9/11 WTC Attack video

Research and investigation regarding what happened at the World Trade Center in New York City on 9/11

9/11 WTC Attack video

onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 2nd, 2010, 12:51 pm #1

Hey guys,
Thought this may be a useful thread for quotes, physics math , etc from the Pilotsfor911Truth Video "9/11 World Trade Centre Attack".
It's the transcript for the film.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...topic=19732&hl=

INTRO - BLACK BOX RECOVERY

The black boxes for Flight 11 and Flight 175 'do not exist'.

According to government agencies the black boxes were never recovered but according to other sources, they were.
Nicholas DeMasi and Mike Bellone, two workers at Ground Zero were tasked by the FBI to locate the black boxes.
They claimed THREE OF THE FOUR WERE RECOVERED.
According to author Dave Lindorff, a source at the NTSB also states that the recorders WERE recovered and given to the NTSB for analysis.
The story dead-ends there as all government agencies, including the NTSB now deny the existence of these recorders.

Note: Recorders are designed to withstand 34gs and 1100ºC temperatures.

We (P4911T) will have to analyse data which is available.


SPEED


RADAR DATA IMPACT SPEED STUDY


Although initial requests to the FAA for the radar data was denied.
An FOIA request produced the data.

NTSB admits that RADES data "altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors" IT WOULD NOT BE PRUDENT TO USE THIS DATA FOR PRECISE ANALYSIS.

The NTSB also carried out a radar data impact speed study in which they claimed to have used ASR radar WHICH IS MUCH MORE ACCURATE THAN RADES for calculating speed and altitude.

QUOTE : "Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) from Newark International Airport was use to determine the airspeed of the aircraft at impact"


THE SPEEDS CITED FOR THE STRIKE AIRCRAFTS EXCEED THE AIRCRAFT LIMITATIONS SET BY THE MANUFACTURER FOR THE AIRCRAFT REPORTEDLY USED (documented by manufacturer : Unmodified, Airline Fleet, stock 767s - Velocity Max Operating - 360 knots /.86 Mach)

QUOTE FROM RADAR IMPACT SPEED STUDY:

"For much of its final descent, UAL175 maintained a descent rate between 4000 feet per minute and 8000 feet per minute. During the descent from 12000 feet to 6000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500-520 knots.
As the aircraft made the final descent to 1000 feet, it ACCELERATED AND IMPACTED WORLD TRADE CENTRE TOWER #2 AT APPROXIMATELY 510 KNOTS GROUNDSPEED.
The final 55 seconds of radar data from EWR are shown overlaid on a map of NYC in Figure 3. As shown on the plot, radar returns from the aircraft were received until immediately before impact with the South Tower."


We searched for other 767 accidents where a comparison could be made and a benchmark set.
Egypt Air90, a 767 which reportedly exceeded its max operating limit can be used as precedent as data is available from its FDR according to the NTSB.

The NTSB calculates 430 knots and 510 knots for Flight 11 and 175 respectively. Both recorded as 767s.

According to the NTSB, which is disputed by Egyptian investigators, the pilot pushed the nose over to commit suicide, taking crew and passengers with him.

During this dive Egyptair90 exceeded max operating speed for a 767 (360 knots/.86 MACH)
The NTSB says that a peak speed of .99 MACH was recorded on the FDR, at an altitude of 22000 feet, during its dive.

.99 MACH is just below the speed of sound.

Onesliceshort -

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

Mach number is the speed of an object moving through air, or any fluid substance, divided by the speed of sound as it is in that substance. It is commonly used to represent an object's speed (such as an aircraft or missile), when it is travelling at the speed of sound (or multiples thereof).


(..)

When an aircraft exceeds Mach 1 (i.e. the sound barrier) a large pressure difference is created just in front of the aircraft. This abrupt pressure difference, called a shock wave, spreads backward and outward from the aircraft in a cone shape (a so-called Mach cone). It is this shock wave that causes the sonic boom heard as a fast moving aircraft travels overhead.


Loyalists argue that if this flight reached this speed then Flights 11 and 175 could do the same.

WHAT THESE PEOPLE FAIL TO REALISE THAT THE AIR DENSITY AT DIFFERENT ALTITUDES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CORRESPONDING EFFECTS ON AN AIRCRAFT.
REMEMBER EGYPTAIR 990 REACHED ITS PEAK SPEED AT 22000 FEET.
WTC PLANES WERE OPERATING CLOSE TO SEA LEVEL.
AS AN AIRCRAFT DESCENDS AIR PRESSURE INCREASES RAPIDLY, INCREASING AIR DENSITY.


There is a reason why Boeing has two speeds for Max Operating Speed.
One is for lower altitudes in this very dense air, measured in knots and the other for higher altitudes measured in MACH.

The reason for this is air density.
Airspeed measured in knots is no longer reliable at higher altitude, so MACH is then used.

Max MACH operation = .86 Mach
.86 Mach = 522 knots
@22,000 feet

To work out the same effects of this Mach speed at lower altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately called "Equivalent Air Speed" or EAS.

"EAS IS DEFINED AS THE SPEED AT SEA LEVEL THAT WILL PRODUCE THE SAME DYNAMIC PRESSURE AS THE TRUE AIR SPEED AT THE ALTITUDE THAT THE AIRCRAFT IS FLYING"


That is, air contacting the airframe with the equivalent effects.

Examples:

Mach 1 based on a standard day temperature at 22.000 feet = 609 knots true air speed.

.86 Mach = 522 knots

522 knots at 22,000 feet, in less dense air has the same effects as 369 knots at sea level in more dense air.

NOTE THE BIG DIFFERENCE OF AIR PRESSURE ACTING ON THE AIRFRAME.

Flight 175 reportedly reached the speed of 510 knots at sea level.


An experiment was allegedly performed in a 767 simulator to ascertain whether these speeds could be reached at lower altitude as in the case of the WTC planes.

ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE NO INFO WAS EVER GIVEN TO PROVE WHETHER SUCH AN EXPERIMENT TOOK PLACE.

They claimed that they were able to accelerate to .86 Mach at 2000 feet which is 568 knots for this altitude on a standard day.

@Sea Level
.86M = 568 knots

"At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my altitude.

(...)

It is highly probable that AA11 and UA 175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage.

(...)

A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 Mach speed (speed of sound) at ANY altitude"


The max operating speed SET BY BOEING OF 360 KNOTS FOR LOWER ALTITUDES IS TOTALLY IGNORED.
THEY ALSO IGNORED THE EFFECTS OF AIR DENSITY AT LOWER COMPARED TO HIGHER ALTITUDES AND THE REASON THAT BOEING HAS TWO DIFFERENT MVOs FOR DIFFERENT ALTITUDES.

.86 MACH/586 KNOTS AT LOWER ALTITUDE HAS THE SAME EFFECT ON AN AIRCRAFT AS 805 KNOTS.
805 KNOTS = 1.32 MACH AT 22000 FEET = SUPERSONIC SPEED



Seeing as how Boeing has withheld data on safety margins, data provided by the NTSB on the Egypt Air90 was examined.

Again, .99 Mach was recorded at 22000 feet.

.99 Mach = 602.63 knots

= 425 knots @ or near sea level

This is only 65 knots over Vmo.

UA175 allegedly reached a speed of 510 knots = 150 KNOTS OVER VMO AND THE EQUIVALENT OF OVER 85 KNOTS THAT OF EGYPT AIR90!

USING THE PRECEDENT OF EGYPTAIR 990 THE ALLEGED SPEED OF UA175 IS IMPOSSIBLE.

CONTROL FLIGHT AT THIS SPEED

The claim that the simulator tests allegedly carried out at .86 Mach near sea level was "easy"...

The NTSB report on EgyptAir 990 reported two significant separate debris fields suggesting that the aircraft broke up in flight.

At which point did this break up occur?

The best indication is based on electrical power loss. The FDR and CVR (cockpit voice recorder) stopped recording a few seconds after peak speed as did the transponder, indicating loss of power.

The NTSB speculates that this power loss was due to engine shut down.
THIS ISN'T VALID. THE FDR AND CVR DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY LOSE POWER WHEN THE ENGINES ARE SHUT DOWN. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS IN SUCH AN EVENT.


QUOTE (15:10):

" 6. HYDRAULIC DRIVEN GENERATOR (HDG)

- IN FLIGHT, STARTS AUTOMATICALLY IN CASE OF LOSS OF BOTH AC BUSSES"


ALSO THE TRANSPONDER SHUT DOWN WOULD NOT OCCUR WHEN THE ENGINES ARE SHUT DOWN.

POWER LOSS TO MULTIPLE ESSENTIAL ITEMS INDICATES WHEN THE AIRFRAME STARTED TO BEND OR BREAK UP. ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE POWER LOSS OF ALL ESSENTIAL AND STANDBY POWER SYSTEMS.

AGAIN, THE AIRCRAFT WAS ONLY 65 KNOTS OVER THE 767 VMO.
UA175 COULD NOT REACH THE ALLEGED SPEEDS RECORDED FOR THE SOUTH TOWER STRIKE. WHAT IS EVEN MORE UNLIKELY THAT CONTROLLED FLIGHT AT THIS SPEED WAS POSSIBLE - 150 KNOTS OVER VMO ACCORDING TO THIS PRECEDENT.

Was it 'modified' to reach such speed?

THE ONLY OTHER POSSIBILITY IS THAT THE DATA FOR EGYPT AIR990 IS FALSE COMBINED WITH THE NTSB RADAR SPEED STUDY CARRIED OUT ON UA175.

IF THIS IS THE CASE THIS HAS GRAVE RAMIFICATIONS FOR FLIGHT SAFETY.

CLEARLY THE ALLEGED SIMULATOR EXPERIMENT WAS NOT CALIBRATED WITH ANY CRASH LOGIC AND ALLOWED THE 767 SIM TO BREAK THE SOUND BARRIER AT MID LEVEL ALTITUDES.

QUOTE:

" The destructive speed for a 767/757 as stated by Boeing at sea level is approximately 420 knots"



This is consistent with Egypt Air 990 power loss when calculating EAS but these 'researchers' claim that the aircraft was also "easy to control"at more than 150 knots over Vmo??


SIMULATORS

COCKPIT SIMULATORS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR SIMULATING AERODYNAMIC STRESS ON AN AIRCRAFT. cockpit simulators are designed for practising profiles and emergency procedures.
There is NO WAY to effectively simulate real world 'g loads' in a cockpit simulator.

WIND TUNNELS ARE USED FOR A MORE ACCURATE READING ON STRESS LEVELS.

PILOTS WHILE PRACTISING PROFILES EXECUTE THEM TO WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE AIRCRAFT. THERE IS NO REASON TO TRAIN THE PILOTS OUTSIDE THE AIRCRAFT ENVELOPE AS PILOTS ARE TRAINED TO KEEP THE AIRCRAFT WELL WITHIN ITS LIMITATIONS.

THE REASON FOR 'CRASH LOGIC' NOT OPERATING ON A SIMULATOR COULD BE NUMEROUS WITH THE LEAD CANDIDATE MOST LIKELY BEING COST.
THESE 'RESEARCHERS CLAIMED TO HAVE PULLED THE SPEED CIRCUIT BREAKERS
SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ANNOYED BY THE OVERSPEED WARNINGS.
DID THE RESEARCHERS UNKNOWINGLY PULL THE CIRCUIT FOR THE 'CRASH LOGIC' FOR OVERSPEED ON THE SIMULATOR? IT APPEARS SO.

One could argue that the speed recorded for UA175 was GROUNDSPEED and groundspeed cannot be compared to airspeed.
This WOULD e a valid argument IF THE WINDS FROM THE SOUTH WERE ALMOST 90 KNOTS , GIVING UA175 A PUSH TO THE SOUTH TOWER BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE WINDS WERE MAINLY FROM THE NORTH-NORTHWEST AND LIGHT.
IF ANYTHING THE AIRCRAFT AIRSPEAD WAS MORE THAN THE GROUNDSPEED.

THIS MAKES IT EVEN MORE UNLIKELY THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS NOT A MODIFIED '767' OR UA175.


'EYE OPENER'

UA175 REPORTED LOW ALTITUDE SPEEDS AND THE EQUIVALENT MACH NUMBER AT ALTITUDE:

SPEED RECORDED WAS 510 KNOTS NEAR SEA LEVEL.

AT 22000 FEET THE SPEED NEEDED FOR THE SAME EFFECTS ON THE AIRFAME IS 722 KNOTS OR MACH 1.19.

DID BOEING MAKE 767S CAPABLE OF SUPERSONIC FLIGHT AT ALTITUDE?
STILL CONTROLLABLE TO HIT A TARGET OF 2O8 FEET WIDE WITH A 25 FEET MARGIN OF ERROR?

AA11 WHICH WAS REPORTED TO HAVE IMPACTED THE NORTH TOWER WAS ALLEGEDLY TRAVELLING AT A LOWER SPEED ACCORDING TO THE NTSB.
THE SPEED ALLEGEDLY RECORDED IS RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL FAILURE USING EGYPTAIR 990 AS PRECEDENT.


CONCLUSION

THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT SPEEDS RECORDED BY DIFFERENT AGENCIES FOR THE WTC STRIKE AIRCRAFT. P4911T USED THOSE SPEEDS RECORDED BY THE AGENCY WITH THE MOST EXPERIENCE IN SUCH A MATTER. THE NTSB.

IN ORDER FOR DETRACTORS TO MAINTAIN THEIR THEORY, BOTH AIRCRAFT MUST BE TRAVELLING AT 420 KNOTS.

UA175'S RECORDED SPEED TOWARDS THE SOUTH TOWER HAS THE SAME DYNAMIC PRESSURE EFFECTS AS SUPERSONIC SPEEDS AT AN ALTITUDE OF 22000 FEET.

AA11 ALSO EXPERIENCES DYNAMIC PRESSURE ABOVE MACH 1 AT 22000 FEET ACCORDING TO THE DATA.

FLIGHT 77, THE PLANE (757) WHICH ALLEGEDLY STRUCK THE PENTAGON WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED THE SAME.

DYNAMIC PRESSURE IS DYNAMIC PRESSURE. MATH DOES NOT LIE.

THIS IS ALL ACCORDING TO ASR RADAR OR FDR DATA.

ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES EXIST. EITHER SPEED DATA IS INACCURATE AND THEREFORE FLIGHT SAFETY IS IN JEOPARDY AND HAS MAJOR RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY OR THE AIRCRAFT OBSERVED ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE AIRCRAFT REPORTED IN WHICH CASE THE STORY TOLD BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION IS A LIE.

THIS PRESENTATION IS BASED ON DATA, PRECEDENTS AND BENCHMARKS SET BY DATA PROVIDED BY THE NTSB IN TERMS OF EGYPTAIR 990 AS COMPARED TO THE DATA PRESENTED FOR THE WTC AIRCRAFT.


EQUIVALENT AIRSPEED (EAS)

@ OR NEAR SEA LEVEL @ 22,000 FEET

EA990 = 425 KNOTS 603 KNOTS = .99M

UA175 = 510 KNOTS =722 KNOTS = 1.19M

AA11 = 430 KNOTS = 609 KNOTS = 1.0M


THE ANALYSIS CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT THE STORY TOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT IS AT THE VERY BEST NOT ACCURATE AND AT THE WORST INTENTIONALLY DECEPTIVE FOR AN APPARENT AGENDA.
THE EVENTS OF 9/11 HAVE ONCE AGAIN HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED FOR A SERIOUS ENQUIRY.


INTERVIEW WITH COMMANDER RALPH KOLSTAD
23,000 HRS TOTAL FLIGHT TIME
B757/767 INTERNATIONAL CAPTAIN
20 YEARS US NAVY, TOPGUN TWICE
CORE MEMBER - P4911T


Kolstad : "I flew for American Airlines for 21 years..767          international captain"

Balsamo :  "We are going over the reported speeds for UA175..at 510  knots..The benchmark set by EA990 at .99M at 22,000 feet..EAS is 420 knots at sea level which is 90 knots less than UA175 allegedly reached. How do you feel about UA175 reaching 510 knots?

Kolstad : "PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, TO HAVE A CLOCKED AIRSPEED OF 510  KNOTS BY A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER AT SEA LEVEL IS FRANKLY IMPOSSIBLE

Balsamo :  "...above Mach 1.."

Kolstad : "..PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT. THE AIRFRAMES ARE     JUST TOO BIG,THEY DON'T HAVE THE EXCESS POWER TO GO SUPERSONIC. COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT AND PHYSICALLY CAN'T DO IT.."

Balsamo  :  "..the NTSB claims that they did those speeds, then      obviously the aircraft that allegedly struck those towers were not the aircraft they told us they were."

Kolstad  : " That's certainly one possibility...when looking at 9/11 according to what we saw on TV all of the alleged impacts were straight and level...for this to be the case I WOULD FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT 757/767S WERE DOING ANY MORE THAN 300-350 KNOTS. TO COME UP WITH 510 KNOTS IS PRETTY INSANE.
IT DEFIES ALL LAWS OF PHYSICS"


Balsamo  :  " Do you believe that the NTSB data and radar are        inaccurate or do you think that it is possible that those planes were beefed up to go at those speeds?"

Kolstad  :  " Hypothetically..either the radar is wrong, the information they have given us is misleading or they weren't the airplanes..maybe they were modified substantially"





INTERVIEW WITH ROSS 'RUSTY' AIMER
30,000+ TOTAL FLIGHT TIME
UNITED AIRLINES B575/767 CAPTAIN
COMMAND TIME IN:
N591UA (UNITED 93)
N612UA (UNITED 175)
CORE MEMBER - P4911T


Balsamo : "..the reported speed of the plane that impacted the South Tower was at 510 knots.."

Aimer :   " At that kind of speed, even if you can get a 767 up to  510 knots, which is VERY, VERY DOUBTFUL. I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THAT KIND OF SPEED ON ANY COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE."

Balsamo  : "The conchord can reach those kind of speeds, can't it?"

Aimer  : "I don't think so. NOT AT SEA LEVEL. TO GET AN AIRPLANE,              ESPECIALLY AN OLD 767, AS THIS UNITED AIRCRAFT WAS.."

Balsamo : "You had time on this 767 (UA175)..?"

Aimer   :  "YES, YES..TO ME IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. AN EXPERIENCED COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT PILOT WOULD PROBABLY LAUGH IF YOU SAID 510 KNOTS"







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 (?)

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

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.


SECOND INTERVIEW WITH ROSS AIMER
PILOT WHO HAD FLIGHT TIME IN UA175

Balsamo: "...talking about how hard it was to hit a relatively small target at landing speeds.talk about that"

Aimer :  " WE HAD A PROGRAM IN OUR SIMULATOR...WHERE YOU COULD..TAKE A 757...AND TRY TO LAND ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER.

Balsamo : "Would you say that the 757 or 767 is more manouevreable?"

Aimer :   "757 is more manouevreable, obviously..

(...)

..we tried to do some 'touch and goes' on this 'aircraft carrier'..
the first officer tried and I think he made about four approaches..and mind you this was a very light aircraft.
..Our appraoch speeds were pretty low, around 120 knots or so.

(...)

..we were just trying to make it on this deck of the aircraft carrier. There was no wind...basically a perfect condition, almost unrealistically perfect.
When it was my turn, it was probably the hardest thing I've ever done, trying to land this aircraft on an aircraft carrier.


37:00 - Scale of aircraft carrier to WTC building

My second approach, I managed to do it..

Balsamo : I must reiterate that this was at LANDING SPEED.

Aimer : Exactly. In perfect conditions, no wind , it was the hardest thing I've ever done.

Balsamo : Being a 767 Captain, with what, 25-30,000 hours...with United Airline, if you were in say, a 767, which is less manouevreable..could you get such an airplane with a 156 feet wingspan, into a 208 feet target, WITHOUT HAVING HAD ANY TIME IN THE TYPE AIRCRAFT?

Aimer : I don't think so. And as you were saying, 510 knots according to the NTSB..

Balsamo : Supersonic speed, at lower altitude..

Aimer : TO ME, WITH THOSE KINDS OF NUMBERS, I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.



we know based on the precedent of AirEgypt 990 that the 767 is not capable of such speeds and that it would cause structural failure, but let's explore the hypothetical that a 767 can attain such speeds INTACT.

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



"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.


Edit: Typo
Quote
Like
Share

T3QuillAMocKINGbird
Curious Citizen
T3QuillAMocKINGbird
Curious Citizen
Joined: February 6th, 2010, 9:15 am

May 2nd, 2010, 11:20 pm #2

NTSB admits that RADES data "altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors" IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO USE THIS DATA FOR PRECISE ANALYSIS.

This is good stuff, but typo found above... Add "NOT" be prudent if it has large errors.

Semper Fly,
T3QuillaMACHingbird
Quote
Like
Share

onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
onesliceshort
A Regular Jim Garrison
Joined: April 29th, 2009, 10:11 pm

May 3rd, 2010, 1:39 am #3

Nicely spotted and crucial.
Thanks man!
:thumbsup:
Quote
Like
Share