See other 9/11 Articles
Title: NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/ ... 5e17bf38ee9a3b&showtopic=20178
Published: Aug 8, 2010
Author: rob balsamo
Post Date: 2010-08-16 14:30:37 by wudidiz
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 2571
Comments: 42
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room" 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.
06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org)
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:
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.
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?
Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:
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.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
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.
###
Subscribe to *9-11*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: wudidiz (#0)
Are these speeds actually impossible to attain, or merely ill-advised for anyone hoping to use the airplane again?
I do not recall. Was much of the planes found in the tower wreckage? The nine ton titanium engines would be rather obvious, I would think.
OneDollarDVDProject.com New 9/11 3D Analysis Suggests Top Secret Device Hit World Trade Center
What's being stated here is that the 767 will not attain level flight speed of 410 knots at near sea level. That's about .7 mach. This aircraft will do .83 mach at altitude (30,000 feet), but at sea level it maxes out at about .33. (Used the speed of sound here to cancel out all the mph, kph, knots confusion,)
There is no long form.
Nothing concrete. For instance, the B707 was never meant to fly upside down, fully loaded, because it exceeded ALL of the performance parameters of the aircraft. Yet it happened and no one died. The aircraft was junked.
randge... Take a look at this and listen to the pilot. I recall when Johnson barrel rolled a B-47 down the runway at low altitude. They said it could not be done.
no, but the passport was. ;)
I have no idea what can be done, Cyni. Shoonra asked what was being asserted, and I stated what I thought what was meant here based on what I have read on this and other threads.
There is no long form.
Yes Sir, agreed. I was merely pointing out that on these endless threads concerning 9/11, minute details are built into unclimbable mountains by experts and well meaning people. This cant be done, not possible, on and on, endless.
(Used the speed of sound here to cancel out all the mph, kph, knots confusion,) Has nothing to do with driving upside down or not.
Yes it does. Many of those same "pilots" would tell you large commercial acft cannot fly upside down. wud...As a favor to you, I wont post on those pesky 911 threads anymore.
Sorry, I meant to ping randge, not Shoonra to the previous post.
Cyni, the 9/11 threads love you.
wud... There is even one long epistle, all by experts, that there were NO aircraft involved in 911. You mite dig that one out sometime. No more posts, promise.
no, but the passport was. ;) Touche! LOL!
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
"It's that goddamn wudidiz kid from Canada posting one of those pesky goddamn 911 threads again." ~ Cyni
You mite dig that one out sometime. No more posts, promise. Well, Cyni there is a lot of planted disinformation to confuse and create false trails. One has to look at the evidence, not what some "ex-spurt" says about it UNLESS that expert has the expertise to venture an opinion with credibility AND the explanation is consistent with the observed data/phenomena. Just as equally one cannot form a preconception and then pick and choose evidence to fit the preconception. Either is unsound reasoning. I believe 911 was an inside job not because someone told me but because the evidence told me.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
You Go Kid!
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The assertion is, based on pilot experience and engineering opinion, that it is aerodynamically impossible based upon the shape and wing design coupled with the available thrust from the engines. I'm not a Jumbo Jet Pilot nor an Aeronautical Engineer so I cannot offer an authoritative position, but from what I've read, asserted by those who do have that expertise, that is the case.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I promised wud I would NOT post to the 911 threads again. A promise is a promise. Therefore I will reply via PM.
I am still confused. Does "not attain ... at near sea level" mean that, if the plane does attain .7 mach at a much higher altitude it cannot keep that speed if it descends suddenly? Is it impossible that those planes attained high speed at their optimum altitudes and then descended at the same (or nearly) high speed? After all, the hijacker pilots were not concerned with keeping the planes usable for future flights.
Reasonable question.
I believe the assertion here, although I've only had time to scan this thing briefly, is that while the aircraft in question can take lots more acceleration than the rates maximums at various altitudes, plane may not be controllable over the rated speed for a given height.
There is no long form.
The controlability issue is correct, relative to high speeds - if such is possible, at the given altitude. Even at 250 Knots, it would be difficult to hit the towers - especially on the first pass. The actual speed is unimportant - the issue is often used as a disinformationist distraction. At the WTC, there is more than enough forensic evidence of the aircraft, but the trend is to avoid the issues of the faked crashes at the Pentagon & Shanksville. Those dogs don't hunt, even for a legitimate second.
glad to see you back again SKY.
Good to see your voice again. One thing I have toyed with in trying to solve the puzzle of 911 is how the aircraft were controlled and the maneuvers that were conducted. The question, and it is an open question, is that given much planning obviously went into this PsyOp, and that all of the planes at one time or another "disappeared" from Radar is could they have had specially modified planes standing by to replace the real planes in order to be able to do what was observed? I don't venture that thought lightly and it is an attempt to account for all the data. The magnitude and scale of the event does not put it out of the question. You just have to think big enough to encompass it.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Those dogs don't hunt, even for a legitimate second. Really????
Good to see you posting here. :-)
The No Planes and Less Than 4 Planes hypotheses could be called "Extraordinary Renditions" of what happened on 9/11 but so is the Official Conspiracy Theory an "Extraordinary Rendition". That doesn't mean the Truth must be the guv- issued storylines or somewhere in the middle because most people believe planes were used.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Well said.
Thank you. :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Great video. Thanks for the link.
Great video. Thanks for the link. Holy S**t this is interesting.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
America needs more people to use their own brains and think just like you have done to know that 9/11 was and inside job. To blindly believe something just because it has been reported by mass media and government is granting too much power to a small group of people that may or may not care one iota about you or America. It is never wise to trust an entity wholeheartedly unless you know that entity extremely well.
God is always good!
Ain't it? And it has the vibration of truth to it. I already sent it to my son and he'll pass it out to the in-the-know 20-somethings he knows. Hopefully someday we (or they) will be exhuming the remains of the conspirators and mixing them with inedible pig parts and dropping them in the Gulf Of Mexico, a burial befitting their evil status....
The VFW wouldn't accept Nam vets as members for many years. Oh, no, they only wanted vets from "good" (i.e., popular) foreign wars and needless to say, the police action to contain communism that ended with footage of choppers (that shuttled frantic refugees from the roof of the American Embassy) being pushed from a carrier deck into the South China Sea was the fault of those Nam vets, not the policy makers who never intended to win. And, "fully contemptuous of Vietnam Vets" is understandable when one appreciates how well entrenched the pro-commies are in The US. I mean, it's not like our men were killing Germans or anything.....
Ain't it? And it has the vibration of truth to it. freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...i?ArtNum=122008&Disp=0#C0 "The vibration of truth" I like the way you think, HD.
Thank you my friend.
Comments (41 - 42) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: wudidiz (#0)
New DVDs: Sheriff Mack, Meltup and Fluoride.
#3. To: wudidiz (#0)
#4. To: Shoonra (#1)
#5. To: wudidiz (#0)
#6. To: randge (#4)
Get this on the right thread....
#7. To: wakeup (#2)
(Edited)
Was much of the planes found in the tower wreckage?
#8. To: Cynicom (#6)
They said it could not be done.
#9. To: randge (#8)
and I stated what I thought what was meant here based on what I have read on this and other threads.
#10. To: Cynicom, Shoonra (#5)
What's being stated here is that the 767 will not attain level flight speed of 410 knots at near sea level. That's about .7 mach. This aircraft will do .83 mach at altitude (30,000 feet), but at sea level it maxes out at about .33.
I ran out of smart sounding quotes
#11. To: wudidiz (#10)
Has nothing to do with driving upside down or not.
#12. To: randge, Shoonra, Cynicom (#10)
I ran out of smart sounding quotes
#13. To: Cynicom (#11)
I ran out of smart sounding quotes
#14. To: wudidiz (#12)
#15. To: christine, wakeup (#7)
Was much of the planes found in the tower wreckage?
#16. To: Cynicom (#14)
I ran out of smart sounding quotes
#17. To: Cynicom, wudidiz, all (#14)
There is even one long epistle, all by experts, that there were NO aircraft involved in 911.
#18. To: wudidiz (#16)
#19. To: Shoonra (#1)
Are these speeds actually impossible to attain, or merely ill-advised for anyone hoping to use the airplane again?
#20. To: Original_Intent, wudidiz (#17)
#21. To: randge (#4)
(Edited)
What's being stated here is that the 767 will not attain level flight speed of 410 knots at near sea level. That's about .7 mach. This aircraft will do .83 mach at altitude (30,000 feet), but at sea level it maxes out at about .33.
#22. To: Shoonra, randge, all (#21)
I am still confused. Does "not attain ... at near sea level" mean that, if the plane does attain .7 mach at a much higher altitude it cannot keep that speed if it descends suddenly? Is it impossible that those planes attained high speed at their optimum altitudes and then descended at the same (or nearly) high speed? After all, the hijacker pilots were not concerned with keeping the planes usable for future flights.
I ran out of smart sounding quotes
#23. To: wudidiz, Shoonra, all (#22)
#24. To: randge, wudidiz, christine, all (#23)
I believe the assertion here, although I've only had time to scan this thing briefly, is that while the aircraft in question can take lots more acceleration than the rates maximums at various altitudes, plane may not be controllable over the rated speed for a given height.
#25. To: SKYDRIFTER (#24)
#26. To: SKYDRIFTER, randge, wudidiz, christine, all (#24)
#27. To: SKYDRIFTER (#24)
but the trend is to avoid the issues of the faked crashes at the Pentagon & Shanksville.
#28. To: SKYDRIFTER (#24)
#29. To: Cynicom (#14)
There is even one long epistle, all by experts, that there were NO aircraft involved in 911.
#30. To: GreyLmist (#29)
#31. To: wudidiz (#30)
#32. To: Itistoolate (#3)
www.veteranstoday.com/201...e-hit-world-trade-center/
#33. To: HOUNDDAWG, Itistoolate, *9-11* (#32)
www.veteranstoday.com/201...e-hit-world-trade-center/
#34. To: Itistoolate (#3)
#35. To: Itistoolate, All (#3)
#36. To: Original_Intent (#17)
I believe 911 was an inside job not because someone told me but because the evidence told me.
#37. To: wudidiz, Itistoolate (#33)
Holy S**t this is interesting.
#38. To: Eric Stratton (#35)
Nothing to do with the facts, just tertiary BS. Meanwhile, the moron that wrote it obviously ignores the wealth of contempt by the FedGov for their utter contempt for the 9/11 victim’s families, and the FedGov making a mockery of those who died in uniform not to mention the uniform itself, and the asshole then goes on to be fully contemptuous of Vietnam Vets.
#39. To: HOUNDDAWG, Itistoolate (#37)
Holy S**t this is interesting.
#40. To: wudidiz (#39)
.
.
.