Another Aeronautics Expert Confirms That the Excessive Speed of UA175 is Problematic

[spooked911]

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

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?

[hack89]

1. Don't you feel any obligation to actually verify this statement

This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.

I am sure there is a link somewhere that confirms this statement.

[spooked911]

4. feel free to question Dwain Deets

this is his statement. I am passing it along.

[hack89]

9. Why do you believe it is true? nt

[spooked911]

18. I believe the massively excessive speed is indeed problematic

as I've pointed out on this board for quite some time. Many people have supported what Deets says.

And overall, fuck yeah, it is absurd to think an inexperienced pilot maneuvered a 767 so expertly at that speed.

[hack89]

31. But don't you actually have to prove that the speed was excessive?

and why is hitting a 200 foot stationary target considered expert flying?

[defendandprotect]

65. Not "excessive" . . . it was impossible . ..

as engineers have made clear -- air industry officials --

[SDuderstadt]

66. Name one....n/t

[William Seger]

34. "it is absurd to think an inexperienced pilot maneuvered a 767 so expertly at that speed"

He damn near crashed into the bridge and then barely avoided "lawn-darting." Yours is a classic example of the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy."

[spooked911]

70. Well, the Pentagon jet was supposed to be a 757, so I was referring to "UA175"

but even so, at the Pentagon -- that's indeed pretty remarkable maneuvering at friggin' 500+ mph-- for a poor pilot at best!

[William Seger]

37. Sorry, didn't notice you were talking about UA175

... not AA77. But then, I don't know what you mean about "maneuvered so expertly." UA175 just did a long diving arc.

Anyway, Deets doesn't know what he's talking about. The "maximum dive velocity" is just a velocity at which the plane was known to be safe, because it had been tested beyond that velocity. The real "maximum dive velocity" is not known, because it's hard to find test pilots who will keep accelerating until the plane falls apart.

[SDuderstadt]

38. "because it's hard to find test pilots who will keep accelerating until the plane falls apart"

You would think the CT's would figure this out...

[zappaman]

2. damn Spooked

do you just believe everything you read?

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103

you certainly are some researcher!

[spooked911]

7. are you doubting a NASA scientist?

wow

:)

[zappaman]

8. yes I am doubting Dwain Deets.

sounds like he fits in with your crowd though...

"Let's remember who first pushed this idea of "impossible speed". Top PFT member John Lear, a supposedly ex-CIA pilot who also claims that the planes at the WTC were holograms, that there are cities and sunny meadows on the moon and that alien monsters are controlling everything from underground bases all over the world, among other novelties. Rob Balsamo claims that Lear is "highly respected" and when Lear's background was discussed on the Truth Action forum, Balsamo sent out a mass email accusing Truth Action of being "cointelpro". When John Bursill did the real legwork, gaining access to a flight simulator and proving Lear's claim to be nonsense, Lear responded by writing to Bursill's employer in an attempt to get him fired. This is who we are dealing with here."

[spooked911]

17. Actually, John Lear was not the first

From what I recall, Joseph Keith, an areonautics engineer, was the first to say the turbofan engines would not go that fast at sea level. Jeff Hill (Pumpitout) called a couple of people at Boeing who basically confirmed what Keith said. Lear came on board about this time.

Whatever else you might say about Lear, it is clear he is a highly experienced pilot and knows what he is talking about with regards to planes.

He also is CIA, and almost certainly spreads disinfo (e.g. the moon nonsense) to make himself less reliable as part of the 9/11 psyop. That's pretty much SOP for most researchers.

[zappaman]

30. "the moon nonsense"

you mean the same "moon nonsense" you believe in...that the moon might be a giant alien spaceship?
Or is it different "moon nonsense"?

[William Seger]

40. No, Joseph Keith is a software engineer

... who was passed off as an aeronautical engineer by Jeffery "Pump It" Hill, who is "dedicated to exposing the lies and deceptions perpetrated against humanity" about as much as Rush Limbaugh. Keith claimed that Boeing engineers had told him that. Unfortunately, Hill was so, um, excited that he had to pump it without actually finding any of those engineers.

[terrafirma]

10. So what you're saying is...

... you only require a random internet article to solve a case.

Good luck with exposing this cover up.

[backwoodsbob]

21. from zappa's link

767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt). Range of basic aircraft with JT9Ds 5855km (3160nm), medium range version with CF6s 7135km (3850nm). 767-200ER - Speeds same. Range with PW4056s 12,269km (6625nm), with CF6s 12,352km (6670nm).

Don't feel like doing a conversion but I assure you 914kph CRUISING speed is above what you posted

[spooked911]

23. 914 kph = ~567 mph = ~493 knots per hour

Note that cruising at high altitude is far different from cruising at or near sea level

[zappaman]

29. Spooked, are you a pilot?

How "far different" is cruising at high altitude from at or near sea level?

[LARED]

3. I don't know if the information is correct, but there is an important thing

you have overlooked.

Assuming the statement "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." is correct, and the maximum operating velocity really is 360 knots, you should know there is a reason designers use words like operating when stating specifications.

I have worked as an engineer. And it is normal to provide a design value and an operating value. For instance, when specifying piping systems an engineer provides a design pressure and temperature, and an operating pressure and temperature. The operating values are nearly always lower than the design values, and design values always have safety factors built into them to ensure integrity and reliability if the system is operated near the design values in unusual or transient conditions.

So the fact that the operating velocity was exceeded is once again a completely unremarkable fact.

[spooked911]

15. No, it is not a "completely unremarkable fact"

since we had a completely inexperienced pilot operating the plane and getting it to hit a small target at a tremendously excessive speed, officially.

I call bullshit-- on that, and about 250 other aspects of 9/11.

[LARED]

16. Care to address my point?

THe "small" size of the towers (only 200'+) and the experiance of the pilot have nothing to do opersting speed.

[spooked911]

19. the operating speed has to do with controlling the plane

and the target wasn't that big, especially considering the hit was close to center for both. Remember the pilot had never even really flown a jet before.

As far as your point-- I'm not claiming the plane would have fallen apart at that speed. But I think there is debate about whether the plane could really reach that speed near sea level. There is also no doubt that an inexperienced pilot would have trouble controlling the plane at that speed.

[LARED]

20. Well actually the fact that both

both planes hit near center specks to the ease of "aiming" the jets. (Of course you don't believe jets existed anyway.

As attested by many people on this board and others, flying a commercial jet is not difficult with a little practice. It's the landing and taking off part that is difficult.

Also flying at 800' + is hardly the same as flying at sea level.

Are you in recycle mode? This fantasy of yours is very old.

[spooked911]

24. flying that speed at sea level is problematic

is the point-- it's well past the normal maneuverability of the aircraft.

And I brought this up again because of the Deets statement, which I hadn't seen before.

[LARED]

28. How is 900' + @ sea level? nt

[zappaman]

32. Spooked, are you a pilot?

if so, then you may have an understanding.
if not, just add it to the list of things you don't understand.

[AZCat]

22. And what effect does speed have on control of the aircraft?

Please enlighten us. Feel free to use www.google.com to construct your arguments.

[spooked911]

25. It should be clear

but if you have a problem with the premise, feel free to show otherwise.

[AZCat]

26. Hmmm. So you don't know?

Feel free to admit ignorance.

[AZCat]

72. Still waiting for spooked to explain...

what he claims "should be clear".

[spooked911]

106. the higher the speed, the more sensitive the controls become

this is why it is very hard to control an aircraft at extremely high speeds-- the slightest touch to the yoke can make a dramatic change in course.

OK?

[SDuderstadt]

108. I'm not sure that's of much importance to...

someone bent on crashing the fucking plane, dude.

Again, this is why you've emerged as somewhat of an inside joke here.

[LARED]

109. Ever hear of "fly-by-wire"?

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

A fly-by-wire (FBW) system replaces manual flight control of an aircraft with an electronic interface. The movements of flight controls are converted to electronic signals transmitted by wires (hence the fly-by-wire term), and flight control computers determine how to move the actuators at each control surface to provide the expected response. Commands from the computers are also input without the pilot's knowledge to stabilize the aircraft and perform other tasks.

Don't you ever feel a little foolish when you display this CT'er axiom for all of DU to see.

"Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."

.

[spooked911]

115. so what?

I am supposed to feel chastised because of that? No one is denying these sorts of systems. The issue is the official last second maneuvering at excessive speed before hitting the target.

[LARED]

119. Two things

The two things you think are an issue (the last second maneuvering, and the difficulty in moving a yoke) is only an issue in you mind

[spooked911]

121. so...

you're saying that you can program an autopilot to go 540 mph and then go slightly off course for the south tower, but then have it make a slight last second correction so it hits the tower?

Really?

Or are you saying something else?

[LARED]

124. Good Lord man, but you inhabit an entirely different universe?

The plane was flown by the hijacker at approx the speed calculated. As said way early in this thread the operation speed of the aircraft and the possible or potential top end speed speed are two entirely different things. N0 one expect a handful of CT'ers thinks the speed of the plane in some way points to an impossibility.

Secondly, the planes correction as it approached the building is simply unremarkable.

[spooked911]

125. The whole point of the OP was that the high-speed course changes were remarkable

and two aeronautics experts have concurred. There are other pilots who think the same.

I am curious why your posts so often have mistakes in grammar and spelling...

[LARED]

130. Well two out of a few hundred thousand is clearly an air tight case.

Regarding my mistakes in grammar and spelling. It is usually a case of laziness and not fully proofreading. But in this case it is me getting used to new technology. I recently upgraded to a "Droid Incredible" and posted via it's browser. Built into the text editor is a program that guesses at what word you are trying to type with the itty bitty touch pad. Often it guesses wrong or my less than nimble fingers hit a letter incorrectly. When you press the space key thinking you have typed out the word you want it automatically enters the word it's guessing. If I am not looking real hard at what just got entered it gets posted.

But most of the time it's just not diligently proofreading. Also I did not grow up using a computer and have found if I really want to proof read something I must print it out, and frankly posting to a BB does not merit that much effort.

[SDuderstadt]

131. Especially replying to Spooked...

I sometimes use an Android EVO and I have the same issue, often with comical results. It's often not worth correcting, especially when it won't sink in with Spooked anyway, irrespective of spelling and grammar.

[zappaman]

132. true

why bother with spellcheck when he's not gonna understand it anyway?

[spooked911]

134. believe me, whatever you have written that is worthwhile has sunk in--

it's just that there's just so little out of all your posts. I do wonder if you tired of the mindless insults and silly exhortations for me to stop.

[SDuderstadt]

138. Simple question, dude....

why is it the case that it's usually you squaring off against everyone else?

[spooked911]

143. because I am more stubborn than most...

most people who support inside job (probably smartly) conclude that it's a waste of time arguing with you and the other OCTers here.

There have been scores of CTists here who don't come here anymore, no doubt annoyed by the culture here.

[LARED]

146. Understandable

why CT'ers would be annoyed by a culture of logic and reason.

[SDuderstadt]

147. Stubborn and wrong is....

still wrong, dude.

I've wondered why the "scores of CTists" who used to come here don't anymore and I figure it had to be one of three things:

1) they've realized that their "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit wasn't convincing anyone and they lost interest after nearly a decade
2) they couldn't answer the hard questions put to them here and decided to "get out of the kitchen" or
3) they just want a softball site where they can reinforce each other's bullshit unimpeded by any questions at all.

Personally, I was hoping for # 1.

[spooked911]

148. I doubt they changed their minds--

they likely just got tired of the unrelenting and unreasonable opposition here.

[SDuderstadt]

150. How is it "unreasonable"...

Spooked??

[zappaman]

151. it IS unreasonable

to ask Spooked to back up his goofy claims with EVIDENCE.
don't you know that some things "just don't like right" to him?

[spooked911]

153. because of your stubborn opposition to govt/high level complicity

duh...

[zappaman]

155. and your stubborn refusal to admit

that after 9 years, your goofy "theories" hold no weight.
when exactly ARE you going to bust this case?

[SDuderstadt]

156. Enough of your bullshit, dude...

Please show me where ANYONE here denies that there COULD have been govt/high level complicity. What we keep stubbornly asking for is actual PROOF of your goofy claims/theories and you fail miserably each and every time. As I have stated repeatedly, it would have been delicious to catch the Bush admin "in flagrante delicto" (so to speak), but you haven't been able to develop a single piece of concrete evidence in nearly a decade, dude...not one, when, if your claims/theories were remotely true, we would be awash in evidence.

That's why you regarded as a kind of inside joke here, Spooked.

[spooked911]

133. please show me where a few hundred thousand pilots have expressly supported the OCT

thanks

[SDuderstadt]

137. Dude...

if what you claim is true, why are only a handful coming forward?

[LARED]

139. No one claimed that. - nt

[spooked911]

142. what did you claim then?

it seemed like that was your point.

[zappaman]

110. oh, so you are a pilot?

tell us more about handling an aircraft since you have experience.

[LARED]

111. I'm pretty sure Spooked got all his flying experiance

by watching movies.

[zappaman]

112. my dad was a commercial airline pilot

it's a pain in the ass to watch a movie with him if there is anything to do with planes. He gets mad and points out all the BS in them. Truthfully, the only movie he likes with planes in them is AIRPLANE.
And, since he actually has experience flying planes(unlike spooked) he knows what happened on 9/11 was entirely possible when it comes to the aerodynamics and physics involved.
But, of course, Spooked knows better cuz he read it on the internets.

[spooked911]

113. dude--

does he know that the official speed of UA175 was 540 mph? Has he seen the videos of the perfect last second banking? Would appreciate an answer on this.

[zappaman]

116. well

first of all, do YOU know the speed was 540mph?
you don't know for sure, but let's indulge your fantasy and play along.
according to my dad, it is possible for a commercial jetliner to fly at that speed, but no one ever pushes it to that level.
yes, he has seen the banking and thinks it is unremarkable for someone with some training.
of course, this won't convince you since you have so much aviation experience.

[spooked911]

122. I'm not sure what your point is about me knowing the speed

the videos say it is approximately 540 mph, as calculated by NIST and independent investigators.

What fantasy am I indulging in?

What do you mean by "some training"?

[zappaman]

123. training as in flight school

which the pilots did.
the approximate speed is just that-approximate.
the estimated maximum speed is just that-estimated.
both approximations and estimations are not facts.
which enable your fantasies like "no planes".
you ever think about someone you haven't thought about in a long time and the phone rings and it's that person?
do you believe there was magic behind it or sometimes things happen that can't be 100% fully explained?

[spooked911]

126. "approximations and estimations"

what is your point? Are you saying the planes were going slower than the official story? I am getting the speeds from the official sources.

As far as the phone thing, no, that has never happened to me. And no, I don't believe in magic. I think there are coincidences sometimes but on 9/11 there were too many coincidences. I think everything on 9/11 should be 100% explainable.

[zappaman]

127. "I think everything on 9/11 should be 100% explainable."

that right there is your problem.
simple question: is everything in life 100% explainable?
it's not, so why do you insist that this particular event be so?

[spooked911]

135. Actually, 9/11 is perfectly explainable as a massive hoax and inside job.

It's the official story that is unexplainable as it relies on someone believing a massive list of improbabilities that all happened on that one day.

[SDuderstadt]

136. Why don't you provide this...

massive list of probabilities, Spooked? I certainly hope it's new material and not some laundry list of your warmed over goofy bullshit we've all laughed at over the years.

[LARED]

140. Thank goodness you guys have finally put together

a coherent and rational explanation to support the 9/11 CT. Yes.

Being perfectly explainable should make it easy to convince the 99.99999% of the world that thinks you're wacky.

[zappaman]

141. too funny

you think there's more probability for nukes or greenscreens than what actually happened?
really really funny

[spooked911]

144. it's only funny

to you and the OCTists, and even that is an act.

[AZCat]

145. What is an act?

Our amusement at your ridiculous theories? No, I assure you, that is genuine.

[spooked911]

114. I said earlier

I am not. Why are you being obnoxious about this? Several pilots have said this; it's no huge secret.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Dude...

think this through. If this was a problem, there would be a HUGE outcry from commercial pilots, rather than the handful you present.

Again, this is why no one takes you seriously, Spooked.

[zappaman]

118. "think this through"

now that's funny!
why would he start now?

[SDuderstadt]

120. You DO...

have a point.

[spooked911]

149. That's pure bull...

many professional pilots know darn well what they risk if they speak out-- their livelihoods and/or their pensions-- same for all other kinds of professionals. Also, many pilots are former military and have extra programming to overcome.

[LARED]

152. "extra programming to overcome"??????

Spooked I'd expect nothing less.

[SDuderstadt]

157. Jesus....

here we go again.

The "everyone is a coward" rationalization. Stupid.

[KDLarsen]

5. Hardly an "Aeronautics Expert"

His bio would suggest he's a management-type person, not one of the persons who actually do the research.

In any case, he seems like a Richard Gate 'lite' type person, travelling the truther-circuit conducting speeches/performances.

[spooked911]

14. his bio would indicate that he knows something about aeronautics, is the point

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

[Make7]

6. VD for a 767-200 is 420 knots, not 410 knots as stated. ( n/t )

[spooked911]

13. source?

seems like different sites give different speeds

[Make7]

35. The FAA type certificate data sheet. ( n/t )

duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=176375#176452

[deconstruct911]

11. it's amazing

what remote control can do.

[spooked911]

12. also

what computer animation can do

[deconstruct911]

27. yea but wouldnt someone have footage

of the explosion clearly with no planes.....

[spooked911]

33. if they did, it was doctored after the fact

but in most people wouldn't be trained their cameras on a plane that wasn't there.

And then there are the people who should have but didn't see the plane:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/07/people-who-should-have-seen-ua175-hit.html

And all sorts of other evidence:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reasons-why-i-am-no-planer.html

[zappaman]

36. are you a pilot, Spooked?

please tell us more about aviation using your expertise in the field.

[spooked911]

39. that is quite irrelevant

to what I posted right there.

[zappaman]

41. no its not

when you express disbelief on what a pilot or plane can do, how would you know?
again, are you a pilot?

[spooked911]

42. it doesn't matter

because you won't believe me either way

[SDuderstadt]

43. No one believes you...

eventually you'll figure out why.

[zappaman]

44. I take that as a "no" then

so again, we are left with "evidence" that "doesn't look right" to someone with no experience in the field.

[spooked911]

45. Worth listening to this pilot, Ross "Rusty" Aimar

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3550166/1/

He says the UA175 and AA77 maneuvers were essentially impossible for an amateur pilot, and probably impossible for a very skilled pilot.

[SDuderstadt]

46. I'd hardly call someone with a commercial pilot's license...

an "amateur pilot", dude.

[spooked911]

48. who are you referring to?

Clearly, at best, the official terrorists were amateur pilots.

[SDuderstadt]

49. With training and certification...

that would have enabled them to be commercial pilots, dude. And, more importantly, they didn't have to concern themselves with take-off and they sure as hell weren't worried about landing which, oh, by the way, are the two most difficult maneuvers.

Moral of the story: aiming a jetliner and crashing it into a large building was not something above their skillsets, despite your comical efforts to make it appear as such.

Ever ponder why you're regarded so lightly around here? Hint: it's for stupid "arguments" like these, dude.

[spooked911]

52. there's no way Hani Hanjour legitimately earned a commercial license

if that is what you are claiming.

Btw, please cut the constant crap about my reputation here. It's not going to change my mind and is really irrelevant to me.

[AZCat]

53. But he did indeed possess...

a commercial pilot's license, therefore he was not an "amateur".

[spooked911]

57. he could have still been an amateur if the license was gotten illegitimately

the story stinks to high heaven
http://911blogger.com/node/20573

[AZCat]

73. That's not what your link indicates at all.

Please review articles before submitting them as support for your arguments.

[spooked911]

78. I read the piece

they indicate that people who give out commercial licenses are poorly supervised and likely can be bought off.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Make me, dude...

Your reputation is very deserved as a result of your goofy bullshit and is perfectly fair game.

This is further reinforced by your post here, in which, when confronted with the fact that Hani Hanjour was licensed as a commercial pilot, you immediately go into your handwaving mode, claiming he could not possibly have earned it "legitimately, dude.

Again, this is why you aren't taken seriously here, dude. Everyone seems to recognize that except, well, for YOU, dude.

[spooked911]

58. "make me"

LOL, what buffoonery

[zappaman]

55. Spooked, are you a pilot?

And I love that proof of something that goes against your opinion "isn't going to change my mind".
How sad.
This is truly why you are called out on each and every post and inevitably get laughed at.

[spooked911]

59. what "proof"?

Having that license doesn't prove anything except that the system was corrupt.
http://911blogger.com/node/20573


No, I am not a pilot.

Are you?

If you're not, then both of us are deferring to others.

[zappaman]

60. my dad was a pilot for over 30 years

and he says I could have flown that plane into a building.
flying and manueverability are easy. taking off and landing are a whole other story.
So, I guess his opinion cancels out your "expert's" opinion, eh?

[spooked911]

67. maybe--

so was he a commercial pilot? Did he fly 757s and 767s?

Does he know how fast the official speeds were and how low AA77 was (supposedly) off the ground?

[SDuderstadt]

68. Are you a commercial pilot, dude?

More importantly, do you think the hijackers were concerned about how safely they handled a jetliner they were going to plow into the side of buildings?

Your whole premise is silly, but that's hardly different than your normal modus operandus.

[spooked911]

69. I already said I wasn't a pilot, so not sure why you're asking me if I am a "commercial pilot"

Also, no I don't think suicide hijackers would care about safe handling of the craft, as long as they were able to get tot heir target.

But the premise here in this thread is that according to a NASA official, UA175 was going too fast. Also, I noted that a highly experienced commercial pilot says that the AA77 and UA175 maneuvers were impossible for an inexperienced pilot. Other pilots and people with aviation experience have said similar things.

I'm not sure why this is "silly".

[SDuderstadt]

71. It's silly because you're trying to rationalize your goofy...

"no-planes" bullshit. Your "divide and conquer" strategy is falling flat on its face because there are too many direct witnesses, videos, airliner parts and debris, and dna identifications that allow to figure out what actually happened Your little game is over; you just refuse to acknowledge it.

[spooked911]

75. Dude, I am presenting evidence.

Not sure what "divide and conquer" strategy you're talking about, but in general, your post there lacks some coherence.

[zappaman]

76. "Dude, I am presenting evidence."

you are?
I haven't seen you present ANY.
Once again, "this doesn't look right to me" is not evidence.

[spooked911]

77. that's not what the post was about-- I was presenting experts' opinions

but thanks for playing anyway.

[spooked911]

79. again--

was your dad a commercial pilot? What kind of planes did he fly? Does he know how fast UA175 and AA77 came in, and how low AA77 was to the ground?

[zappaman]

47. Spooked, are you a pilot?

still wondering...

[KDLarsen]

50. If they are so impossible..

.. then how come it was possible for this Dutch TV presenter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZbUCoVEVsU

Oh wait, let me preempt you by saying the Dutchies were in on it as well :eyes:

[spooked911]

51. you should read this, at least

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/dutch_simulation_debunked

[KDLarsen]

56. Interesting read

If only Rob Balsamo would throw out his own theories with the same clinical precision he's demanding of the Dutch TV program. Maybe he would have avoided that 11G gaffe :eyes:

[William Seger]

85. Why should anyone waste time reading that?

The sim pilot hit the building in all three attempts. Balsamo laughably finds significance in the fact that only on the third try did he hit near the same spot that Hanjour hit. That's exactly like saying that if I fire a shot into a barn wall and it takes you three shots to hit near the same hole, then that proves the spot is difficult to hit, which proves I'm a much better shot than you. But you still don't understand the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, do you?

And I see you didn't respond to my post above about why nobody really knows what the "maximum" speed of a 757 or 767 is. Balsamo should solicit money to buy one so he can do the necessary experiment himself.

[spooked911]

154. I understand your "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy"

and that's fine-- but that wasn't a central reason why the Dutch study is flawed.

[jberryhill]

61. Another data point for you, spooked

When people got into the elevators in the undamaged tower before the second "plane hit", I heard they got as many as 12 people into elevators where the sign said "Maximum capacity - ten persons".

Well, of COURSE you can't get 12 people into an elevator when the sign says the maximum capacity is ten people.

It's impossible!

[Make7]

62. Well, it may not be impossible, but ...

... it seems unlikely amateur elevator operators could adequately control the speed of the elevator or what floors it stopped at on an elevator that was so obviously operating beyond its design limits.

[LARED]

63. But likely a commercial elevator operator would do just fine nt

[deconstruct911]

74. Maybe they could of had 13

if they didnt tell everyone to remain at their desk.

[spooked911]

80. very funny

but the point isn't so much that the speed was impossible but that an amateur maneuvering the plane at that speed to hit a relatively small target is impossible.

And this isn't my opinion, but the opinion of many people with aeronautics experience, such as Dwain Deets and Rusty Almar.

[ablewon]

81. Irrevelant point

No credible evidence supports the notion that a plane crashed at the Pentagon, but if you believe in OCT miracles, anything is
possible.

[SDuderstadt]

82. More handwaving...

dude, do you understand what "debate" means?

[ablewon]

83. dude, do you know what "credible evidence" means?

tell us and cite some examples.

[SDuderstadt]

84. Do you?

dude, there are 100+ direct eyewitnesses to AA77 crashing into the Pentagon. You can't dismiss that merely by labeling it a "miracle".

[ablewon]

86. Here you go, dude

"credible evidence noun admitted testimony, beeievable proof, believable testimony, confirmed proof, connincing proof, corroborated proof, credible documents, credible exhibits, credible proof, creditworthy proof, deeendable proof, documented proof, honest proof, indissutable proof, indubitable proof, irrefutable proof, legitiiate proof, legitimate proof of facts, proof worthy of belief, proof worthy of credence, tested testimony, testimony which is above reproach, trustworthy proof, truthful proof, truthful testimony, validated proof, verified proof."

"The weight of evidence is based on the believability or persuasiveness of evidence. The probative value (tending to convince a person of the truth of some proposition) of evidence does not necessarily turn on the number of witnesses called, but rather the persuasiveness of their testimony."

Dude, THAT's why whenever you trot out x number of alleged eyewitnesses to what you assert was a plane crash at the WTC and the Pentagon, it's not persuasive to people who don't believe in miracles.

[zappaman]

87. what?

none of those terms apply to anything you have posted.
because you have posted nothing but "you believe in miracles?"
Please post any evidence or proof.
accusing people of "believing in miracles" is not a case.
try again.

[ablewon]

88. A Brief Course in 9/11 Miracles

Nine miracles implied by NIST’s accounts of the destruction of Building 7 of the World Trade Center (WTC 7) and the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2).

In NIST’s words, the collapse of WTC 7 was “the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.”31
NIST’s conclusion about this building - that it was the first steel-frame high-rise building ever to be brought down by fire – appears to constitute a rather remarkable miracle-claim.

Would it not be a miracle if a fire-induced collapse, based on scattered fires on a few of WTC 7’s floors, had produced a collapse that perfectly imitated the kind of planned, controlled demolition that can be carried out by only a few companies in the world?

Now that it is established that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds, one cannot accept the official theory, according to which this building was not professionally demolished, without implying that at least one miracle happened on 9/11.


The Twin Towers: Descending in Virtual Free Fall

NIST’s account – according to which the Twin Towers came down “essentially in free fall,” even though they were not professionally demolished - implied two enormous miracles (one for each building).

The idea that steel heated up by fire could account for the collapses of the Twin Towers is wrong for at least two reasons. In the first place, even if the steel had indeed lost 90 percent of its strength, it would still have offered some resistance, because the law of conservation of momentum would not have taken a holiday. So a collapse “essentially in free fall” would have been impossible.


The South Tower’s Mid-Air Miracles -
a miracle unique to the South Tower.

If we suppose that explosives were used, therefore, we can understand the mid-air dance performed by the upper portion of the South Tower.

If we refuse to posit explosives, however, we are stuck with a major miracle: Although the upper block was rotating and tipping in such a way that its angular momentum should have caused it to fall down to the side, it somehow righted itself by disintegrating.


Horizontal Ejections from the Twin Towers

NIST’s report also stated:



“When WTC 1 collapsed at 10:28:22 AM, . . . some fragments were forcibly ejected and traveled distances up to hundreds of meters. Pieces of WTC 1 hit WTC 7, severing six columns on Floors 7 through 17 on the south face and one column on the west face near the southwest corner. The debris also caused structural damage between Floor 44 and the roof.”85

Debris that caused such extensive damage, including the severing of seven steel columns, had to be quite heavy. NIST seemed to be granting, therefore, that sections of steel columns had been hurled at least 650 feet (because “hundreds of meters” would mean at least 200 meters, which would be about 650 feet). Enormous force would be needed to eject large sections of steel that far out.

According to NIST, as we saw earlier, there were only three causal factors in the collapse of the Twin Towers: the airplane impacts, the fires, and gravitational attraction. The airplane impacts had occurred 56 minutes (South Tower) and 102 minutes (North Tower) earlier, and gravitational attraction pulls things straight downward. Fire could, to be sure, produce horizontal ejections by causing jet fuel to explode, but the jet fuel had, NIST pointed out, burned up within “a few minutes.” Therefore, although NIST admitted that these horizontal ejections occurred, it suggested no energy source to explain them.



High explosives, such as RDX or nanothermite, could explain these horizontal ejections. According to NIST, however, explosives did not contribute to the destruction of the Twin Towers. Those who accept NIST’s account must, therefore, regard these horizontal ejections as constituting yet another miracle.


Inextinguishable Fires


Besides having the power to produce the miraculous effects already reported, the World Trade Center fires were also miraculously inextinguishable. The fact that fires continued burning in the Ground Zero rubble for many months, in spite of every attempt to put them out, was widely reported.


These inextinguishable fires were a mystery. Assuming the truth of the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center, there would have been nothing in the debris pile other than ordinary building materials, and these can burn only in the presence of oxygen. There would have been little oxygen available in the densely packed debris piles, and wherever it was available, the fires should have been easily suppressed by the enormous amounts of water and chemical suppressants pumped into the piles. The fires’ seemingly miraculous power to keep burning could not be explained by the airplanes’ jet fuel (which some people seem to think of as having miraculous powers, even though it is essentially kerosene), because it would have all burned out, as mentioned above, within a few minutes.


For anyone who accepts the official account, therefore, the inextinguishable underground fires at Ground Zero provide still another demonstration of miraculous powers that must have been possessed by the World Trade Center fires.



The Prima Facie Absurdity of the Official Conspiracy Theory: Even when viewed only superficially (prima facie), the central elements in the official story, if evaluated in abstraction from the fact that it is the official story, is certainly implausible – it probably would have been even too implausible to pass muster as the plot for a bad Hollywood movie.

The absurdity of the official story, which, boiled down to a one-sentence summary, says:

"Inexperienced Muslim hijackers, armed only with knives and box-cutters, took control of four airliners, then outfoxed the world’s most sophisticated air defense system, then used two of these airliners to bring three skyscrapers down (indeed, straight down, in virtual free fall),140 and then, almost an hour later - when the US air defense system would have been on highest alert - flew a third one, undetected, from the mid-west back to Washington DC, where – thanks to heroic piloting by a man who had never before flown an airliner and who was, according to the New York Times, known as a “terrible pilot,” incapable of safely flying even a tiny plane – this third airliner went through an extremely difficult trajectory (even too difficult for them, said some experienced airline pilots) in order to strike the first floor of the Pentagon – surely the most well-protected building on the planet – without scraping the Pentagon lawn."


What could discredit “the left” more than the fact that left gatekeepersyou have endorsed such nonsense?


The Scientific Status of the Two Conspiracy Theories.

Actually, there is one thing that would be even more discrediting: If, after having it pointed out to you that at least nine miracles are implied by this story, you fail to renounce your former acceptance of it.

Thanks to DRGriffin.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Aha!

Your "source" is David Ray Griffin. LOLOLOL.

Dude, do you just swallow everything you read from him? Did you fact-check any of it?

Let's just take one claim (miracle) from your "source"..."scattered fires on a few floors of WTC 7". This is demonstrably false, from both the accounts of FDNY which stated that WTC 7 was "fully involved" in fire, plus there are also still photos and video which visually debunk this rather stupid claim.



http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Dude...if you keep rebunking DRG's nonsense, don't be surprised if you get laughed out of here.

[ablewon]

91. Was Nist wrong? Miracle remains intact unless Nist recants.

There were long-lasting fires on only six of the building’s 47 floors, according to NIST, and by “long-lasting,” NIST meant only that they lasted up to seven hours.38 It would be exceedingly strange, therefore, if fire had produced a total collapse of this building. The claim becomes even stranger when one discovers that NIST had no evidence that the fires on any of the floors lasted for much over three hours.39



Accordingly, besides undermining the confident explanations of WTC 7’s collapse offered by Popular Mechanics, NIST’s conclusion about this building - that it was the first steel-frame high-rise building ever to be brought down by fire – appears to constitute a rather remarkable miracle-claim.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Dude...

I see you've forgotten to mention the very unusual design of WTC 7. Do you think all buildings behave the same when subjected to the same conditions?

P.S. I'm willing to bet you haven't even read NIST's study.

[ablewon]

94. Dude

If you want to believe in miracles, have at it, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

99. You're like a broken record...

miracles...blah, blah, blah...Downing effect...blah, blah, blah.

Your posts are so offbase, there's really no reason to bother with them.

[William Seger]

101. Griffin the fraud: A case in point

I'm pretty danged sure the "scholarly" Dr. Griffin is smart enough to know that "something can't happen unless it's happened before" is a perfectly idiotic argument. Why does he imply that? Have high-rise steel structures partially collapsed because of fire? Yes. Have steel structures that weren't high-rises completely collapsed because of fire? Yes. Have any buildings similar in design details to WTC7 sustained 7-hour unfought fires on 6 floors? No. Does Griffin or any of his disciples offer any scientifically valid reason why WTC7 shouldn't have collapsed because of that fire? No. Do any of them offer any scientifically valid criticism of NIST's expansion hypothesis? No.

You've been had.

[William Seger]

90. Cult of the Griffin

Gosh, we just don't see enough of that around here.

Griffin is a huckster and fraud: He knows full well what's wrong with his arguments, but he also knows what sells books to bullshit addicts.

[ablewon]

93. Speaking of hucksters, frauds , and liars...

Bugliosi, Posner, Popular Mechanics, John McAdams, and the always-amusing Randi.

"Selling stories of 9/11 miracles to lovers of fantasies"

[William Seger]

100. Fantasy is your world

... not mine. Truth is hard to come by, and in the real world, it's usually hard to be sure you've got it right, but there are some methods that have proven themselves more reliable than others. One of them is called critical thinking. Griffin is a fraud for representing himself as a scholar while turning the scholarly method upside down and cranking out propaganda. But his intended marks are people who think the "scholarly method" means putting lots of footnotes in your books.

BTW, Randi doesn't waste any time on any conspiracy bullshit. Or are you still mad at him for exposing people like Uri Geller and James Hydrick as frauds? Or is it because he makes paranormalists look foolish by offering them a million dollars if they can prove their paranormal claims? That does take all the fun out of fantasy, doesn't it.

As for your opinion that the other people on your list are "hucksters, frauds , and liars," well, you haven't exactly established yourself as one who has well-formed opinions, so I have to presume you claim that simply because they intrude on your fantasies. Putting Randi on your list without knowing that he doesn't ever talk about 9/11 proves that you make those kind of claims when in fact you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[ablewon]

95. Now, do you still believe in the 9/11 miracles , as required...

if you support the official version? When you read the miracles in my post below, you'll notice an absence of FL 77 & Pentagon-related
miracles, cell phone calls miracles, the miracle of Barbara Olson's death, resurrection, and 2nd wedding to the fact-challenged,
former U.S. Solicitor General. Plus FL93. All that and a bag of chips and a pack of Newports. Osama, too. In fact, all of the Arab
Patsies. In Hartford, Hereford, and Hampshire, miracles hardly happen...but in NY, VA, and PA, it was RAINING miracles, on 9/11/01.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Dude...

I already debunked your 1st "miracle". Have you noticed that no one has risen to your defense? Why do you think that's the case?

To quote Satchel from "Get Fuzzy", "you can't fix crazy". I'm not even going to try.

[ablewon]

97. NIST debunked your miracle!

Dude, why do you continue to support goofy 9/11 theories that not even NIST supports? Downing Effect, perhaps?

[SDuderstadt]

98. NIST did no such thing, dude...

you keep trying to make this about me, when it's really about the lack of evidence for your goofy theories, dude.

[defendandprotect]

64. Magic planes on 9/11 . . .!!!

[shure]

102. Conversation with Dwain Deets retired NASA exec.

Conversation with Dwain Deets retired NASA exec.

Recently there has been an article put out by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth concerning the speed of UA flight 175 titled: NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

I was able to talk with Dwain Deets about the article and get some clarification on the plane issues:

Mp3 Download link (35.9MB):

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-69500/TS-378263.mp3




.

[spooked911]

103. thanks

just listening to it now

[spooked911]

104. Deets has a site about WTC7

http://www.7problemswithbuilding7.info/

[KDLarsen]

105. Let see..

1) No plane struck WTC 3, 4, 5, or 6 either. Or Fiterman Hall which was located further north of WTC1+2 than WTC7. And yet, they were all pretty much destroyed too? Good golly, I wonder what might have happened to them...

2) Relevance? Given that WTC7 had been ordered clear by the time of the collapse of WTC1, I doubt the first thing on people's mind were to check for fires in that building. In any case, members of the FDNY have already made it clear that they thought during the day, that WTC7 would collapse at some point.

3) Good lord, the NIST updates their theory and findings as new evidence becomes available. And I see Deets is playing the 'WTC7 collapsed in 7 seconds'-card, I guess he doesn't count the East Penthouse collapse as part of the, well, collapse.

4) I take it the BBC have been exonerated for being part of the conspiracy then? I mean, I would consider them a major part of mainstream media, but if Deets is saying that they weren't covering it.. :eyes:

5) Because that wasn't what the 9/11 Commission was set up to do.

.. and apparently Deets couldn't make it to 7 without padding the list, so he had to make 6 and 7 the same thing.

[spooked911]

107. Umm, dude

WTC5&6 don't really help your argument as they underwent massive damage and fires and still didn't collapse. WTC3 was pelted by hundreds of tons of debris and was destroyed, but the lower levels didn't collapse.

I think the point about the fires is that they had a suspicious origin.


The freefall issue is still important because a huge bulk of the structure-- at minimum the outer walls, fell down at freefall speed!

Not sure what your point about the BBC is-- he mentions them in his chart.

One might think the 9/11 commission would have made some mention of the complete "collapse" of WTC7, with it's many important offices.

Nice of you to completely ignore the WTC7 steel pieces that showed extraordinarily high temps! Good work!

[Bolo Boffin]

129. The WTC7 steel piece didn't show temps high enough for thermite.

As a matter of fact, the temps they do exhibit rule out thermite and thermate as a source for the damage to the steel.

[Bolo Boffin]

128. Dwain Deets is also the "writing team lead" for AE911Truth. n/t