which is an assertion, but it excludes explanation as to how this is achieved, without the necessary pilot skill sets! So that it should read: (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target, [ by a pilot who had not the required skills.]").

I'm no expert, but I have to assume that when sensitive operations are taken into "the red zone", everything about the operations then becomes highly critical as well. Such that if there are only a variable or two, acting over an instant or two, an unskilled operator could get lucky. But as the number of variables climb, in addition to the amount of time that the operator has to stay within various limits, the chance of "getting lucky" decreases very rapidly to the vanishing point.

So, what I'm taking away from these discussions is that, it is unlikely in the extreme, that while in the "red zone"[510 knots], all the necessary variables being held tightly within acceptable limits, by a pilot of less than top level experience, is so close to impossible it need not be rationally considered.

It seems to me that the less of these variables one considers at any given point in time, the chances of achieving the desired outcome becomes more and more possible. But, as the other requirements are factored in, one by one, the chances of achieving a desirable result decreases substantially.

So, out of curiosity I have to ask you, can you enumerate the list of variables, which in this case -- during the last, say 5 minutes of the flights, -- have to be held within tight limits, to achieve these results? Please add pilot skill sets and discernable time lengths to the list as well as "break points" that show when they each have to be changed, if any. It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list, just something off-the-top-of-your head will do. To let us lay people see some of the complexities that are being concealed by these shorthand statements like "beyond it's flight envelope", "was controlable"
etc. This will give us some idea of things that a real pilot would have had to deal with in that cockpit.

Thanks in advance Rob
Obwon
rob balsamo
Please all, if you havent viewed the presentation, please view it as many of your questions are answered.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18314 - Speed Scene

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732 - Full Film
RickMason
This is great! Things seemed to be slowing down in the 9/11 Truth movement, and I'm glad to see some new, positive information!
amazed!
I'm glad that Mr. Deet has gone on the record. Good work Rob.

But in my mind the question was settled a long time ago--if there were 2 Boeings at WTC, and I believe there were, they were right at Vmo or maybe slightly over it.

Considering how Vigilant Guardian was implemented--spoofing the radar--any radar data that day is highly suspect.

I suppose some will use Mr. Deet's opinion to support a position of no planes, but I would disagree.
Aldo Marquis CIT
Rob,

I haven't touched on this much. But I have been watching John Bursill's behavior and it is very subversive. We have made the same effort with him and others to work together, but he seems to still want to slip attacks on us into his little Visibility shows while interviewing 9/11 Truth Movement figures. This even after Craig beat him to a pulp in his recorded phone interview which he conceded Craig won.

How long can John carry on this charade? Is it that you can't admit you are wrong, John? Because Rob has a point, you have gone from "nothing to see here, moving right along" to now agreeing that the speeds are improbable, to now shifting the blame and onus to Boeing.

I am not sure why you don't want to work with either organization and why you and a your clique are so determined to consistently attack us, undermine us, and misdirect from us? I really don't want to start thinking you are some kind of friendly Australian Intelligence op. I am sure many do not want to start thinking that, but it is beginning to become pretty apparent that you are bent on subversion.
SlackerSlayer
So the 757 and 767 frames can not take those forces,,, but what about the 737? They found 737 parts at the site, so what about that airframe?
tekirdag
I think you are really grasping a straws here.

Firstly, the max speed adjusted for altitude, temp and pressure will be about 370kt

Secondly a tail wind can easily increase this by 20-30 kt (and it looks like a tail wind to me) or 400 kt.

Thirdly, if you don't mind busting your aircraft, you can fly any speed you like. Normal loading requirements for airframes is 1.6 x max load, so there is plenty of excess strength available.

A China Airlines 747 did a half loop, losing some 30,000 ft in the process, and survived (full of passengers). A Bae 146 went supersonic (after the pilots were shot) and survived (until it hit the ground).


There is no mystery here - we all saw the videos of a 767 flying.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (tekirdag @ Jun 23 2010, 09:46 PM) *
I think you are really grasping a straws here.

Firstly, the max speed adjusted for altitude, temp and pressure will be about 370kt

Secondly a tail wind can easily increase this by 20-30 kt (and it looks like a tail wind to me) or 400 kt.


This looks like a tailwind to you?



No, that's a headwind. (See the smoke? That is the direction of the wind)

Actual True Airspeed is closer to 520-530 knots. Surface winds at JFK, LGA and EWR were out of the Northwest at 10-15 knots. Clearly the winds were stronger out of the north 1000 feet above the surface.

QUOTE
Thirdly, if you don't mind busting your aircraft, you can fly any speed you like.


How do you "fly" a busted aircraft? When an aircraft is busted, you no longer "fly" it, you become a passenger. And then a smoking hole.

QUOTE
A China Airlines 747 did a half loop, losing some 30,000 ft in the process, and survived (full of passengers). A Bae 146 went supersonic (after the pilots were shot) and survived (until it hit the ground).


A 747 and a Bae 146 are not a 767.

The Concorde can go supersonic, does that mean a Cessna 172 can as well? I suppose if the 172 is "busted" you can fly at any airspeed you like, right? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
There is no mystery here - we all saw the videos of a 767 flying.


You need to watch the video we linked above.
dMz
QUOTE (SlackerSlayer @ Jun 23 2010, 06:30 PM) *
So the 757 and 767 frames can not take those forces,,, but what about the 737? They found 737 parts at the site, so what about that airframe?

There are several decades' worth of B737 varieties- could you be a little more specific (as in serial number, and hopefully accompanied by a relevant B737 Flight Manual, perhaps)?

The FAA TCDS ("data sheet") for the B737 says this on page #1, 2, & 4:

QUOTE
Airspeed Limits: See the appropriate FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual listed in NOTE 2.


For several of the other B737 varieties, I found the following:

QUOTE
Airspeed Limits: VMO/MMO - 340/0.82 (KCAS)


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...;FILE/A16WE.pdf

340 knots < 360 knots (and 0.82M is also < 0.86M/0.91M [VD] ).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10377946

The Boeing company has tended to refine things, possibly exponentially with the advent and increased usage of CAD/CAM/CAE, over the generations (but I've read/heard several conflicting opinions on the new B787 however).
onesliceshort
QUOTE (John Bursill)
What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.


From John Bursill's alleged sim "findings"

QUOTE (John Bursill)
At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my altitude.


I'm sick of seeing pseudoskeptics making claims and then totally contradicting them on other forums.
If CIT or P4T had made such a contradictory statement, no doubt the "Visibility" crowd or their new found "friends" from all walks (the govt loyalist site to Jeff Hill) would be harping on about it.

That's the difference. CIT and P4T use hard verifiable facts and evidence against the detractors' now seemingly "acceptable" black is white bullshit.

Nice work Rob. As always thumbsup.gif
amazed!
It is true that airspeed limitations CAN be exceeded, and it is true that the certification regulations require a structural cushion, I think around 10%. I assume those same rules apply to transport category aircraft.

If the airspeed limitations are exceeded, damage can occur, perhaps even fatal damage, but not necessarily. It's a dynamic situation. Of course g loading would have alot to do with it.

Vmo +20 would not be unrealistic IMO.
lex
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 22 2010, 10:15 AM) *
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"


06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:


A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?


The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career


It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

###
lex
all i know is that jumbo jets do not vapourize on impact. they leave wreckage when will there be a focus on this?
elreb
Rob,

Do you have a thread for blithering idiots?

I have looked into almost every air craft crash since September 2001 and only on the 11th day of September did every single law of Physics and every grain of common sense vanish from Earth, as if we floated into “Black Matter” or some freak dimension.

Over 120 elements do not add up, yet you still have “Morons” (Maroons) clinging to the official “Government” (cover-up) story.

Isn’t there some kind of “ACID” we can dip them in?
rob balsamo
QUOTE (lex @ Jun 24 2010, 04:36 PM) *
all i know is that jumbo jets do not vapourize on impact. they leave wreckage when will there be a focus on this?


13 pages of threads right here using our wonderful search engine.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...ite=%2Bwreckage
JohnS
Thanks for the link, Rob. I have seen the presentation but it's nice to have a nice official FAA link to point somebody to. (It's also nice not to have to re-watch an entire presentation to locate one fact.)

So I'm confused though: There's the FAA giving a VMO of 360 knots. What's with all the sources giving a "max cruising speed" of 493 knots? E.g., http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Is max cruising speed different from VMO? Are there different assumptions about altitude? The FAA document didn't seem to mention altitude with regard to its VMO number, but the "max cruise speed" seems pegged to 35000 feet. Again, apologies if this was all explained in the presentation, I admit it's been a while since I've watched it. But I think this is an important point to clarify. Grateful to anyone who can spell it out for me!
Dennis Cimino
QUOTE (tekirdag @ Jun 24 2010, 02:46 AM) *
I think you are really grasping a straws here. Why not be a little more clear about 'what' exactly Rob is grasping at straws about? the fact the planes were going too fast in a straight and level flight regime without thrust augmentation or other things beyond the capability of the engines that come on those planes when they're built at Boeing? That's not a grasping at a straw, it's an AERODYNAMIC FACT, which cannot be overcome by wishful thinking, supposition, or superhuman boxcutter wielding arabs who flew around unopposed in controlled airspace for way too long without any attempt by NORAD to intercept them.

Firstly, the max speed adjusted for altitude, temp and pressure will be about 370kt THAT IS RIGHT

Secondly a tail wind can easily increase this by 20-30 kt (and it looks like a tail wind to me) or 400 kt. DID YOU CHECK THE METARS FOR NYC THAT DAY BEFORE MAKING THAT ASSERTION??? what were the surface winds in NYC that day?

Thirdly, if you don't mind busting your aircraft, you can fly any speed you like. Normal loading requirements for airframes is 1.6 x max load, so there is plenty of excess strength available. WRONG ANSWER, AERODYNAMICS WILL LIMIT THE SUSTAINED SPEED OF THE PLANE DUE TO PARASITE DRAG AND OTHER DRAG COMPONENTS

A China Airlines 747 did a half loop, losing some 30,000 ft in the process, and survived (full of passengers). A Bae 146 went supersonic (after the pilots were shot) and survived (until it hit the ground). NO, THE BAE 146 BROKE UP IN FLIGHT, DID NOT IMPACT THE GROUND INTACT. as for the B-747 IN A LOOP, AS LONG AS IT DIDN'T DO IT IN A SITUATION WHERE LOSS OF THE AIRCRAFT'S CONTROL OCCURRED DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE LOOP, THERE'D BE NO PARTICULAR REASON FOR MUCH MORE THAN MINOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT WITHOUT BREAKUP.

There is no mystery here - we all saw the videos of a 767 flying. MAYBE, but do we know for absolute certainty they were stock airliners which had not undergone extensive modifications?? we don't, do we?
rob balsamo
QUOTE (JohnS @ Jun 24 2010, 07:16 PM) *
Thanks for the link, Rob. I have seen the presentation but it's nice to have a nice official FAA link to point somebody to. (It's also nice not to have to re-watch an entire presentation to locate one fact.)

So I'm confused though: There's the FAA giving a VMO of 360 knots. What's with all the sources giving a "max cruising speed" of 493 knots? E.g., http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Is max cruising speed different from VMO? Are there different assumptions about altitude? The FAA document didn't seem to mention altitude with regard to its VMO number, but the "max cruise speed" seems pegged to 35000 feet. Again, apologies if this was all explained in the presentation, I admit it's been a while since I've watched it. But I think this is an important point to clarify. Grateful to anyone who can spell it out for me!


493 knots is True Airspeed.

360 is Indicated Airspeed.


True Airspeed increases with altitude.

Google the above airspeed definitions or visit your local flight school.

The "pilot" you are debating is not very much of a "pilot" if he doesn't understand the difference.

Bring him here. We'll teach him quick.

From what I have seen, it appears the "pilot" you are debating has no more experience than flying his computer chair on Microsoft.

Feel free to quote me.
SanderO
I don't know why no one has done a pixel trace analysis of the video at least of the south tower strike which was on several vids. Chandler manages to determine the speed of things coming off the towers. Where are the clever fellas with software to analyze the plane speed of UAL 175?

The data taken from ATC radar can be inserted by a phantom transponder located in an outhouse. Weren't we told that there was data inserted that day, or possibly inserted because of military exercises? If the technology exists, then all the ATC data is suspect.

I don't know how airframes actually fail, but I suspect that it is not catastrophic at a particular speed... different components will fail at different times as conditions move beyond spec.

We need facts.
Dennis Cimino
QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 25 2010, 02:12 AM) *
I don't know why no one has done a pixel trace analysis of the video at least of the south tower strike which was on several vids. Chandler manages to determine the speed of things coming off the towers. Where are the clever fellas with software to analyze the plane speed of UAL 175?


according to someone I spoke with last year, some british experts did detailed video frame by frame speed analysis, but I have not seen this personally so I cannot attest to the veracity of the claim it was done.

QUOTE
The data taken from ATC radar can be inserted by a phantom transponder located in an outhouse. Weren't we told that there was data inserted that day, or possibly inserted because of military exercises? If the technology exists, then all the ATC data is suspect.



actually with regard to the NEADS sector, the information the other sectors saw was delayed by almost 26 seconds in time, and this never took place before sept 11th, nor afterwards. the only constructive reason you would 'sample and hold' the radar feed that long, would be either to 'inject' targets, or 'delete' them, before allowing the feed to go to the other users in the air defense system. Constructively, I personally have worked on that kind of military technology and know how it works and it's very very nifty in exercises where you want to change the radar feed in any way you so choose, before the rest of the users can see it. There can be no other legitimate reason to delay radar data to other user sites by nearly half a minute in time.
QUOTE
I don't know how airframes actually fail, but I suspect that it is not catastrophic at a particular speed... different components will fail at different times as conditions move beyond spec.


what is even more important is the instability and loss of control that is inherent in flight regimes where the airplane is outside it's normal load factor limits by a significant margin, in unstable, dense air, down low.
Obwon
QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 24 2010, 04:20 PM) *
It is true that airspeed limitations CAN be exceeded, and it is true that the certification regulations require a structural cushion, I think around 10%. I assume those same rules apply to transport category aircraft.

If the airspeed limitations are exceeded, damage can occur, perhaps even fatal damage, but not necessarily. It's a dynamic situation. Of course g loading would have alot to do with it.

Vmo +20 would not be unrealistic IMO.


That is very likely the case, but my question then would be: How do pilot skills impact the matter of planes being flown in the "red zone"? Is it likely that these planes could exceed their limitations at the hands of relatively untrained pilots and still accomplish their missions? Clearly, the experts have said that they found they could control a plane easily while exceeding limitations, but only for level flight. The WTC craft were not in level flight when the design limitations were exceeded... So, is controlling them after design limits are exceeded so simple that the unskilled pilots could get luckly? Or would they be so difficult to control that even a skilled pilot could only hope to get lucky?

Obwon
onesliceshort
QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 25 2010, 02:52 PM) *
That is very likely the case, but my question then would be: How do pilot skills impact the matter of planes being flown in the "red zone"? Is it likely that these planes could exceed their limitations at the hands of relatively untrained pilots and still accomplish their missions? Clearly, the experts have said that they found they could control a plane easily while exceeding limitations, but only for level flight. The WTC craft were not in level flight when the design limitations were exceeded... So, is controlling them after design limits are exceeded so simple that the unskilled pilots could get luckly? Or would they be so difficult to control that even a skilled pilot could only hope to get lucky?

Obwon


I transcripted the Pilotsfor911truth "Speed" video and found this section very compelling.
It is not open to detractor obfuscation regarding undocumented and unverified "sim tests" or leaching off the refusal of the withholding of vital data which pseudoskeptics live off.

Hope it's useful (particularly for laymen such as myself). Regarding "Control".

QUOTE
PILOT SKILLS - CONTROLLABILITY

27:35 IN VIDEO

Imagine parking your car at 150 mph, without hitting the side of the car off the garage walls. The operator of the vehicle has to be VERY precise.
Considering that the best alleged hijacker was Hani Hanjur, and he wasn't allowed to rent a Cessna due to the fact that he couldn't control it at 65 knots,it's highlt unlikely that a pilot of lesser capability could control a heavy jet, with zero training in type aircraft, at almost 10 times the speed with a 25 feet margin of error for each side of the wing tip.

Ever driven into a "Jiffy Lube" or similar place to get your oil changed?
Imagine driving in at 150 mph without scratching your car, however, you are familiar with your car, many hours operating it, so this scenario isn't exactly the same.
So, imagine yourself behind the wheel of a tractor trailer for the first time while attempting the same manouevre. Could you do it?


INTERVIEW WITH SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY
TRIED TO HIT THE WTC TOWERS IN A SIM
WITH OTHER EXPERIENCED COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
PILOTS WITHIN WEEKS OF 9/11

DAN GAVADO (?)

QUOTE
Dan : "After their Sim training period I said 'Hey, let's try something. Let's see if we can hit these buildings...uh..like we saw happen.
We used a 737, a smaller much more manouevreable airplane.
So, I set it up for these pilots and keep in mind these pilots have many years experience..
They all took turns trying to hit the buildings AND THEY COULDN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY SLOWED DOWN TO ALMOST LANDING SPEEDS.
THEY COULD NOT HIT THOSE BUILDINGS. AT HIGH SPEEDS THEY COULDN'T DO IT"

Interviewer: " I guess they were getting into 'Dutch Roll' and everything, right?"

Dan : " That's right, that's EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING"



Onesliceshort -

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



30:40 Dutch Roll shown in actual flight

QUOTE
Dan : "PEOPLE DON'T REALISE TO HAND FLY AN AIRLINER AT THOSE SPEEDS
IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT...PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE A NOVICE.
..IF YOU EXPECT TO MOVE THE CONTROLS OF AN AIRLINER AND EXPECT IT TO REACT THE SAME AS A LITTLE AIRPLANE (CESSNA), YOU COULDN'T STAND THE G-FORCES. EVERYTHING IS FINGERTIP CONTROL.
SO BASICALLY OUT OF THE TEN TIMES THAT EACH PILOT TRIED NOBODY COULD DO IT. I WAS ABLE TO DO IT AT THE LAST ATTEMPT.
THAT WAS WHAT OPENED THEIR EYES AND SAID 'SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT'

WE WERE FINDING THIS ALL THE TIME. EVEN THESE AIRLINE PILOTS, WITH THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF EXPERIENCE HAD A HARD TIME CONTROLLING..THE AIRPLANE AT THOSE SPEEDS.

EVEN WHEN I WAS MAKING THE FILM AND I WAS DOING ALL THOSE DIFFERENT MANOUEVRES TO SET IT UP TO HIT THE PENTAGON..COMING IN FROM THE TOP, COMING IN FROM THE SIDE, COMING IN FROM THE OTHER SIDE GOING INTO WHERE RUMMY WAS SITTING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND THEN I TRIED TO LINE IT UP EXACTLY HOW THE OFFICIAL STORY STATES, IT TOOK ME 5 OR 6 TRIES.."



Landing speeds are around FIVE times less than the speeds recorded at the WTC. The interviewed pilots were able to impact the WTC as seen on 9/11 on the first attempt AT LANDING SPEED.
IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL WHEN ATTEMPTING TO DO IT AT OVER 150 KNOTS OVER MAX OPERATING SPEED.

THE SLIGHTEST PRESSURE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE AN ACTUAL MOVEMENT ON THE STEERING WHEEL OR WHAT WE CALL 'YOKE'...IT PRODUCES VERY LARGE CHANGES IN AIRCRAFT DIRECTION OR EVEN PRODUCE STRUCTURAL FAILURE.

THE GOVERNMENT EXPECTS US TO BELIEVE (AS DETRACTORS DO) THAT INEXPERIENCED 'HIJACKERS' MANAGED TO PENETRATE ALL 3 BUILDINGS WITH MARGINS OF ERROR AS FOLLOWS:

ALLEGED PENTAGON IMPACT - 33 FEET MARGIN FOR ERROR

SOUTH TOWER - 25 FEET MARGIN FOR ERROR

NORTH TOWER - 25 FEET MARGIN FOR ERROR

AT OVER 400 KNOTS??

YOU DECIDE.

AGAIN, THERE IS A REASON THE MANUFACTURER SETS SPEED LIMITATIONS.

- AIRFRAME FLUTTER

- CONTROL SURFACE EFFECTIVENESS

- CENTRE OF PRESSURE VS CENTRE OF GRAVITY

- TRIM CHARACTERISTICS

To name just a few.

When design limits are exceeded, control surface effectiveness become increasingly non existent.
FOR EXAMPLE, AS AIRSPEED INCREASES THE WING GENERATES MORE LIFT, THEREFORE THE PILOT NEEDS TO PUSH THE NOSE DOWN.

TRIM IS USED TO RELIEVE THESE PRESSURES.

39:40 - VISUAL PRESENTATION OF THESE FORCES SHOW THAT THE AIRCRAFT WILL BE OUT OF CONTROL WHEN THE PRESSURE ON THE TRIM BECOMES TOO HIGH.

40:00 EXPLANATION OF EFFECTS ON CONTROL SURFACE EFFECTIVENESS.

BASICALLY THE MORE YOU WANT TO ACCELERATE, THE MORE THE NOSE WANTS TO PUSH DOWN. KNOWN AS 'MACH TUCK'



Onesliceshort -

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



AGAIN,THE AIRCRAFT IS OUT OF CONTROL.

40:35 'AILERON ROLL'

Onesliceshort -

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



QUOTE
"Ailerons are hinged control surfaces attached to the trailing edge of the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft. The ailerons are used to control the aircraft in roll. The two ailerons are typically interconnected so that one goes down when the other goes up: the downgoing aileron increases the lift on its wing while the upgoing aileron reduces the lift on its wing, producing a rolling moment about the aircraft's longitudinal axis."




AT EXCESSIVE SPEEDS THE 'DOWN AILERON' GRABS MORE AIR FROM THE RELATIVE WIND AND ACTUALLY CAUSES MORE DRAG, PULLING THE AIRCRAFT IN THAT DIRECTION. OPPOSITE TO TURN. THE PILOT WANTS TO TURN RIGHT BUT THE AIRCRAFT TURNS LEFT.
THIS IS CALLED 'CONTROL REVERSAL'.
AGAIN, THE AIRCRAFT IS OUT OF CONTROL.

These are just some of the basic reasons why an aircraft manufacturer sets speed limitations for particular airframes.

EVEN IF THE STRUCTURE DID REMAIN INTACT AT SUCH EXCESSIVE SPEEDS, COULD THESE 'HIJACKER PILOTS' COUNTER SUCH FACTORS?


CONCLUSION
PILOT SKILLS - CONTROLLABILITY

SOME MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE THE WTC BUILDINGS WERE SOME OF THE TALLEST BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD THAT THEY WOULD MAKE EASY TARGETS TO HIT WITH COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT.

NAVY PILOTS KNOW THE SKILL IT TAKES TO HIT SUCH A TARGET (AIRCRAFT CARRIER), EVEN AT LANDING SPEEDS, IN HIGHLY MANOUEVREABLE JETFIGHTER AIRCRAFT. IT IS CONTRADICTORY TO SUGGEST THAT THE WTC IS SO LARGE AS AN EXCUSE FOR 'HIJACKER PILOT' ABILITY.

42:20 - COMPARISON OF WTC BESIDE AIRCRAFT CARRIER.

COMBINE THAT WITH THE CONTROLLABILITY FACTOR AT HIGH SPEEDS AND DYNAMIC PRESSURES. IT IS ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT THESE 'HIJACKER PILOTS' WHO COULDN'T CONTROL A CESSNA AT 65 KNOTS COULD EASILY HAVE
HIT THEIR TARGETS, COMPLETELY AND THOROUGHLY. THREE OUT OF THREE!

THE BLACK BOXES FOR AA11 AND UA175 ARE CLAIMED TO NOT EXIST.
THE DATA THAT THEY HAVE SUPPLIED SHOWS IMPOSSIBLE SPEEDS.

THOSE EVENTS FRO 9/11 WHICH DO NOT HAVE (OR HAVE EXTREMELY LIMITED) VIDEO OR PHOTOS AND VERY LITTLE WITNESSES, MOST CONFLICTING WITH THE GOVERNMENT STORY, DO HAVE DATA AVAILABLE FROM THESE AIRCRAFT.
UNFORTUNATELY ALL DATA WHETHER FROM BLACK BOXES OR RADAR DOES NOT SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT STORY OR IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

WRITE TO YOUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ADVISE THEM TO BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.


Peace.
OSS.
Maha Mantra
As mentioned, it should be fairly easy to time the aircraft in the videos and use the width of the towers as a measure of distance traveled. Proffessor Chandler has replied to me several times. I suggest you email him at dchandler@ae911truth.org, Rob. Or actually it seems that there are people able to do that here.

Its great to see more and more qualified people expressing their perceptions.

I am looking forward to the fighter response analysis and hopefully interviews with the actual pilots that day.

I'm thinking about the connection methods on the twin towers between the columns and comparing the total penetration of the towers to the limited penetration of the Pentagon.
The connection systems are yet unexplained or shown in pictures, so how the towers may have fallen as they did, as well as how the aircraft knocked the perimeter columns in, seemingly all the way out to the wing tips is one area of contemplation for me.
The columns are extremely strong, but if they were only surface-welded together at their ends, then such a weak connection has to be factored into the "collapses" as well as the effect the aircraft wings had on the columns. This is off-topic, but it does have something to do with whether these were modified 767s regarding wing strength.

I don't know if the military used any 767s or if a 767 made for military use has any stronger of an airframe.

I think Saddam having WMDs or ties to Osama Bin Laden is far greater "hot air" than what anyone will find on 'Pilots for Truth', yet we've spent a $trillion to kill, maim and displace millions of people over it. I suppose to some, that's not a waste of time.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (John Bursill @ Jun 23 2010, 04:13 AM) *
This is a huge time waster!


PS - My last post have fun with your beat up...


Seems instead of John remaining here to discuss the matter civilly and trying to work together, elected to find time to personally attack me and our organization at Blogger.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-24/nasa...#comment-234142

The following sent to All Core Members and friends of the organization, and Bursill. Feel free to post it wherever you like.


John Bursill Slamming Pilots For 9/11 Truth Due To Latest Deets Article

Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:18 AM
From: "Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>


To All Core Members,

If I were to sum up this situation with just one sentence, it would be, "You don't get flak unless you're over the target".

This notice being sent to you based on a specific critic of our latest article released on 6/22.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html

As some of you know, John Bursill claims to be a skeptic of the govt story regarding 9/11. He is a resident of Australia and claims to work for Qantas as an Avionics Tech. He also hosts a very small internet radio show yet is perhaps the loud minority in this context, hence the reason for sending out this notice. Most of you don't even know who he is and this will be the first you ever hear his name, and probably the last. However, most of his time is spent attacking our work, our organization, and me personally. I have tried to remain civil with John in hopes we could agree to disagree on certain issues, yet work together on others. You can read this here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10787046

John has refused to return and discuss the matter civilly and instead is libeling you, me and our entire organization all over the web and on his little internet radio show with guests who do not have the expertise to have an opinion on the matter nor have reviewed the data or presentations. Bursill attempted to rope Bob Bowman into this argument, but Bob gracefully declined to enter any "pissing contest" between Bursill and myself. The intelligent choice.

All of you are aware of and many of you were consulted for our latest project "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". John Bursill claims that the work we perform and place our names, credentials and professional reputations somehow discredits him and others who do not have the expertise, knowledge, nor place their name on our work (or have even viewed our work). That we create "division" and are spreading "disinfo". I mostly ignore Bursill and his rants as I too do not have time to deal with any "pissing contest". Especially with those who do not understand the subject matter, but this has gotten to a point where the responsible thing to do is make the organization at least aware of this issue.

I was recently made aware our latest article being posted to another site where members claim to question the govt story with respect to 9/11. Here is just one rant of many John Bursill is writing in reply to our latest article, "NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The Elephant In The Room"

Quote -
"It's not complicated, experience has simply demonstrated that P4T are bad news for our credibility.

It is obvious to any one with their eyes open that Rob Balsamo et al are not following the scientific method.

They rely on opinion and guess work to make broad statements as if fact but support no theories?

They create division and support disinformation both indirectly and directly, they also harbour dangerous high profile members.

One question as a "layman", if you don't have the data and don't do the experiment how do you have the conclusion?

Regards John "

It appears John Bursill has not reviewed any of our work as all of our work is based on data, mostly provided by the NTSB. We are also not the organization who focuses on a particular individual or other organizations, claiming they are "making US look bad", as does Bursill.

I normally would not waste your time (nor mine) and send this out to the entire Organization and leaders of other organizations, but the libel has gone on long enough (almost 2 years). Again, the responsible thing to do is at least make you aware of the issue.

If you come across John Bursill in the future (highly doubtful for most of you), and he starts ranting about our work, specifically the reported speeds of the 9/11 Aircraft, remind him of his own words,

"...but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction." - John Bursill
(Bursill wrote this in another rant at another site before he fled from a debate challenge)

And then remind him that the airplane reported to have struck the south tower was not only changing direction right up until impact, but pulling significant G loads at such excessive speed. Then perhaps tell John Bursill to learn the fundamentals of a Vg diagram and why aircraft manufacturers set limits on their aircraft.

I have given John the opportunity to debate this topic civilly and posed a few short questions as a prerequisite to make sure he understands the subject matter, that the debate will not turn into a Ground school. John Bursill fled.

I would also highly recommend you decline any invitation to be interviewed on his internet podcast or any event in which Bursill is one of the organizers as you will only end up in a circular argument of mostly libel directed at me personally, or the organization as a whole and the debate will no doubt turn into an impromptu form of ground school. You teaching John. I would also recommend the Radio hosts included in this email to not invite John onto your program as much of the same will occur. John had his chance to debate the topic, he chooses personal attacks instead.

"Ye shall know them by their fruit."

If anyone has any questions on this matter, feel free to call and/or email.

Hope you are all doing well.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
Pilots For 9/11 Truth

BCC:
Full Core member list
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Friends of the organization
John Bursill
Dennis Cimino
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 26 2010, 10:36 AM) *
Seems instead of John remaining here to discuss the matter civilly and trying to work together, elected to find time to personally attack me and our organization at Blogger.


Rob,
this is my problem with this kind of crap going on here. These non-pilots don't know anything about aerodynamics, they haven't flown anything in real life, and they have no clue that there are limitations on airplanes for real reasons, not just because someone published a max speed somewhere in a manual. the numbers come from REAL limits on the airplanes, not some suppositions about being able to fly the machine beyond physics laws and aerodynamics rules and get away with it. ANY large airplane of this type, once in very low altitude, straight and level flight, will 'decellerate' rather fast once it has leveled out from a dive, due to the drag component. And this John character has no idea what an 'accellerated stall' is, has no clue why those occur, and doesn't know what the ramifications of those are in real flight in a heavy airplane.

So, I'm going to have to say that when we let non pilots come in who are not AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS with years of design experience, then they are going to make statements in here that are flat bullshit. And when this guy had no clue 'why' the speed numbers are different relative to altitude, this told the WHOLE STORY, because that fundamental lack of understanding shows that even simple things about AIR DENSITY aren't kicking in with him, or the fact that IAS is a function of altitude as well as speed. Just about any moron knows that air molecules at altitude are further apart and air density is less, and therefore, IAS numbers will always vary with altitude due to this density difference.

to not know that accelerated stalls occur in any high speed flight regime, is also inexcusable and indicative of NO CLUE.

so my recommendation is to not let non-pilots, in particular, non-pilots without any idea how airplanes have limitations, come in an post about speed issues, is a good one to follow. When they have no idea that airplanes have these limitations and that infinite thrust doesn't mean INFINITE SPEED, due to drag components that are not overcome, then they have no business being in here posting anything.

I hate to be an asshole about this, but jesus christ, this gets old, debunking GARBAGE assertions by NON PILOTS!

it's one thing to have a question, but to be argumentative when you are not a pilot. Get the fuck out of here, go back to spanking your fucking monkey! Don't come in and argue aerodynamics with people who've spent more time in flight than you've spent playing with your pitot tube!
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jun 26 2010, 06:31 AM) *
it's one thing to have a question, but to be argumentative when you are not a pilot. Get the fuck out of here, go back to spanking your fucking monkey! Don't come in and argue aerodynamics with people who've spent more time in flight than you've spent playing with your pitot tube!



laughing1.gif

Dennis Cimino everybody!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html#Cimino

handsdown.gif

The even more hilarious part is that Bursill thinks the article is the sole product of myself, that i "spun" Dwain Deets words, unfortunately Bursill missed the fact I already told him Dwain approved the article (and in fact helped write it to clarify some points), not to mention the fact Dwain and i chatted on the phone for about 2 hours prior.
DoYouEverWonder
QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ Jun 25 2010, 04:43 PM) *
The columns are extremely strong, but if they were only surface-welded together at their ends, then such a weak connection has to be factored into the "collapses" as well as the effect the aircraft wings had on the columns. This is off-topic, but it does have something to do with whether these were modified 767s regarding wing strength.

The curtain wall columns were not welded, they were only bolted together. For a building that was designed to sway, I would say this was not a very good idea.
Obwon
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 25 2010, 10:30 AM) *
I trnascripted the Pilotsfor911truth "Speed" video and found this section very compelling.
It is not open to detractor obfuscation regarding undocumented and unverified "sim tests" or leaching off the refusal of the withholding of vital data which pseudoskeptics live off.

Hope it's useful (particularly for laymen such as myself). Regarding "Control".




Onesliceshort -

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



30:40 Dutch Roll shown in actual flight

Peace.
OSS.


Thanks a bunch! This is exactly the dissertation I was looking for. I'm also quite sure that this is a "quick and dirty" representation of the problems, a skyjacking pilot would face.

Some time ago on usenet, someone posted an analysis of the time, the skyjacker pilots, would have had to line up their planes for their finals. I believe he mentioned it would be like trying to hit a pencil from some 3 to 4 miles out (the distance from where the tower view became large enough to take a general aim), then to the 1 to 2 mile distance, where a precise aim would HAVE to be taken with no margin for error. Turns out that closing that last distance yields approx. 20 seconds. A magical feat, to take aim, if the plane is operating within it's design parameters, an impossible feat if it's outside it's design parameters -- AND IN THE HANDS OF AN INEXPERIENCED PILOT! Because even an experienced pilot would be overwhelmed by the complexities of the variables that must be kept under fine control.

----------

Thus this reduces the need for skyjacker pilots to mere ideological fare, they could not have supplied anymore than a "target for blame". That being their only utility in these events, it's hard to believe they would even be trusted to be aboard such aircraft, if they existed at all and were to be used for this purpose. A remote or computer driven control scheme yields substantial more utility, but that can't happen either, remote controls cannot be utilized on this mission, because they'd be detectable and no such chance could be taken.

That would leave on board programing, but there's not sufficient time and/or information available to any would be programmers/operators to accomplish such a task. So the only pratical solution is not to employ any planes at all, or; limit their use to merely supplying visuals.

The "planners" would realize that they cannot get the planes to the buildings, so they have to devise elaborate plans to "get the buildings to the planes". Thus the explosions must come from inside the buildings and that fact covered up and papered over with noise.

Oh, and btw, of the 19 skyjackers, one died a year before the attacks and another 9 were found alive in the aftermath of the attacks. Leaving only 9 to be distributed among 4 planes.
Sweeney has 5 or six aboard her plane, leaving only 3 or four to be distributed among the other three planes. I sincerely doubt that one single skyjacker on board a plane is going to easily overcome the flight crew. Which means, of course, that whatever anyone wants to think about the 9-11 attacks, at least one plane has to be completely eliminated, unless they want to explain why the flight crew decided to carry out the attack on their own.

So, if one plane can be eliminated, because it could not be manned, why not eliminate all four? After all, they couldn't be flown.

Obwon
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Obwon @ Jun 26 2010, 12:08 PM) *
Thanks a bunch! This is exactly the dissertation I was looking for.



Obwon,

Please watch the presentation so people do not have to type out a transcript for you.
amazed!
Maha

The USAF took delivery of about 25 Boeings back in the mid ninetys, at McDill AFB. They were part of a program to replace the aging KC-135 aircraft, refuelers.

There are other more interesting angles to the story....
rob balsamo
Email sent to me from Ted Muga in reply to this whole Bursill issue.

(posted with full permission from Ted Muga)


QUOTE
--- On Sat, 6/26/10, "Ted Muga" wrote:


From: "Ted Muga"
Subject: Re: John Bursill Slamming Pilots For 9/11 Truth Due To Latest Deets Article
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 7:31 PM

Rob, I agree with you completely. And thanks for all of the great work that you are doing with P4T.


Ted


Ted Muga credentials and experience:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Muga

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots#Muga

San Diegans For 9/11 Truth
http://sdcgj.netrootz.com/web_pages/view_w...30&page=109
Dennis Cimino
First, I have read the blog at 911blogger.com, and found it to not be too very forthright and or fair to Pilots For Truth's assertion to support Mr. Deets in his statement that the speeds that these planes striking the towers, allegedly had achieved, were not too very likely or were they too very possible.

I read Robin Hordon's fairly thorough dissertation there, and I have problems with it from a number of valid places. First, I want to say that I find it quite ludicrous to support the utility of a B-767 at low altitude or 'sea level' flight at speeds anywhere near 510 knots. My fundamental reason for this is that the drag coefficient of this airframe, like any other airframe, goes up by the square, with every knot beyond normal operating speeds, and therefore requires unusually high thrust levels and fuel burn rates for sustained flight at these speeds, so low to the earth. In addition, there are control issues that become very apparent in overspeed realms of airplanes of this size, strictly because the pre mach shock waves begin to form on sections of the near sonic wing, and manifest themselves not at Mach penetration, but before you get there. Such things can cause 'aileron buzz' like early Lear Jets would experience hen they went beyond their normal limits in dense air at low altitudes, as well as a phenomena known as 'mach tuck' where the nose abruptly drops in flight regimes in some jet airplanes which are not intended to be operated for ANY periods of time beyond normal MMO limits, due to the potential loss of control and or loss of the aircraft at these speeds so low to the ground in dense air. To even remotely theorize that there would be an application of a B-767 at near sea level at 510 knots either is, on it's face, totally 'goofy' but kind of goes in the direction of not just foolhardy, but lies in a realm called 'flat hatting' by naval aviators who are intentionally flying their machines in a careless and reckless fashion down in the nape of the earth where the airplane was never intended to be flown at these speeds, by any design engineer, ever for a number of good sound safety reasons, the least of which is merely structural integrity.

For this reason, I have a problem with Boeing or any other test pilots, for data collection purposes, operating any B-767 during certifications phases of flight training, down low, at 510 knots or beyond 400 knots, for ANY REASON. This would be a 'destructive' or potentially destructive test, and for what purpose? For data collection? I have never seen the wing of any B-767 ever outfitted with the instrumentation to collect drag coefficient data of the wing itself, as this is normally done with scale models in wind tunnels, not in real airplanes for the obvious reasons.

And I will go even further here with my argument about the Hordon assertions about the 'impossibility' of knowing whether a B-767 can be maintained in sustained flight at 510 knots at near sea level altitudes, strictly because on the face of that assertion, one can state that a B-767 can be operated at these speeds in a 'side slip which is 90 degrees with the relative wind', and safely so, because Boeing would have, during certification of the airplane, had to have explored this flight regime as well, and incorporated that data in the flight simulator algorithms they use to program existing fleet training flight simulators world wide. If you believe this, I think I have a problem with you also taking the other statement for granted as wholly genuine and hence, also very valid.

And here's my issue with it. First, Boeing does not operate their airplanes in these flight regimes during normal flight tests, for the reasons stated. They can derive enough baseline data in a WIND TUNNEL to intentionally take a plane and subject it to structural failure during certification. Have they ever done 'structural failure' in flight during certifications?? Absolutely they have. Intentionally?? No, not with first item airframes which are so critical for F.A.A. certification work to sacrifice them to irreversible or severe structural damage that either destroys the machine altogether, or renders it 'useless' until it can be returned to use after extensive reconditioning and repair work has been done to 'undo' the wholly unnecessary damage done to it.

My point being that to lambaste Pilots For Truth for supporting the Nasa Flight Director's statements about the probability of these speeds being achievable, is, on it's face, a problem for me, strictly because even as I found Hordon's dissertation to be pretty thorough, he makes statements about aircraft certification work and data collection that are not wholly factual or true, and then summarizes that 'we' at Pilots For Truth cannot make the determination about the maximum speeds that any B-767 can sustain in straight and level, non thrust augmented flight regimes, without truly making a cogent and thorough case as to 'why' a law of aerodynamics that deals with PARASITE DRAG suddenly no longer are in any flight equation any longer, and with that, the assertion that parasite drag components do not increase by the square root for every extra knot the aircraft goes beyond the designed structural limit speed versus thrust availability, at a low altitude where the drag component makes such speeds not only not likely, but entirely not in the possible realm without changing air density numbers or thrust numbers, and yes, even parasite drag coefficients on that airframe and wing, or the total aircraft itself, for sea level flight beyond 370 knots.

Not unlike a ship, an airplane cannot 'undo' drag without fairly exotic tapering of the fuselage to get rid of some of this parasite drag the plane itself has no way of escaping as it moves thru heavy, dense air down low. A ship with a hull limitation or max speed cannot exceed that speed in water, no matter how fast you turn the screws beyond the normal efficient speed they are optimized for, or increase the available power to the engines that move the screws, for the same reasons. The hull drag in the water is a coefficient that not unlike airfoil or form drag or parasite drag, without changing the shape of the rather tubular fuselage to overcome this, the increase of thrust in and of itself is not necessarily the magic solution to get the plane to go faster in a given density of packed air molecules down low. It is for this reason that airplanes are intentionally operated in the UPPER REGIONS of our atmosphere, to reduce this drag coefficient and increase the forward speed by drag reduction that comes with lesser air density and the drag that is inherent in much more dense air.

For Hordon to flatly state we cannot know this is true, that the airframe itself has a speed limit, in and of itself is a statement that flies in the face of aerodynamic facts of life you cannot avoid in airplanes. If you take his statement for truth that we cannot know, and in essence, there is likely to be no real speed limit for the B-767 in dense air down low, then you also should be able to buy that Boeing routinely flew these airplanes sideways in sustained sideslips at 500 knots as well, to obtain data during flight testing. Neither statement is correct, but to allow it to stand that we don't know what we are talking about by making a very correct maximum low altitude speed of approximately 370 knots, is almost as bad as making a statement that the Pilots for Truth airmen never ever in all of their years of cumulative experience, would have to laugh at that and say that it sounds good to a layperson, but to an airman who's been around a bit, he or she knows that airplanes do have limits, they are not mere numbers, and they are based on physics, not someone's supposition or a statement by the N.T.S.B. that 'xx' airplane was clocked going into the towers at 510 knots. That's very very incorrect.
Dennis Cimino
I didn't want to come in here and beat up anyone. I just have a big problem with either 'non pilots' making suppositions about laws of aerodynamics that experienced pilots don't just learn in books or in classrooms, but in real life flying of aircraft of various types and capabilities. Nobody can possibly know it all, none of us do, but I am going to go out on a limb here and state that most 'experienced' pilots with 20+ years of experience in props, jets and whatever, balloons even, know the difference between a lot of verbosity and reality.

Hordon I personally know and have drank coffee with on occasion, and done C.I. work with in the past, and hence, for that reason, I am kind of hard pressed to nail him to any cross in here for making statements I cannot and WILL NOT ever agree with, regarding airplane certification and or laws of aerodynamics and flight regimes of airplanes. I've never flown with him, and probably never would get that chance, but I can tell you that it's very strange that suddenly 'we' here in P4T are a bunch of ignoramus' who have no flight experience in our decades of flying all sorts of equipment for each of us, but collectively, and hence 'cannot know' or state that we support Flight Director Deets in his statements about the improbability of these B-767's ever achieving these speeds in a sustained or accellerating fashion down so close to the ground, without having significant issues from any number of aerodynamics rules that never go away, ever.

So, I'm not going to machette Hordon, but I will not even go anywhere near this other gent's claims that he knows from a simulator ride that the airplane can easily breach the 370 knot realm and sustain it in straight and level flight so low to the earth like that without something very odd going on with the machine.

What I think is more likely, is that the non-pilot, did his theoretical run using computer software, not a bona fide simulator, which though totally is possible, is hard to accept because of the costs involved in operating them, and who would then just grant him time in one when I know that most are booked solid for months in advance for flight checks and training reasons, and seldom sit idle for some 'non pilot' to walk in and play with. If he has done this truly, why not tell us which facility, what simulator instructor can validate it, and let us then accept this as a fact and not worry about the claim any longer?? I'm willing to go that route.

As for Hordon coming at us, as I told you, Rob, I think there's more to it than what meets the eye. To spend so much time trying to discredit this organization, without also providing information you asked him to provide, is kind of not too very fair to us, in return. If Robin can state where he got the airplane certifications experience at, and how many airplane certifications he's participated in, once again, we are willing to allow that into our forum and not get testy about it. To come in here and just state we cannot know the speed limitations of a B-767 airframe with the engines it had on that day, on it's face, is pretty untoward and quite nasty given the fact that with all of us, I think we have the cumulative, and individual experience in a bevy of aircraft, that give us all the ability to make these statements. I have been flying airplanes of all sorts, for more than 3 decades, and I have not just operated them inside of their safe flight regimes, but flown many of them right up to their limits, not out of being irresponsible or a test pilot, but because I have long felt that for a pilot to not know his machine he operates as best as he can know it in all known flight regimes that make sense to explore, then that airman is going to someday find himself in a machine he no longer is pilot of command of, by accident.

But I can tell you that thought I am far from all knowing and all seeing, I am also quite aware of a 'chop job' thrown at us by Robin Hordon, and I truly don't know why he is so compelled to do this without making a stronger case that we all are neophyte's and therefore lesser qualified than he is in any airplane we might fly. I kind of like to think that as a community, as airmen, as pilots with years of experience in all sorts of weather, all sorts of machines, and all sorts of situations over the years, that I know that we here at Pilots For Truth are much more professionally experienced and knowledgeable than a person who either hasn't flown for so many years in so many machines as all of us have, and who have had extensive airplane certification backgrounds, inclusive of major research and development work with aviation platforms, to know that there ARE SPEED LIMITS for any airframe, and these are not some number you breach by as much as 150 knots in these cases here, and do without some form of controllability issue or loss of aircraft structural integrity due to accellerated stalls and loss of control issues that can occur when you take such a machine well beyond it's intended design envelope and run it there.

If Robin Hordon has the experience under his belt that makes the rest of us morons and idiots, unknowing, and unable to do research and get facts, then I'd like him to show how we at Pilots For Truth know absolutely NOTHING and he and this other guy, John, know it all, and are vastly superior to our combined years of flight experience in a whole lot of real flying airplanes of all types and propulsion systems.

Then we can accede to him he is all knowing and we are mere bozos here at Pilots For Truth, which we are not.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jun 27 2010, 02:31 AM) *
I didn't want to come in here and beat up anyone. I just have a big problem with either 'non pilots' making suppositions about laws of aerodynamics that experienced pilots don't just learn in books or in classrooms, but in real life flying of aircraft of various types and capabilities. Nobody can possibly know it all, none of us do, but I am going to go out on a limb here and state that most 'experienced' pilots with 20+ years of experience in props, jets and whatever, balloons even, know the difference between a lot of verbosity and reality.


This is a great point.

The reason why I say you bring up such a good point, is that Bursill et al claims "...how could Capt Kolstad and Capt Aimer claim the airspeeds "impossible" if they never flown such a speed?"

Well, for one, they both have, but not on the same aircraft type.

Imagine yourself in a car on a wet surface (or not). You are going around a turn at high speed, hugging that corner, or even on a straight highway at high speed. You know you are right on the edge of out-of-control. If you give it a bit more gas, or if you tweak that steering wheel a bit more, the car will spin and you will be 'in the wall'.


Would you take a corner in a Hyundai at the same speed you would a Corvette? No.

How do you know such limitation differences if you never lost control of a car before?

Because you have experience in your machine and can feel the forces. Add decades of education and experience in your machine, and you are an expert.

This is a concept people like Bursill and Hordon cannot grasp.
Dennis Cimino
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 27 2010, 07:38 AM) *
This is a great point.


This guy Bursill also had an 'agenda' when he came in here. He wasn't just a 'non pilot' who has no flight time in any real airplane of any kind, but the kind of insidious 'LURKER' who waltzes in here and then defames actual pilots of real airplanes like we're a bunch of crash test dummies he can cold cock and not get a reaction out of.

We're not! I don't want to drive all 'non pilot' participation out of here, but in light of this, I think that truly, if you're not an experienced pilot with more than say, 1500 plus hours as 'pilot in command' time and real hard IFR flight time, and years of experience in the airspace system of at least one country, not necessarily ours, but somewhere, then you shouldn't be in here telling us about airplane performance and characteristics. Not only is that 'rude' but it's also 'asinine' to think we won't call you on it. We are real pilots, with real experience, in real airplanes of all sorts of types, weight ranges, and descriptions, and though we all are not 45,000 hour pilots, many of us are quite experienced and certificated, not just with some bench tech certification as an avionics black box jockey.

When guys like Bursill come in here, or over at 911blogger, and, not unlike Hordon, 'just hatchet job' us and claim we don't know what we're talking about, it's now time to say to those individuals; "okay, xerox your flight logs, and send them to us for examination" at the very least. If you don't have any, don't be in here maligning and attacking us. We neither deserve that crap, nor will we put up with it, when you clearly, obviously, do NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE with regard to airplane flight regimes and hence, their aerodynamic limitations.

It's that simple. If you don't have the credentials, don't swing a broad axe at people who forgot more about airplanes and systems on them than you will ever in your wildest dreams ever, ever learn or know!
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Dennis Cimino @ Jun 27 2010, 02:55 AM) *
This guy Bursill also had an 'agenda' when he came in here.


Correct. And he admitted as such.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10787160

Again, this all stems from the fact Bursill wanted to join our organization years ago, if only I boot John Lear.

When I replied to Bursill, "Who are you?"

His pride/ego took over his emotions, as described by Bursill himself in the above link.

Bursill isn't about "truth". He is about himself.

Bursill never recorded the FBI nor NTSB as we have done.

Bursill has never stood up to any govt agency in the USA, and instead attacked those who do, claiming it discredits him/Bursill.

Bursill refuses to acknowledge his blatant lies and spin.

Agenda? Bursill has been on an "agenda" for more than 2 years.

I have taken a 'time out' from my research on "9/11: In The Air" to address this issue with Bursill as the libel has gone on long enough. I will spend not more than 3 days exposing him and placing the final nail in his coffin for those who wish to inform themselves thoroughly. Bursill is already loosing support at Blogger for his personal attacks and inability to discuss the evidence, from those who regularly support him. (Blogger mods are deleting his posts, and no one is running to his support. Bursill isn't even able to construct a coherent sentence on most of his posts)

Bursill is done.
aerohead
Can someone please give Bursill a helmet.

If a pilot who has flown the type Acft says that the
plane cannot do what they say it did, you should believe
it. There are some things that happen in aviation that never make
it to "public consumption" . Most pilots (and mechanics) have a bit of "hidden"
experience of the "super pucker factor" variety.
A pilot knows his plane.

Same goes for mechanics.
I dont need to trash an engine to know that if i dont cut fuel
at max EGT im gonna smoke a turbine wheel.......its a certainty.
Ailerons, rudders and elevators begin to depart the plane
when emergency max speed is breached. And breached it
was, by a long shot.
We dont do overspeed inspections for nothing, and this
was beyond anything ive ever even heard of.


Thanks for the hard work brothers.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.