View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 Truth News and Updates

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 01 Feb 2014, 21:07

And while we're at it, how about watching his full interview rather than the conveniently edited version that you posted:
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 01 Feb 2014, 21:14

Here's a link to a collection of eyewitnesses:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 01 Feb 2014, 21:25

SydneyPSIder wrote: Further, it's impossible for a plane to travel at 500 mph at sea level, so how is he so sure after the fact that it was doing 500 mph???

Syd, are you sure you want to say this? Absolutely positive? Because, well, How about I just give you a chance to recant this statement if you'd like before I criticize it.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Feb 2014, 06:18

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote: Further, it's impossible for a plane to travel at 500 mph at sea level, so how is he so sure after the fact that it was doing 500 mph???

Syd, are you sure you want to say this? Absolutely positive? Because, well, How about I just give you a chance to recant this statement if you'd like before I criticize it.

I understand it's impossible for a commercial passenger jetliner to travel at 500 mph at sea level, or it would pretty well shake the thing apart. It can do 500mph at say 30,000 feet. It would be pushing it to go beyond 250 mph at sea level.

Certainly any authoritative information you can provide that suggests a 757 or 767 can do 500 mph at sea level and full atmospheric pressure and resistance would be most welcome for examination.

However, more to the point, can you tell me how one or two supposed 'eyewitnesses' caught on video could possibly gauge the speed of a plane at all? How can they judge something is travelling at 500 mph? That figure has come up more than once in what sound like scripted speeches.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 02 Feb 2014, 07:10

SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote: Further, it's impossible for a plane to travel at 500 mph at sea level, so how is he so sure after the fact that it was doing 500 mph???

Syd, are you sure you want to say this? Absolutely positive? Because, well, How about I just give you a chance to recant this statement if you'd like before I criticize it.

I understand it's impossible for a commercial passenger jetliner to travel at 500 mph at sea level, or it would pretty well shake the thing apart. It can do 500mph at say 30,000 feet. It would be pushing it to go beyond 250 mph at sea level.

Certainly any authoritative information you can provide that suggests a 757 or 767 can do 500 mph at sea level and full atmospheric pressure and resistance would be most welcome for examination.

However, more to the point, can you tell me how one or two supposed 'eyewitnesses' caught on video could possibly gauge the speed of a plane at all? How can they judge something is travelling at 500 mph? That figure has come up more than once in what sound like scripted speeches.

I will, but first, what is your reference that the plane was doing 500 mph? I'm not saying it wasn't, just that I've read a reference that says the flight recorder said it was going 350 mph, but I have to run to dinner and a play so I won't be able to get to it until tomorrow.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Feb 2014, 07:42

Mike Walter threw it in as a figure for some reason. I'm not sure how he'd know, given he could have only seen it for a split second.

I believe analyses of the videos of the planes approaching WTC towers that have been put forward as 'genuine' demonstrate that speed. Clearly if it's likely that a jetliner would be shaking itself apart at sea level at that speed then that would call into question whether the videos were genuine or just faked in software. There are other telltales that the videos were faked, such as a plane passing both behind and in front of parts of a crane in the foreground, the nose of one of the planes coming out the other side of one of the towers completely intact in profile (impossible in physics, but easily explicable technically if the shot was faked), and the low level of likelihood of a plane just 'disappearing' into a solid concrete and steel building like butter without the ends of wings, the engines and the tail falling off and landing in the street.

Of course, it took quite some time for the supposed flight recorders to be 'discovered', and we are being asked to accept the alleged readings off the alleged recorders at face value. I'm sure the architects of the hoax had some time to consider what were 'reasonable' speeds to report to the public based on the likelihood and the physics after having some time to consider what readings to fake. It's also possible remote controlled planes could have been used at slower speeds pre-programmed with GPS values for the towers, given that there were eyewitness reports of a plane with no passenger windows, etc.

Another question also: given that the supposed hijackers could not even fly a simple single-engine Cessna properly, and would have only been trained (at best) in the most basic radio communications required for a restricted pilot's license, could not take off or land, and had been refused to hire a single-engine plane at an earlier stage because they could not demonstrate competence, how on earth could they have flown several hundred miles inland, then turned around and flown several hundred miles back to the east coast on a different trajectory, unable to use any of the advanced navigation equipment on the planes or obtain much by way of visual cues, in order to unwaveringly and accurately seek out and find the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and some other supposed alleged target of great patriotic significance? How did they master flying a 757 or 767 and its extremely complicated controls having just flown a single-engine Cessna without taking off or landing for a short period? Why do a 270 degree turn around the Pentagon rather than just dive into it? How did they then manage to skim the ground and plough into the ground floor so accurately without touching the lawn? How would they even get a visual on the Pentagon from the air, given that you can't look down from a jetliner cockpit flying level and see the ground, except distantly towards the horizon?

I'm leaning towards the possibility that the missile/s that struck the Pentagon and possibly the WTC towers were DU-containing Tomahawks, which can be launched from the air or ground, and cost about $2M each. That seems quite feasible to me, and doesn't require a B-52 to launch. What do you think of that possibility?



Impossible speeds measured or reported for WTC 'attacks'?
9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed
For Immediate Release

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at http://pilotsfor911truth.org.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Feb 2014, 08:43

Here's some further evidence there's something 'wrong' with the FDR info from 'Flight 77' that hit the Pentagon.

It's possible that FDR info was pulled from a decoy jetliner that did a flyover of the Pentagon on a different route -- northwards, as identified by many honest eyewitnesses at the nearby service station -- and obviously at a greater height than the top of the Pentagon. This would explain both the north route data and 180/300ft data that has been presented. There are other signs of tampering with the data however, as outlined below.

Profwag might like to try to rebut this as well, using some sort of convoluted back-flipping, excuse-making, decoy tactic, as per the usual playbook, demonstrating the finest art of pseudoscepticism, whereas a real sceptic, like much of the American public and the rest of the world when surveyed, might actually thing there was something suspiciously wrong with the 'official' story.

Common Strategy Prior to 9/11/2001

It is hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him. Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why was Capt. Burlingame, a retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, reported to have given up his airplane to 5 foot 6, 100 lbs Hani Hanjour holding a "boxcutter". We at pilotsfor911truth.org feel the same as his family in that Capt. Burlingame would not have given up his airplane unlike what is reported in this linked article from CNN.

"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters."
CNN - September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)

The pilots' number 1 priority is the safety of the passengers. Number 2 priority is to get them to their destination on time. Pilots don't just give up their airplane to someone with a knife... regardless of what the press has told you about The Common Strategy prior to 9/11.

To those pilots out there. Think about the old Common Strategy... we know it was to cooperate.. but was it to give up your ship to anyone with a knife? No! What the press doesn't tell the public is that there is a lot more to the old Common Strategy than "complete, full cooperation".

Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

The screenshot shows the very last frame of the recorded data. It stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet.

This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment. For further details, please see our Technical Paper here and Press Release here outlining our findings.

Questions For NTSB/FBI Regarding Flight Data Recorder Information
1.The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.
2.What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.
3.What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.
4.Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).
5.Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?
10.How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?
11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.
12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

A very helpful FAA official! Willing to bend and break all the rules to keep their patsy in the course, under instructions from on high. Who said bureaucrats were heartless, keeping this poor man in his course despite all of his handicaps! Quite a few 'Arabic' people with stolen passports from other Arabic people (why would you need to do that?) involved in the story, too!
"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager."

"The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour. "

"Chevrette, the flight school manager, said she told Anthony she believed Hanjour could not write or speak English fluently as required to get a U.S. commercial pilot's license."

"The thing that really concerned me was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English," Chevrette said.

Chevrette said she was surprised when the FAA official suggested the school might consider getting a translator to help Hanjour.

"He offered a translator," Chevrette said. "Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license."
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Feb 2014, 10:52

Apparently AA77 airspeed was 460 knots or 530 mph according to the FDR -- allegedly. Although note the problems with the data supplied as described in a preceding post, which is more consonant with a northern flyover that was both too high and off course to knock over any lights or hit the Pentagon.

This is an interesting 45 minute doco prepared by experienced, honest pilots also:

http://www.vimeo.com/6679633

The information supplied in that documentary suggests ProfWag is going to have a very hard time producing any evidence of the safe or possible top speed of a Boeing 757 or 767 being anywhere near 500 mph at sea level.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Feb 2014, 20:11

Oh, and there appears to be

Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

03/03/11 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) When Pilots For 9/11 Truth was founded in the late summer of 2006, the objective was to find evidence supporting what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission as many theories were rumored that elements within the US Government might have had something to do with 9/11. Co-Founder Rob Balsamo explains how he was puzzled and motivated to pursue further research into the events of 9/11 in his citation at PatriotsQuestion911.com, which lead to the formation of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. More than four years of solid research through Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests, numerous interviews and expert analysis has revealed no hard evidence supporting or linking to -- and in many instances factually conflicting with -- conclusions made by the 9/11 Commission. Now there is overwhelming evidence which suggests the data that is being provided to the public through the FOIA, is not from an aircraft which has been operated by American Airlines.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth analysis of data being provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has revealed the data does not support an impact with the Pentagon, exceeds the capabilities of a standard 757/767 by a wide margin, while demonstrating control issues for an "inexperienced pilot" (See 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon, 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, and Flight Of American 77). The data itself does not support what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. When contacted, the NTSB and the FBI refused to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth went on to research if there was any evidence linking the data to N644AA (the aircraft described as "Flight 77"), once again, there is no evidence to support the government version of events(1). Research was also performed to determine if there was any evidence whatsoever linking the limited number of parts found at the Pentagon, to N644AA(2). In an unprecedented turn of events, the parts were never verified by any government agency for any of the four aircraft reported to have been used on 9/11. In all instances, there hasn't been any evidence provided by government agencies to support what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. Further analysis reveals evidence demonstrating the data provided was not generated by an American Airlines airplane in the case of the attack on the Pentagon.

DATA FRAME LAYOUT

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have been provided several files through the FOIA. One file in particular, a raw Flight Data Recorder file which is described as a direct download from the FDR, contains binary code which needs to be decoded for a proper readout in a spreadsheet such as Excel. In order to decode such data, a Data Frame Layout is required. Derived from a generic Boeing Data Frame Layout, American Airlines provided it's own custom made Data Frame Layout which was designed for decoding data from aircraft within the American Airlines fleet, based on airline needs exclusive to American Airlines (AAL). The custom made AAL Data Frame Layout was unable to decode the data in full, and in some instances, neither the AAL Data Frame Layoyut nor the generic Boeing Data Frame Layout were able to be utilized in decoding the data(3). Why would American Airlines design their own custom Data Frame Layout if it cannot decode data from their aircraft? Or perhaps the data being provided is not from an American Airlines jet?

FLIGHT DECK DOOR

Pilots For 9/11 Truth also found, according to the data, there is no evidence suggesting a "Hijack" had occurred. A Flight Deck Door parameter shows the door closed for the entire flight. No evidence has been provided thus far which shows the Flight Deck Door open in order to facilitate a "Hijack".(4)

LATITUDE/LONGITUDE

Further evidence that the data is not from an American Airlines jet nor American Airlines Flight 77, comes in the form of Latitude and Longitude (Lat/Long) coordinates in the data itself. When plotted, the Lat/Long coordinates are more than 3,000 feet in error at time of departure from Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD). According to American Airlines 757/767 Operating Manual, along with several American Airlines 757/767 Captains, the navigational instruments (known as an IRS or Inertial Reference System), is aligned at the gate, prior to all flights(5). If such an error is observed in an American Airlines airplane, the aircraft is grounded until fixed. It would never leave the gate. If such an error was encountered during taxi to the runway, the Captain would have had to return to the gate until it was fixed.(6)

DEPARTURE GATE AND FULL ALIGNMENT

According to official reports and audio provided by government agencies, American Airlines Flight 77 departed from Gate D26 at IAD(7). However, when the Lat/Long data is adjusted for the 3,000+ foot offset, the data shows a departure from a gate other than D26(8). American Airlines requires a full alignment (as opposed to a "fast alignment") prior to every flight with the pilots physically inputting the Lat/Long coordinates of the gate, provided by navigational charts, into their navigational system. The aircraft should have never left the gate with such a large error within it's navigational system. Although some aircraft have the ability to update it's position in flight, an "update" is very different from an alignment. Any "updates" in flight will not be accurate if the initial alignment was not achieved at the gate. It is interesting to note that Military Aircraft are capable of in flight alignment of an Inertial Navigation System.

AUTO-ALIGNMENT AND GPS

Military aircraft were equipped with GPS (Global Positioning Systems) long before GPS was offered for Commercial use. When equipped, they can auto-align the Inertial Reference System. N644AA (American Airlines Flight 77) was not equipped with a GPS. However, when one looks through the data, it shows a GPS as "OPERational"(12) and an airborne auto-alignment. How can a GPS be "OPER" if the data is reported to come from an aircraft which doesn't have a GPS? The data shows that the Lat/Long plots auto-aligned with Radar plots in flight after departure(9). American Airlines aircraft do not have the capability of in flight alignment nor would such an aircraft depart with such a large error and an IRS as it's primary source for navigation. It is impossible for an IRS equipped American Airlines jet to give accurate position information if the system was not aligned at the gate. The aircraft needs to be stationary for proper alignment or else the navigational device will have large errors and could perhaps be fatal(10). According to American Airlines 757/767 Captain Ralph Kolstad who has actual flight time in N644AA, if the Inertial Reference System (IRS) is lost in flight (or shows large errors), an emergency has to be declared. The aircraft is required to sit stationary for more than 10 minutes in order obtain a full alignment of the Inertial Reference System prior to every flight, according to and as required by American Airlines 757/767 Operating Manual(11). How can an auto-align occur airborne if American Airlines aircraft do not have this capability nor a GPS? This is more evidence demonstrating the data did not come from an American Airlines jet.

CONCLUSION

The data does not support an impact with the Pentagon, does not support a departure from the gate claimed by official reports, if the data was in fact generated by an actual aircraft, it was generated by one which is more advanced than N644AA capability in both avionics (instruments) and performance. Furthermore, the data is not able to be decoded in full by a custom data frame layout made by American Airlines exclusively for their aircraft.

The evidence is overwhelming. The data did not come from an American Airlines Jet. Pilots For 9/11 Truth are asked regularly, "If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go?" That is a GREAT question! Pilots For 9/11 Truth recommend demanding answers in order to obtain the data from the aircraft which is claimed to have departed gate D26 at Washington Dulles on the morning of September 11, 2001 and most importantly corresponds through Lat/Long plots to a departure from Gate D26. From there, it can be tracked to where it went! Unfortunately, subpoena power will perhaps be needed to get such information and data, as FOIA requests have been exhausted and the government agencies who have responded to such requests refuse further comment. "We have fulfilled our request. You get what you get, the data we gave you doesn't support our findings? No comment! " has proven to be the case. Lawsuits have been filed by victims of 9/11, particularly one by April Gallop, a survivor from the Pentagon. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have signed an affidavit in support of Ms Gallop along with providing evidence for the case. Now all that is needed is a fair and just Judge willing to look at the evidence before throwing out the case(14).

Almost Ten years has elapsed since the events of September 11, 2001. There has been no hard evidence linking the claims made by the 9/11 Commission to their conclusions. Even the 9/11 Commission admits they have been lied to and "Set up to fail"(13). Write your Congress, write your Senators, inform them the data being provided by government agencies through the Freedom Of Information Act does not support the 9/11 Commission findings, show them the overwhelming evidence that the data did not come from an American Airlines jet.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack. 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.

(1) Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77 - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cim ... 7-FDR.html
(2) Ibid
(3) Notes On Parameters - http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDeco ... eters.html
(4) 9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_7 ... sible.html
(5) 757/767 Operating Manual Pre-Flight Checklist - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... p=10795614
(6) Expert Statements - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... p=10795633
(7) Pilots For Truth Forum - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... p=10795631
(8) Aircraft Departure Gate Positional Data Conflicts With Government Story - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/aa77-gate-position.html
(9) In Flight Alignment - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pics/in-flight-align.jpg
(10) 757/767 Operating Manual Pre-Flight Checklist - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... p=10795614
(11) Ibid
(12) Data provided by NTSB - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/FinalF ... mplete.zip
(13) 9/11 Commission Chair Lee Hamilton, "Set up to Fail" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM
(14) Pilots For 9/11 Truth Sign Affidavit In Lawsuit Brought By Pentagon Survivor - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html

It's like they ran it later with a jet fighter doing a pass overhead to create the data in an FDR. Or perhaps it was another plane on the same day, a militarised jet with GPS etc, possibly an adapted Boeing? Reference 8 suggests a different gate for departure, possibly D23.

I'm sure Profwag will assure there's a perfectly simple and innocent explanation for all of this. Particularly the need for FOIs and the silence whenever something is picked up or queried with the govt agencies involved. All 'public servants' effectively complicit in murder or accessories after the fact under the law?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 02 Feb 2014, 21:57

SydneyPSIder wrote:
The information supplied in that documentary suggests ProfWag is going to have a very hard time producing any evidence of the safe or possible top speed of a Boeing 757 or 767 being anywhere near 500 mph at sea level.

Syd, you're absolutely right that I won't have a video of a 757 doing that, but where you're misleading is the comment using the word "safe." The 757 flying 500 at sea level doesn't have to be "safe" as you say. It has to be possible. It is. Do some research on pilot websites and you'll find little resistance to the possibility of the maneuver (no, the the pilots for truth or whatever the hell it is) There are quite a few videos out there of 757's doing some amazing stuff at low level. Here's one and, admittedly isn't at 500 mph, but is pretty cool none-the-less:


I have first-hand knowledge that the F-111 could fly over mach 1 at 500 feet. (I was directly involved in Operation Eldorado Canyon while at RAF Lakenheath.) To say aircraft can't do that is ignorance which is okay if you don't know, but don't tell me it's impossible for an aircraft. (Side note, the F-111 was the baddest plane ever, in my opinion, except when they took off with afterburners right over my house at 2 a.m.) Also, imagine being on the wrong end of a pave tac missile coming from a plane flying faster than the speed of sound at just above tree-top level. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that wouldn't have been all that fun, but cool to see if you weren't the target.

Summary, you're not going to find very much physical evidence of a 757 flying 500 mph at sea level simply because it isn't safe to do. It's not like Boeing is going to let a test pilot try it out for god's sake. However, that doesn't mean that it's not possible, especially for a relatively short period of time. You really need to keep those points in mind.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Feb 2014, 09:24

So you have no evidence of the ability of a 757 or 767 to travel at 500 mph at sea level for any length of time -- especially while pulling difficult control manoeuvres requiring a huge amount of precision -- without falling apart. As the videos scripted by experienced pilots suggest, any attempt to control a jetliner at sea level attempting high speeds could result in destruction of the plane and massive overcorrections in flight, thus missing a narrow target.

Of course some very streamlined jet fighters can do it, they're designed that way. Boeing, on the other hand, design their jetliners for optimal stratospheric flight with very little safety factor for insane speeds at sea level, as of course that is for taking off and landing only. Australia ran the F-111 as the mainstay fighter-bomber for many years, my father (a metallurgist) did some work analysing premature stress cracks in the wings once upon a time.

Although, apparently (!), three or four scrawny diminutive little untrained pilots with 15 accomplices who couldn't have possibly gotten onto jetliners carrying boxcutters or knives according to airport rules have apparently (!) demonstrated perfect control and structural integrity of those planes at insane speeds at sea level! That was certainly one unfortunate way to find out just how good those planes are. Just as it was demonstrated that impossible GSM mobile calls can be made from 20,000-30,000 feet in the air even though we always thought the physics of the antennae and the principles of telecoms and handshaking said that wasn't possible! And funnily enough it's not possible from a plane if you try it now! They sure were lucky that day. Got some recordings too. And, lastly, we always thought steel-framed skyscrapers were solid in a low temperature fire and a collision because of solid civil engineering practices, because every other steel framed skyscraper that has caught fire in history has remained standing, but those WTC buildings just collapsed into dust on the day. What a metallurgical find! It's only a shame they carted all the steel off post haste to recycling yards in GPS-tracked trucks and straight onto ships to China before they could run any tests on the steel girders or examine them closely. And then of course WTC7 collapsed all by itself. Another world first. All three looked and acted like controlled demolitions and there were signs of thermite shearing activity and arcs of molten steel further down the buildings and a line of squib explosions, but that's just random coincidental stuff that resembled that kind of activity, don't worry about any of that. I think the NIST covered it in that fat report somewhere, so nothing to see there. Then there was all that strange 'maintenance' activity taking place in the towers for weeks prior to that.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 03 Feb 2014, 19:26

SydneyPSIder wrote: Just as it was demonstrated that impossible GSM mobile calls can be made from 20,000-30,000 feet in the air even though we always thought the physics of the antennae and the principles of telecoms and handshaking said that wasn't possible! And funnily enough it's not possible from a plane if you try it now!

Syd, why are you so insistent on providing false information? You'll never know the truth about a subject until you research the information on your own. Tell us, just how many cell phone calls were made from planes on 9/11 from above 10,000 feet?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 04 Feb 2014, 07:34

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote: Just as it was demonstrated that impossible GSM mobile calls can be made from 20,000-30,000 feet in the air even though we always thought the physics of the antennae and the principles of telecoms and handshaking said that wasn't possible! And funnily enough it's not possible from a plane if you try it now!

Syd, why are you so insistent on providing false information? You'll never know the truth about a subject until you research the information on your own. Tell us, just how many cell phone calls were made from planes on 9/11 from above 10,000 feet?

what game is this you're playing now, pseudo'prof'wag?

Last month, Qualcomm Corporation issued a press release stating that they had developed a new technology that would finally make it possible to make cellular phone calls from commercial airliners. Using a technology called "Pico Cells", the system will work as a link between the airliner and ground towers. According to the press release, it is currently impossible to connect by cell phone in a plane that is above 4,000 feet.

During the Republican National Convention in New York City last month, Deena Burnett, widow of Flight 93 victim Tom Burnett, spoke of the four telephone calls she received from her husband aboard the doomed airliner on September 11th, all of which were received from his cell phone, one of which lasted 13 minutes.

With the FAA statement that Flight 93 never went below 29,000 feet until its' sudden fatal plunge, these two stories seem to be mutually exclusive. Either it is possible to make cell phone calls from a commercial jetliner in flight at cruising altitude - or it isn't.

So the critical question becomes this: Is it possible to make a cell phone call from cruising altitudes in a jetliner? The answer is disturbing, disquieting, and emphatic.

Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks, said it was "a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations". NSA-trained Electronic Warfare specialist Steve Moser goes further, expressing that he has "severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft (Flight 93)". Moser explains: "When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is your cell phone needs to contact a transponder and complete a digital handshake. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to contact a tower, tell the tower who you are and who your provider is, tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and establish that it is in a roaming area, before it passes out of range. It takes 30-45 seconds to do that. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible."

Independent researcher A. K. Dewdney conducted a series of experiments in February and March of 2003, over Toronto, Ontario. Chartering planes from a local airport, Dewdney's team went aloft with different cell phones licensed by all major providers. The pilots were instructed to fly in a grid that covered the overlapping cellular communication towers of five major carriers in metropolitan Toronto. Team members kept records of calls and results from varying altitudes. At 2000 feet, calls could be made about half the time. At 4,000 feet only an average of one in 4 calls was completed. At 6,000 feet, the average was 1 in 12 calls connected. At 8,000 feet and above there was no connection by any of the phones. Dewdney's report concluded "It may be noted in passing that these experiments were conducted in a radio-transparent aircraft with carbon-fibre construction. Failure to make a call from such an aircraft with any particular brand of cellphone spells automatic failure for the same phone from a metal-clad aircraft flying at the same altitude. A metal skin attenuates all cell phone signals to a significant degree. It may safely be concluded that the operational ceiling for cellular phones in aluminum skin aircraft (passenger liners, for example) would be significantly lower than the ones reported here. It may therefore safely be concluded that cell phone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet, and statistically unlikely below that altitude."

Finally, I called a friend who works for Jet Blue in New York City as a flight attendant. I asked her if she had ever used her cell phone aboard a flight. "Sure" she said, "but not in the air". I asked her why not. "Well, first of all, it's against the rules. It interferes with the plane's electronics." So I asked her if she turned her phone off to avoid getting calls during flights. "No, we don't have to do that. The phone loses the signal automatically right after we take off. There's no signal, so it won't ring anyway until we land."

http://www.bushstole04.com/911/strange_case.htm


As noted, if a plane is travelling at 500 mph (or in fact anything appreciably over 100 mph which is the maximum assumed speed on the ground for the mobile phone network to operate in its design), it is not possible for it to handshake with any one tower before passing on to the next tower, whereupon, assuming it could even get reasonable signal strength, it would start to try to handshake all over again, before losing the signal and passing to the next tower, and so on. So you could never initiate a call.

Further, the mobile phone network antenna design is designed and optimised to spread signal horizontally across the ground, it doesn't send out an omnidirectional strong signal right up into the air like a huge sphere, as that is of no use whatsoever. So it's extremely hard to get any useable signal at all at any altitude, as demonstrated in the Dewdney study -- i.e. someone who had the determination to call out the US govt's bullsh1t on this matter and conduct a few trials.

Hasn't your ass been kicked enough? Haven't you been hit to the boundary enough times? You keep coming back and doing it again and again, it's just playing pseudosceptic obstructionist games. Wrong about reported speeds of planes, wrong about phones, and we've barely started covering this event in any detail. You haven't produced those wonderful 'eyewitness' reports that have already been soundly discredited by others either. Pseudo'prof'wag has spearheaded the ongoing failure of the pseudoscep project. I think you're just posting to take up bandwidth now out of loneliness. Although without a Socratic thesis-antithesis foil going, perhaps this information and analysis wouldn't be getting out there.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 04 Feb 2014, 08:08

Sorry Syd, your conspiracy theorist friends have led you astray again. Gawd I wish you'd research non-conspiracy websites.
Above you referenced the following: "According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a “fluke” that so many calls reached their destinations."

Unfortunately, you failed, once again I might add, to include the WHOLE statement from Ms. Graf which stated in its entirety:

"Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

“They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said.

It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added."
http://connectedplanetonline.com/wirele ... l_contact/

And second, here's this:
Making Calls From The Air


By Brad Smith
September 24, 2001
c 2003, Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
When several passengers aboard the hijacked airliners made calls to family and spouses from their wireless phones on the now-infamous Sept. 11, it came as a surprise to many that the calls actually were completed.

Although airline passengers are warned against using their mobile phones in flight, it's fairly well-known that private airplane pilots often use regular cellular and PCS phones, even if it is illegal. Not quite as well-known, however, is that people have used their wireless phones to make surreptitious calls from the bathrooms of airliners.

The technology is there to support such airborne mobile connections. Take the Colorado company Aircell Inc., which uses FCC-approved equipment for wireless phone service.

But how does a terrestrial technology work in the sky?

First, altitude in itself is not a problem. Earthbound wireless phones can talk to base stations up to 10 miles away, depending on the terrain, while a typical passenger jet flies at an altitude of about six and a half miles. Since cell site antennas are configured to pick up signals horizontally and not from overhead, performance is usually compromised in calls from above. Nevertheless, cell sites can pick up signals from the air from great distances.

Toby Seay, vice president of national field operations for AT&T Wireless, says the technological limits to using a cell phone aboard a plane include the signal strength, potential signal inhibitors and "free space loss" as the signal gradually loses strength. The frequency used can make a difference, too. A signal using an 800 MHz cellular frequency can travel farther than a 1900 MHz PCS signal because of the different propagation characteristics of the two wavelengths.

The biggest problem with a phone signal sent from the air is that it can reach several different cell sites simultaneously. The signal can interfere with callers already using that frequency, and because there is no way for one cell site to hand off calls to another that is not adjacent to it, signals can become scrambled in the process. That's why wireless calls from jetliners don't last long, says Kathryn Condello, vice president of industry operations for CTIA. The network keeps dropping the calls, even if they are re-established later.

The phones on the back of the seats in most airplanes work similarly to a regular wireless phone. The major differences are that the antennas at the ground base stations are set up to pick up the signals from the sky, and there are far fewer stations handing off signals from one to another as a plane crosses overhead.

Also, Seay says, the airplane phones operated by AT&T Wireless and the GTE subsidiary of Verizon Communications send signals through wires to an antenna mounted on the outside of the plane. That is done to prevent interference with the plane's own radio communications, as well as to eliminate signal loss caused by the airplane's metal fuselage.

Syd, please stop posting half-told stories to make it fit your agenda. It's the lazy way out.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 04 Feb 2014, 08:34

This is just completely hilarious.

You, and they, the 'spokespersons' are starting with the final desired conclusion and working back to possible unlikely explanations that do not fit the physics. What's the name of that particular logical fallacy? Because you personally like to do it a lot.

I've published one trial that was set up to determine the truth of the matter, and it came out false -- phone calls could not be made. Note that that study was conducted in a slow-moving turboprop aircraft also, whereas we are lead to believe the jetliners were travelling considerably faster in a straight line, making the chance of a phone call connecting even less likely.

Calls would not go end-to-end, i.e. last from beginning to end without dropouts, in fact they would not even be established in the first place, for a plane flying at any speed much above 100 mph, due to the simple v=s/t equation of how long it takes to handshake with a particular cell phone tower. So excessive altitude and therefore weak signal is one reason it won't work, and handshaking time at high speed and at ANY altitude is another.

These 'spokespeople' you cite will most definitely not be scientists or experts in wireless telephony, they are just PR suits, you know, the kind of spin doctors that they use to diddle people out of their phone bills or spin any network downtime to the public etc.

The excerpted quote below sums it your illogic perfectly -- the supposition you and they are making is complete ungrounded and disproven in a trial. You have presented no evidence whatsoever, just people working backwards from a conclusion. You have proven or disproven absolutely nothing. What a joke you and the apologists are.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.” [how much 'leakage' would this be, exactly? no figures? didn't think so. I would suggest any such 'leakage' would be miniscule in line with the design intent of the antennas. we only have a message from a suit on this, not from a design engineer who would be proud of their work minimising any such 'leakage'.]

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added. [this has been proven to be false, which has been backed up over and over again by reports from flight attendants and aviation workers in general]

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less. [More self-evident BS.]

“They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said. [Oh, OK, I see now, that makes perfect sense -- it worked because clearly it worked. No other explanation is possible. Circular reasoning.]

The work has already been done and evidence has already been presented, and can be replicated in study after study -- not that govt officials seem to keen to do that, for some reason.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest