source: Pilots for 9/11 Truth June 23, 2010
Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.
Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth – “9/11: World Trade Center Attack”.
Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:
A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service – retired)
AIAA Associate FellowThe airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?
The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click “Who is Ethically Responsible” submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.
Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:
Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the “Elephant In The Room” and needs to be thoroughly investigated.
For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.
To view the scene from “9/11: World Trade Center Attack” analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.
For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of “Hijacker” pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more… please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, “9/11: World Trade Center Attack“.
Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.
Comments? Click here for discussion.
The real elephant in the room for the 9/11 “truth movement” is that all four hijacked planes were tracked to their crash locations by ATC, and left wreckage that was witnessed by thousands of people. “No-planers” are the bottom of the barrel.
Albury,
You are back! And to no surprise you are trying to stir up some bull by bringing up no-planers.
Have a good day disruping people trying to save this country.
If they aren’t “no-planers,” what’s their point in falsely claiming that 757s, 767s, and the hijacker/pilots couldn’t possibly have done what the planes on 9/11 did?
The point Albury, which has not changed in almost nine years, is that we need a REAL GOOD TRANSPARENT LEGITIMATE 9/11 INVESTIGATION.
The obvious indiscrepencies from the 9/11 official conspiracy theory to REALITY is so far from legitimate that you have to incredibly naive to argue for it.
Or paid.
I’m neither, and I doubt very seriously whether you’ve even read the 9/11 Commission Report, NCSTAR 1 or 1A, but what indiscrepancies do you think are in them?
The 9/11 Commission was the first book I read on the subject.
The indiscrepencies have been stated enough, and you know them.
I know that you’ve probably manufactured some discrepancies in the 9/11 Commission Report out of thin air, and probably know little to nothing about structural engineering, so are totally unqualified to critique the NIST reports.
I was able to talk with Dwain Deets about the article and get some clarification on the plane issues:
Link to conversation:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3611382/
.
Thanks Jeff,
Your work is amazing, I have appreciated it through the years… The interview with Dwain is great.
It should be no surprise that there is more than one elephant in the room, infact, 9/11 is the whole zoo.
Thanks again, I will be sure to post this. And the Continuous Pieces movie is another job well done….
Be in touch,
Brian Romanoff
From Dawin Deet’s regarding the above call made by Jeff.
“First, Jeff did not inform me at any time, before or after, that he was recording the call. That is very unethical.
Second, No, speed is still the “elephant in the room.” That is because it is easier to pin down. It’s a more objective measure that makes it clear the conflict between what is reported as the speed, and what the airplane apparently can do without having a severe problem, making it a vividly clear — elephant?
However, I believe the controlability issue is the more challenging, given that the speed was somehow able to be obtained, thus the more improbable. The thing about controlability is that it is less objective, less of a black or white issue. It depends on, among a number of things, the pilot’s ability to perform a difficult task under very unfavorable circumstances.
Third, No, I didn’t say Rob was twisting or misrepresenting what I said. I said, I believe, he was emphasizing the speed problem more than I was.
Dwain”
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=773543&t=3611382