It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

P4T Presentation - Attack on World Trade Center

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

I had some small contributions within this presentation; also saw some sneak peeks. Interviews with current 757/767 pilots and all. It's going to be killer!




posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   


Pilots For 9/11 Truth first trailer for the upcoming presentation "9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK" analyzing the events which took place in downtown New York on September 11, 2001.

source


Another excellent analysis from Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Coming soon.

Can't wait. One more step closer to justice for the victims of the 9-11 perps.



Maybe we will find out from real pilots just how difficult those turning flight paths into the towers really were.




[edit on 9/14/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
www.youtube.com...

I had some small contributions within this presentation; also saw some sneak peeks. Interviews with current 757/767 pilots and all. It's going to be killer!


I'm looking forward to what your "pilots and all" say. So far their credibility is zero with their Pentaon AA 77 track record. It will be interesting to see what they say about the NY events.

Will they get into/deal with the usual *Snip* claims of:

No planes?
Military Planes?
Hologram planes?
Fake planes?
Remote controlled planes?
Cruise missiles?
Laser beams?
Nukes?
mini nukes?
Pods?
Forward spraying fuel apparatus?
Forward firing missiles?
Impossible speeds?
Impossible flight characteristics?
Impossible pilot capabilities?

We're all ears...and eyes.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/14/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Just a taste of how difficult it would be for Boeing 767s to impact the WTC Towers in the hands of inexperienced pilots.



So were the WTC aircraft remote-piloted by highly experienced pilots?



Professional Pilots Rob Balsamo and FAA Authorized Flight Examiner/Check Airman Dan Govatos discuss the difficulty of the WTC attacks as well as attempts to duplicate the attack in an Airline Simulator on tnrlive.com.

source



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
www.youtube.com...

I had some small contributions within this presentation; also saw some sneak peeks. Interviews with current 757/767 pilots and all. It's going to be killer!


It's years too late. Your 9/11 Denial Movement died long ago.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Hey SPreston, did you read that? We're Dead?! I guess all that news
coverage and growing professional organizations is just a figment of our
imaginations?

I can't wait to hear what 757/767 pilots have to say abuot hitting targets
via hand flown airliners.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

posted by turbofan

Hey SPreston, did you read that? We're Dead?! I guess all that news coverage and growing professional organizations is just a figment of our imaginations?

I can't wait to hear what 757/767 pilots have to say abuot hitting targets via hand flown airliners.



Yes. Dead. Really dead. Years ago. Frightening isn't it? A proclamation of death from that reservoir of truth dogging our heels.

Heck he is helping us far more than hurting us with his incessant rejection of important 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY evidence. He just tosses their carefully photoshopped videos and still frames into the toilet. Somebody toiled really hard on that prime evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon, and he just trashes their work. What kind of government loyalty is that? Just like an out-of-control pit bull that can't let go. The 9-11 perps still pay him?


posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.



I'm surprised the 9-11 perps have not offed him yet.

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Parking Lot Still Frames



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 





Hey SPreston, did you read that? We're Dead?! I guess all that news
coverage and growing professional organizations is just a figment of our
imaginations?


Yeah - was at WTC last week for Sept 11. Saw 6 truthers jabbering away

On the other hand there were firemen/police from all over the country
thousands of them. Talked to several of them - placed flowers at
memorial plaque on TEN house wall

Draw your own conclusions....



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

posted by thedman
reply to post by turbofan
 


On the other hand there were firemen/police from all over the country thousands of them. Talked to several of them - placed flowers at memorial plaque on TEN house wall

Draw your own conclusions....


Draw our own conclusions? Sure thing.

The 503 WTC 1st responders who were ignored by the 9-11 Whitewash Commission STILL want to testify under oath about the explosions and demolition described in their 19,000 pages of testimony, and will be completely supported by firemen/police from all over the country thousands of them, and many oithers.

Was that also your conclusion?


Google Video Link



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Is a commercial plane designed to fly at speeds of 500+ MPH at such low altitude? And if it does not break apart or start shaking at that speed, what are the chances of being able to control and maneuver it without much difficulty?

I thought planes were designed to go at these top speeds at their much higher cruising altitude. If a commercial plane was capable of traveling at top speed at a low altitude, the pilot would not waste time and fuel to elevate to cruising altitude, prior to hitting top speed. He would just be gunning the turbines from the time he takes off.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


You're hitting the nail on the head. These points will be covered thoroughly
in the video.

As you say, even 'if' the plane would stay together at such speeds, the
aerodynamic limitations would be far exceeded and control would be in question.

This is not a , "point and shoot" type scenario. It takes skill and well planned
action to make sure the aircraft lines up with a runway even at approach
speeds.

Now we have rookies making this happen at well over 767 capabilities,
hitting targets at will?


Hopefully the video will highlight the difficulty of high speed flight.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Boeing 767 are designed with max speed of .86 mach or 654 at sea level
this speed is determined by stress to airframe and risk of structural
failure




1. The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed point to point distance covered over time.
2. A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively.
3. The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or UA175.
4. The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS - Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine.
5. Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is 360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph, which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated) used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance.
6. The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to be a “slick” or “low drag” aircraft, being without bulbous construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration.

Considering all of these facts we are still left with the question: Can a 767-200 make 560mph ground speed at sea level or the equivalent of .74 of Mach speed? We know that it is definitely within its design parameters and that it can do so at high altitude (not in question), but can it do this at sea level (higher air density)? Considering that 560mph is 145mph faster than its recommended maximum operating speed (Lear’s argument), it is simply not possible to test this speed in a commercial 767-200 aircraft; it would be against the aircraft manufacturer’s recommendations, outside of standard company operating procedures and against the authorities’ rules (FAA in US). For these reasons we will not see a 767-200 attain 560mph in operation unless it is in the middle of an aircraft incident or accident. The only way to test this is in an accredited Full Flight Simulator.


Of course when your aim is to slam it into a building - you dont
care about structural failure....



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

2. A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure


Hey Thedman, that's a pretty bold claim you are propagating.

Do you care to tell me why that statement is grossly in error?

Any pilots around here that can set Thedman straight before I do?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Still wanna stick with your answer Thedman? What is your source?

Must not be an aircraft MFG, or pilot site


www.tscm.com...

books.google.ca...=onepage&q=Airspeed%20Mach%20Number&f=f alse

You are dead wrong about the use of the Mach number. Coincidentally,
this is covered in the upcoming Pilots for Truth video.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

posted by turbofan
Still wanna stick with your answer Thedman? What is your source?

Must not be an aircraft MFG, or pilot site


www.tscm.com...

books.google.ca...=onepage&q=Airspeed%20Mach%20Number&f=f alse

You are dead wrong about the use of the Mach number. Coincidentally, this is covered in the upcoming Pilots for Truth video.


I think thedman gets his nonsense from Model Airplane News; or maybe he just makes it up from scratch.

We need some facts from real pilots [edited rude comment]

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 15/9/2009 by kosmicjack]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
No Doubt SP!

Here's another gross error on his part:


3. The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or UA175


WRONG! You are confusing VMo and MMo! Look it up. Understand it.

The aircraft cannot go 100 MPH "conservatively" over VMo! That's BS.

VMo of a 767 is 360 Knots! You do NOT reference the speed of sound to
determine the operating speed of an aircraft.

You have to look at the MFG rated data as EVERY aircraft is different!

360 knots VMo = 414.280601 miles per hour at the specified ALTITUDE.

Sooo...you say 100 MPH over VMo should be 654 MPH at 700 feet?


what is 414.28 + 100?

Unreal. Your math doesn't even make sense.

Aircraft have two max operating speeds VMo and MMo for a reason -
that reason involves altitude and air density.

FYI: The cross-over altitude for VMo / MMo is ~ 27,000 feet.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Fortunately for us the statute of limitaions on murder does not exist, and it will therefore never be too late. For someone that likes to speculate on law, you sure do have a 0% track record of being correct.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join