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.

 

Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

page: 24
154
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by GhostLancer Another fact is that aeronautical physics makes flying a 757 just feet off the ground (which has little to no damage) across that lawn nearly impossible


That's just brilliant.

Riddle me this: how do they land planes?


Not at 500mph or whatever the speed was supposed to be.

Planes start their landing at around 100-120 mph and they use their flaps which give the plane more lift at low speed. It is basically a controlled stall, the plane touches ground when it doesn't have enough speed to give it lift.

A plane going 500 mph will produce too much lift to be controllable it at ground level, the pilot would have to push the stick forward very hard to keep the nose from raising up. The plane would be very unresponsive and any stick movement would not be instant, so flying close to the ground trying to avoid obstacles would be extremely difficult. These planes are designed for lift, not maneuverability.


edit on 2/28/2011 by ANOK because: typo


So if he pushed the stick forward hard and was trying to, er, hit obstacles instead of miss them he'd be alright.




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I do not know if this pilot is doing 500 mph but here is an airshow clip of a Boeing 747 pretty low to the ground.
www.youtube.com...




Like I said the speed doesn't look that fast, but it maneuvers pretty good.

I thought I would share before I go to bed.
edit on 1-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: I

edit on 1-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: working on vid link

edit on 1-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


That is not low, low is skimming the pentagon lawn, which it would have had to do to hit where it did.

And it's not doing any maneuvers like the pentagon plane would have to do.

It's also not flying much faster than landing speed, close to stall speed, without flaps, in order to not create lift.

Also very skilled pilot.


edit on 3/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


There is so many BS sites on 911, no wonder why the younger generation has no clue. It is hard to find a legit site that discusses the issue in a rational manner.

I found this throughout all of the BS. And funny enough it is from C-BS..lol


Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives.

www.cbsnews.com...

I am still looking for the info.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Wow, I wasn't trying to be a thread killer.

I was putting in my own 2 cents. It looks like I got some change back...lol



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I'd Love to hear what everyone here actually knows about the Eldorado Task Force and Building 6?
You know that building that is the Real smoking gun of 9/11.

Initially the official designation of "terrorist attacks" made it difficult to discern a pattern. However if the destruction of the World Trade Centre, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives is not considered as a "terrorist attack" but rather as a crime with specific objectives, there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction, not only of the buildings but of specific offices within each building.

If the attack on the Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon was not random it is reasonable to assume that the planes that hit the World Trade Centre, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6, 7, the basement of the Towers, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Centre were also deliberately targeted. Why? What was it that linked these targets? The destruction of the contents of the basement of the World Trade Centre - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities? In addition why were specific brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers eliminated? To create chaos in the government securities market? To create a situation wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions? Which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its “emergency powers” that afternoon.

There were three major securities brokers in the World Trade Center: Cantor Fitzgerald, Eurobrokers and Garbon Inter Capital. On the morning of September 11, Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:46 right below the floors on which Cantor Fitzgerald was situated. Cantor Fitzgerald as the largest securities dealer in the US was probably the primary target. Shortly thereafter a massive explosion went off under the FBI offices in the North Tower on the 23rd floor, Garbon Inter Capital on the 25th floor, and in the basement of Tower 1. The explosion caused the 22nd through 25th floors above to collapse into an inferno. Fires were reported on the 22nd floor at 8:47. Shortly, thereafter, at 9:03, Flight 175 hit the South Tower right below the floors on which Euro Brokers was situated. In all three cases, the explosive, fiery destruction consumed the offices in the several floors above. At 9:37 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, targeting one of the few offices that had been moved in the newly remodeled section of the Pentagon: the Office of Naval Intelligence, which had been investigating the financial transactions linked to the securities being managed by those security dealers in the World Trade Center that were targeted. 41% of the fatalities in the Twin Towers came from two companies that managed U.S. government securities: Cantor Fitzgerald and Eurobrokers. 31% of the 125 fatalities in the Pentagon were from the Naval Command Center that housed the Office of Naval Intelligence. 39 of 40 Office of Naval Intelligence employees died. In the vaults beneath the World Trade Center Towers, any certificates for bonds were destroyed.

Building 7 was evacuated somewhere between 9:00 and 9:30. Fires and explosions spontaneously began at multiple locations inside the building prior to the collapse of either Tower. This observation contradicts the official explanation that the fire started when objects from the collapsing towers caused the fires to ignite. The Building ultimately was destroyed in what many unofficial observers now believe was a controlled demolition. Building Seven housed several agencies critical to investigation of financial crimes.

In the midst of all this, Building 6 was destroyed by explosions from within. Building 6 was home to the U.S. Customs agency and the El Dorado Task force, which was responsible for coordinating all major money-laundering investigations in the U.S. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, these groups would be redirected to investigate terrorist financing.

The Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon, which sustained a direct hit from an airliner that day, was without a doubt, a target pinpointed for destruction. The attacking aircraft went through intricate manoeuvres in order to hit the west side of the Pentagon, The flight path approach shows that the attacking aircraft passed almost directly over the White House, bypassing what should be considered a primary target for a "terrorist attack" instead of a supposedly empty section of the Pentagon. The planes that hit the South Tower also manoeuvered in the last moments to hit their exact target.

On the same day, (September 11) the Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency and for the first time in U.S. history invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and eased regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days. These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity (September 12th) without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.

While most media reports defer to the U.S. government contention that Osama Bin Laden was behind these attacks, foreign media provided reports suggesting that the “real power” behind Al Qaeda was unknown. As shall be seen, the financial power behind the attack is the same power that created these securities, and the same power as that which founded Al Qaeda.

I claim Inside Job 100% !!
I also claim i will prove this, when i am past the 20 comment minimum.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Furthermore.

In order to understand why the ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by those securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1, it is necessary to understand how the $240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal government funding, could have been created in September 1991 and also to know the background of 50 years of history of key financial organizations in the United States, where U.S. Intelligence became a key source of their off-balance sheet accounts.

The covert securities used to accomplish the original national security objective had ended up in the vaults of the brokers in the World Trade Centre, were destroyed on September 11, 2001, the day before they came due for settlement and clearing. Either a key group of senior National Security officials, who had participated in the victory of the economic cold war in 1991, considered the deaths and destruction as ‘collateral" damage to hide the existence of the covert activities or the destruction constituted a cover-up of continued lawlessness by a fraternity or brotherhood of businessmen and criminals that has remained in the shadows ever since.

The Origins of the World Trade Centre Attack
Most historians track the history of September 11th to 1998 when Osama Bin Laden declared a fatwa or jihad against the U.S., and the terrorist “Hamburg Group” led by Mohammed Atta reportedly “offered” it’s services to Al Qaeda. However, the history which defines the motives for the September 11 attacks goes much further back. The answers to the questions surrounding the cause of the WTC attack will be found in events during the presidency of George H.W. Bush and earlier. Insight into the activities of that period are cloaked by the Executive Order of George H.W. Bush’s son, President George W. Bush, who on November 1, 2001 issued Executive Order 13233. As a result public records which might have shed light on the activities of 1990 and 1991 remain shielded from public access. Consequently the reconstruction of events from the late 1980s and early 1990s is based on news reports, books and articles.

What the public record suggests is that with the beginning of the first Bush Presidency in 1989, George H.W. Bush initiated a programme of covert economic warfare to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. The name of this programme appears to be Project Hammer - a multi-billion dollar covert operation, whose investments remain shielded.

There is reason to believe that the plan was initially formulated by Reagan’s CIA Director, William Casey. Many of the programme operatives were probably engaged through official CIA and National Security channels. However, as a result of the experience gained by the Bush cabinet and its private sector counterparts during the secretive Iran-Contra and Ferdinand Marcos gold operations, the execution of that programme would be accompanied by a new assumption that the use of covert and illegal funding for a policy not approved by Congress would remain acceptable.

The Source of the Funds
Numerous sources have documented that at the end of World War II, the treasury of the Japanese Empire was discovered in the Philippines by Edward Lansdale a member of the staff of General Charles Willoughby, who was General MacArthur’s chief of Intelligence. Lansdale and Severino Garcia Diaz Santa Romana tortured Major Kojima Kashii, General Yama#a Tomoyuki’s driver, until he revealed the sites of the gold. Then known as the "Golden Lily Treasure", this mass of wealth had been accumulated by the Japanese over fifty years from the pillaging of Southeast Asia and China by its army and had been deposited in the Philippines due to the U.S. submarine blockade of Japan. Reports vary, but documents in the public domain suggest the recovered treasure was in excess of 280,000 metric tonnes of gold.

Lansdale briefed Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy about the findings, and a U.S. Cabinet-level decision was made to confiscate the gold and cover-up its discovery. The gold would be added to the Black Eagle Trust fund which took its name from the Nazi Black Eagle stamped on the gold bars confiscated from the Reich and was the original source of funding for the trust. Over the years, the significance of the Nazi gold would pale in comparison to the confiscated Japanese treasure. As the fund grew, it was distributed in private accounts across the globe in over 100 banks, and administered by General Earle Cocke.

Lansdale and Santa Romana were made responsible for recovery of the treasure. They fabricated a “Communist Revolution” by the Hukbalahak rebels in order to confiscate the land where much of the gold was buried, and proceeded to mine it.

The Yama#a gold would become the cornerstone of the Black Eagle Fund, from which many covert operations of the U.S. intelligence would be funded. Under international law the gold should have been either returned to the countries from which it was stolen (as was done with the Nazi gold), or should have been incorporated into the U.S. Treasury. The U.S. Government’s continued efforts to stifle news on this matter provides prima facie evidence that the confiscation of this gold was illegal.

The men responsible for initiating and executing the confiscation of Nazi and Japanese treasury gold represent the most senior Intelligence officers in the U.S. and Britain at the end of World War II, and the Cabinet of the President of the United States. The financial institutions represented by these individuals would become the major financial banks in the world, along with the Swiss-German banks where they hid their gold.

Lansdale’s operation in the Philippines gave birth to most of the common features of modern covert operations for the U.S.Intelligence and initiated a bond between the US intelligence organizations and the Israeli intelligence. He also set precedents for the Intelligence community to retain the services of organized crime on U.S. soil and to use drug running as a way of financing activities,

The covert operations funded by the Black Eagle Trust in the 1960s and 1970s became visible stains on the global image of the U.S. despite all efforts to keep them under cover. In an effort to clean house, President Jimmy Carter would order the retirement of over 800 covert operatives. Many of these operatives would move into private consulting and security firms and be employed as subcontractors for covert operations. Thus began a loose association of private operatives that would be referred to as “the Enterprise” in the years to come. George H.W. Bush, having been CIA Director, had many acquaintances in this group, and would work with them to restore their influence and control over U.S. foreign policy and the foreign investment opportunities it created for their benefit.

Meantime Ferdinand Marcos, the pro-U.S. dictator of the Philippines, continued to discover even more of the buried treasure. and had started to sell it on the market during the 1970s with the assistance of Adnan Khashoggi. US Intelligence operations had been siphoning off the gold for three decades. However in 1986 Vice President George Bush took over the gold from Marcos and the gold was removed to a series of banks, notably Citibank, Chase Manhattan, Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation, UBS and Banker’s Trust, and held in a depository in Kloten Switzerland. What happened to the Marcos gold after it was confiscated by U.S. agents in 1986 has never been reported, but throughout the early 1990s, the world gold market would be befuddled by the mysterious appearance of thousands of tonnes of gold which appeared to suppress the price of gold.

In South east Asia operations were financed through Nugan Hand Bank in Australia which would be one of the many banks used for transferring the Marcos gold from the Philippines into covert operations. Frank Nugan’s family ran the primary supply shipping operation between the U.S. Navy base in the Philippines and Australia. Frank Nugan's business partner, Peter Abeles, and Henry Keswick, together with Canadian businessman Peter Munk, would link with Adnan Kashoggi, Sheikh Kamal and Edgar Bronfmann in a series of operations which ultimately would evolve into Barrick Gold.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush served on the Advisory Board of Barrick Gold. The Barrick operation would create billions of dollars of paper gold by creating ‘gold derivatives’. A major distribution channel for the sale of Barrick’s gold futures would be Enron. Enron would also become the vehicle by which oil and gas contracts from the former Soviet Union (vehicles for Soviet money-laundering) were processed. Barrick, which has no mining operations in Europe, used two refineries in Switzerland: MKS Finance S.A. and Argor-Heraeus S.A. – both on the Italian border near Milan, a few hours away from the gold depository in Zurich. The question that Barrick and other banks needed to avoid answering is: what gold was Barrick refining in Switzerland, as they have no mines in that region?

Barrick would become a quiet gold producing partner for a number of major banks, and its activities became subject to an FBI investigation into gold-price-fixing. The records on this investigation were kept in the FBI office on the 23rd floor of the North Tower which was destroyed by bomb blasts shortly before the Tower collapsed. The ultimate destination of the "Golden Lily Treasure", and the source of the ‘loaned’ gold that flooded the market for 10 years has never been officially explained.

The records of many of those transactions disappeared when Enron collapsed and the trading operation and all its records were taken over by UBS, another major recipient of Marcos gold. The FBI was reportedly conducting an investigation into those transactions, and the investigation files were kept on the 23rd floor of the North Tower of the WTC. A review of the personal accounts of September 11 now suggests that office was deliberately targeted with explosives prior to the collapse of the WTC.

Another key player in the Marcos gold was Banker’s Trust, which was taken over by Alex Brown & Sons, after Banker’s Trust floundered financially on its Russian loans in the mid 1990s. These Russian loans were facilitated by Enron, starting in August of 1993, and very possibly were part of the Project Hammer takeover of Soviet industry.

Amongst those brought into the picture by the involvement of Alex Brown was J. Carter Beese who was Executive Director of the CIA at the time of September 11. He was appointed by George H.W. Bush to the board of directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation in 1992. Since 1992, OPIC has provided more than $4.5 billion in finance and insurance to more than 140 projects in Russia. He was also Chairman of Riggs Bank and also President of Riggs Capital Partners. Riggs controlled the famous Riggs-Valmet consultants who set up the international financial apparatus for the Russian oligarchs and rogue KGB allowing them to steal the Soviet treasury and destroy the Russian economy. Carter Beese’s death was reported as a suicide in 2006.

It appears that in September 1991, George H.W. Bush and Alan Greenspan did indeed finance $240 billion in bonds in a buy-out of the Soviet Union as part of a broader programme to attack the economy of the Soviet Union. In addition President George H.W. Bush had initiated a number of related covert operations to take over certain sectors of the Soviet economy,

The covert business dealings with the Iranians and Israelis which originated with Kashoggi and Kimche in July 1980 in Hamburg under the October Surprise arrangement, would provide an opening to the Soviet KGB that would allow the U.S. to fund a coup against Gorbachev in 1991. It would grow into a larger covert operation over the years, and be overshadowed by the larger Iran-Contra operation. Members of Bush’s covert intelligence cadre sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy of the U.S., and illegally used the profits to continue funding anti-Communist rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua.

The entire Iran-Contra operation almost fell apart in 1986 and became public when the Nicaraguan government shot down a U.S. plane carrying weapons to the Contra rebels However the Iran-Contra team continued to violate the law even while being investigated by Congress.

Emboldened by the lack of consequences for subverting the U.S. constitution and breaking international law during the Iran-Contra scandal, the Bush administration group known as “the Vulcans” planned a bigger drive to crush Soviet Russia.

The programme also seems to have lined the pockets of the individuals that executed this policy, at US taxpayer expense. This was done to the tune of the $240 billion dollars in covert and allegedly illegal bonds, which appear to have been replaced with Treasury notes backed by U.S. taxpayers in the aftermath of September 11.




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
One more coming forward in good company in the club of whistleblowers comprised by current and former . of states, other politicians and military/intelligence people.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TimeForTruth
 


That's all interesting , but you forgot to include this part :


(The following is an attempt to present in a compact form the claims made by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham, Karl Schwarz and put together in an the article by E.P. Heidner dated 28th June 2008 to the effect that the September 11th attacks were intended to cover-up the clearing of the 1991 issuance of $240 billion in covert securities to fund an economic war against the Soviet Union during which "unknown" western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry. A crime presented by official sources as a "terrorist attack" and used as an excuse to attack Iraq.)


www.doeda.com...

www.traderji.com...

monhgal.blogspot.com...


So , unless you are one of the people mentioned above , none of that is your material .
edit on 2-3-2011 by ReRun because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Tell me....where DO you make this stuff up??? I mean, do you actually have any flying experience or.....is this just something that you read, and repeat it...as if it were "true"?:


A plane going 500 mph will produce too much lift to be controllable it at ground level, the pilot would have to push the stick forward very hard to keep the nose from raising up.


That is incorrect in so many ways....but, beside the point, the SSFDR shows very accurately how the airplane flew, up until impact, and what speeds, and pitch and roll attitudes it experienced.

There is so much BS out there, on the Internet, it has thoroughly poisoned the well, in the minds of those who have no idea about flying airplanes in the first place, and just spew the same recycled nonsense......



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



There is so much BS out there, on the Internet, it has thoroughly poisoned the well, in the minds of those who have no idea about flying airplanes in the first place, and just spew the same recycled nonsense......


So when was the last time you flew a 757 ant 500 mph within a few feet of the ground??

If the answer is NEVER then you are merely assuming like the rest of us as you have NEVER experienced anything like that...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ANOK
 


Tell me....where DO you make this stuff up??? I mean, do you actually have any flying experience or.....is this just something that you read, and repeat it...as if it were "true"?:


No I was a jet engine mech in the Navy, I know quit a lot about aircraft.


There is so much BS out there, on the Internet, it has thoroughly poisoned the well, in the minds of those who have no idea about flying airplanes in the first place, and just spew the same recycled nonsense......


I agree and I think you are adding to it. I don't get my experience from the internet.

Can you prove that a Boeing can fly, controllable, at 500 mph at ground level? And I don't mean some airshow vid, with an expert pilot, that is obviously not at 500mph. No one has been able to yet. These were not skilled pilots, they wouldn't have the experience to know how the plane would react, one little mistake at that speed and altitude would have put the plane in the ground instantly. Yet they managed to not even put a mark on the pentacon lawn, how lucky for the pentacon, minimum cleanup eh? Not even any jet fuel, just some random pieces that we all know could have been easily planted.

In theory it might be possible, in reality not so much. Inexperienced pilot trying to keep the nose down to compensate for the massive lift 500mph would generate, while trying to navigate into a building 50ft off ground level.
The chance of stalling is HUGE, again one slight mistake, and the plane is out of control.

No one buys your I'm an expert pilot routine mate.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Maybe you should read the following , as concerns "massive lift" , better known as "ground effect" .

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReRun
reply to post by ANOK
 


Maybe you should read the following , as concerns "massive lift" , better known as "ground effect" .

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Ground effect is not lift.

Lift is created by air over the wings, high pressure is created under the wing, low pressure over the wing, which causes it to lift, the faster the plane is moving the more pressure is created and you get more lift. At low altitude the air is thick and makes forward motion harder than at cruising altitude, it also makes maneuvering more difficult and at 500 mph and the plane would react very slow to any stick input. It would also be very easy to stall if you tried turning too hard, which is very easy to do because you try to compensate for the slow reactions unless you are very experienced in doing that kind of flying.

To have hit the pentacon where it did means they would have to be touching the lawn.

I don't care if it can be done in theory, reality is a difference matter.

edit on 3/3/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Okay , I'll freely admit that I don't know much about all this but , it would seem to me that everything you or anyone else knows about "lift" is only based on "theory" anyway , so saying that there is a difference in theory and reality , doesn't quite cut it for me .

After all ,

"The most common explanation of the concept of lift is based upon the Bernoulli Equation ..."
or Bernoulli Theory .

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Therefore , seeing that you know more about this than I do , could you please give an explanation as to why and how this 'theory' might dffer from reality ? And in so doing , explain why or how the analysis that I linked to in my previous post would not be accurate in showing that it was entirely possible to pilot the plane into the Pentagon ?

After all , your understanding of lift , and the analysis I linked to , apparently are based upon the same theory .

Simply saying that theory and reality might contradict each other in no way explains your position . Please explain why and how the analysis differs from reality and how it was impossible to pilot the plane into the Pentagon .

The fellow who wrote the analysis has some very impressive credentials and I am inclined to believe he knows what he is talking about .

If you feel he is wrong , please explain why .
edit on 3-3-2011 by ReRun because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I have been reading on the Boeing website about lift and angle of attack.

I was reading(yes, I read information for myself) and I came across these three factors on how thrust affects lift. This is the first of said factors.



Thrust also can affect lift in three ways. First, the component of thrust that acts in the lift direction offsets some of the lift required of the wing (fig. 6). Therefore, as thrust is increased, the AOA for trimmed flight is reduced and the maximum lift is increased.

www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_12/attack_story.html



Here is some information on the Boeing 767-200 ER series aircraft. If this information is wrong please let me know.


Power plant=767-200ER: 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4062, maximum thrust 63,300 lb (281.6 kN) or 2 GE CF6-80C2B7F at 62,100 lb (276.2 kN)


It says here that the typical cruising speed of a Boeing 767-223ER is 530 miles an hour.

767-200ER: Maximum Range 6,600 nautical miles (12,2203 km), Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80, 530 mph (851 kph)

www.planecrazy.me.uk...


Now I know that 35,00 feet is different than a few hundred feet or less. What I am trying to get at here is that it takes more thrust to generate more lift. The Boeing 767 series aircraft definitely has the thrust capabilities. It also has onboard computer equipment to help calculate these factors and relays the information to the pilot.

I want to know with your expert opinion, why a pilot cannot fly this plane the way described. From all of the information I have gathered and not necessarily posted in this post, I have seen that the 767 can fly as did on Sept 11 2001. The aircraft can perform in many conditions and altitudes. Does it not take adjustments to fly at different altitudes and speeds? Why could these pilots not have made these adjustments with the help of the computer systems?

You have yet to provide me with any tangible information regarding why the aircraft cannot perform the maneuvers that it did. I have been looking into this and if any of my information is wrong then please correct me, but if you do correct me can you provide links to credible sources of information.

You do not have to answer my post. I just do not see anybody challenging you with specifics.
edit on 3-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling

edit on 3-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



EDIT: I misunderstood your post a bit. A little Lift is lost flying in close proximity to the ground. I think that by you saying that to much lift is attainable at those speeds is a little off of what I just read researching this topic. I want to repeat that I misred your post and I will correct myself. I basically made this whole post just to educate myself a little.
My bad ..lol
edit on 3-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: EDIT again



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


????


No I was a jet engine mech in the Navy, I know quit a lot about aircraft.


But, you aren't a pilot, you've never flown?? You base this entire opinion from being a mechanic??



I don't get my experience from the internet.


Apparently, you did. Else, you wouldn't write the nonsense you have.....



Can you prove that a Boeing can fly, controllable, at 500 mph at ground level?


Don't have to. Not relevant. ("ground level" is an inaccurate, and doesn't describe the actual flight path of American 77, anyhow). The airplane spent a mere second, or about two at most, at just a few feet above the ground.....impact occurred milliseconds later. The approach was a descent all the way in, using the help of gravity (and full thrust) combined to accelerate above the airspeed that would normally be achievable in just level flight.

And, there is no problem controlling the airplane, at that airspeed. Obviously, since it happened.
Since you aren't a pilot, you will probably never understand.

The NTSB video (which data-set stopped a second or two before impact, because of corruption of that last bit of data) the trend was obvious.....the aim was obvious....the impact was inevitable, from that position and direction of motion. Physics. The last speed shown, from NTSB re-creation video, was 483 KCAS. Every single aspect of that NTSB video is completely understandable to REAL pilots...and especially to those of us who have actually flown the damn airplane! The Boeing 767 FAA certification data has been posted, showing a demonstrated speed of AT L:EAST 420 KCAS in flight testing. The 757 is type-certificated separately, but since (to pilots) they are similar enough in design, layout, and handling behavior to share a "common" type rating, then it is reasonable to presume that the 757 flight testing ALSO exhibited the same results. The airplane was controllable at 420 knots...there is no reason to infer it wouldn't be at 483 knots. The actual "problems" with controllability begin to show up when you are approaching the critical MACH number. The airspeed versus percentage of Mach is temperature-related. At near sea level, normal temperatures.....even at 483 knots, the Mach number is well within normal limits for the airplane. (Calculating it, based on a "Standard Day", works to about 0.73 - 0.74M. The Mmo --- Mach Max Operating --- is 0.86).

Pay VERY close attention to this....those who aren't pilots probably won't appreciated it in the same way, but it is quite easy to interpret for those who are experienced. There is a lot of information there:





...not at 500mph. No one has been able to yet.


What?? 420 knots IS 483 MPH. Demonstrated to AT LEAST 420 knots, in a B-767. 483 MPH, and only 17 more to reach 500?? Perfectly doable.

The maximum published speeds are there to be obeyed....they have many reasons behind them, but primarily its to increase the useful life of the airframe. Also, in that vein, there are turbulence issues ("gust loads") for those unexpected encounters, and the added stresses on the airframe.

BTW, both the 757 and 767 are quite "slick", and accelerate very rapidly, especially in descents. It is actually quite common with large two-engined commercial jets, as they have an abundance of thrust capabilty...since, they demonstrate the ability to perform well on just one engine. Here's another video (a 767 this time), to show from the cockpit view, a high-power descent to reach the Vmo speed (and the very shallow angle required....the nose down pitch attitude is minimal). Followed by a leveling of altitude, and the thrust being reduced to idle....yet, the airplane takes some time to decelerate:

(Go full screen, look at the instruments):





These were not skilled pilots....


Obviously, you can see it in the NTSB video, from the Flight Recorder data. But, they just aimed, and steered on a suicide mission. THAT takes a lot less skill than what most professional flying consists of.


.. they wouldn't have the experience to know how the plane would react....


I use this analogy: YOU can drive a car, yes? Do you intuitively know that when you are on the freeway at 70 MPH, it is a bad idea to turn the steering wheel violently and a great amount to either side? Compared to, say, slow speeds, and when parallel parking?? HOW do you know this? Did you learn it VERY early, in your driving lessons? Is it something that is hard to understand? Do you find it "harder" in a car of another make and model, to understand? Or, isn't it about the same, with just minor different "feels" to how the various cars handle and behave?

Flying airplanes is a lot like that, in terms of controls and the responses and reactions......


.... one little mistake at that speed and altitude would have put the plane in the ground instantly.


Well...it would have taken a determined effort, to attempt a "lawn dart" into the ground. You can see, with United 93, he didn't just push it forward....he did what's basically a "wing over"....a lot of bank, which allows the nose to drop without many negative G-forces on the airplane....AND, then once the nose is down, and you are going towards inverted, you use UP elevator to further change the attitude, to aim the nose more towards the ground. The American 77 hijacker needed to only aim, as he did.....worst case (for him, and his intended mission) would have been to drag an engine nacelle on the ground, for a bit....STILL would have impacted the Pentagon, since momentum would have carried the airplane forward anyway. As it is, there was the diesel generator that was hit, by the (right engine, IIRC). This, just milliseconds before impacting the building.



Not even any jet fuel...


Where DO you make this crap up?? :shk:


.... just some random pieces that we all know could have been easily planted.


Oh, brother!!! Not that baloney again!!! You are continuing with that nonsense? (Getting it from the "conspiracy" websites, I'll bet?).



Inexperienced pilot trying to keep the nose down to compensate for the massive lift 500mph would generate....


Here you go again, with this silliness. It is obvious you don't know what you're talking about....not from any practical, real-world experience. (Hint: Do you know what the Stabilizer Trim is? On small Cessnas and such, it is referred to as "Elevator Trim", but serves same basic function).


....while trying to navigate into a building 50ft off ground level.


Oh? earlier, you used the incorrect "ground level"...to imply, what? "Inches" off the ground? Now, it's 50 feet. Funny, though...50 feet is WAY EASY!! And, yes....even for an "experienced" (he had several hundred hours!!) pilot. AND, it was, as I keep pointing out, very brief anyways. The die was cast.....back at about 200 feet.



....again one slight mistake, and the plane is out of control.


Doesn't work like that....it isn't on a "knife's edge" of control.....it is a rock-solid, easy to handle jet.



No one buys your I'm an expert pilot routine mate.


Well, the airline I retired from, after almost 24 years, THEY did. So did my colleagues. And the commuter airlines I worked for, previously. So do all of my former students, from when I was flight instructing.....and, so do several ATS members, here on this board, who have no doubts regarding my history.

What do YOU bring to the table? Oh, a former Navy engine mechanic (not that there's anything wrong with that...my good friend, ALSO not a pilot, was an avionics tech, for the A-6. Served in Desert Storm, on the Kennedy. He has never flown an airplane in his life, but is able to understand the events of 9/11 quite well. Of course, he is pretty logical and rational, too....).



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



edit on 3-3-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Again I apologize. I stand corrected on the lift post above. You were obviously talking about to much lift. I got lost in all of the reading I was doing..lol



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   


It's just in my ., that I can't accept the fact that there were any explosives used in the WTC. Because like I said, what's the benefit of blowing them down?
reply to post by RustyShakleford92
 


The benefit of bringing them down was to destroy any evidence that might be used to disprove the official story. Think about how all other crime scenes are treated. Most are not touched until the crime is solved. In the case of 911, evidence was being removed even during the rescue operation. Debris was being removed by a carting company that is co owned by known mafia members and that debris was immediately being recycled or sold for scrap within the first 15 days of the attack. It's like a murder where the murderer burns the house down to destroy evidence.




top topics



 
154
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join