Free Market World On Fire: Fwd: [bangla-vision] FW: [MuslimIntelligencer] Instructor Airshow Pilot Questions Official 9/11 Scenario; Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: A. Moussa <emfmoussa@gawab.com>
Date: 2011/1/1
Subject: [bangla-vision] FW: [MuslimIntelligencer] Instructor Airshow Pilot Questions Official 9/11 Scenario; Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!
To: "A. Moussa" <emfmoussa@gawab.com>

From: MuslimIntelligencer@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MuslimIntelligencer@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex James
Sent: 31 ديسمبر, 2010 03:23 م
To: Alex James
Subject: [MuslimIntelligencer] Instructor Airshow Pilot Questions Official 9/11 Scenario; Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!

Also check http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732 The long awaited release from Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyzing the events which took place in New York City on the morning of the 11th of September 2001. Analysis includes Black Box Recovery, Radar and Speed data analysis, Aircraft Control, and "Hijacker" Pilot Skill. Interviews with 757/767 Captains from United and American Airlines.

This is the full film but keep in mind this online preview is compressed to almost 1/3rd of original quality in order to fit on the Vimeo site. To order the high quality version, please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store.

9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK - Director's Cut also now available. Includes the FULL interviews with 757/767 Capts from United and American Airlines. Click here to order your copy today.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtca_dc

Thank you for your support!

From: smacko9@comcast.net [mailto:smacko9@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:57 AM
To: WhoDid911@yahoogroups.com
Cc: WarOnError@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Instructor / Airshow Pilot Questions 9/11 Scenario

video:

Instructor / Airshow Pilot Questions 911 Scenario

( Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum )

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20907

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iToxQVq-Lg&feature=player_embedded

My oldest childhood friend died aboard one of the hijacked planes on September 11

I believed in Gen. Colin Powell.
I believed in the existence of WMD, and supported the invasion of Iraq.
My respect is boundless for the men and women who put themselves in harm's way there and in Afghanistan.

But I also believe in evidence. When rational people ask reasonable questions of their governments, answers are due. That is the deal in a Democracy.

Attached is my small contribution (video below) which asks just one of those questions, just one.

If a piece of the puzzle is manifestly out of place, the rest cannot be right.

-- Adam "Dewpoint" Shaw

Why this must be reiterated over and over... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Beginning 8:13 into the video there's quite a confusion about the airplanes speed estimations.

The 420kt by "UA175" is the lowest estimate I've ever seen.

The NTSB estimated "UA175" final descent speed in its study to 510-520 kts (587-598 mph) and the impact speed to 510 kts GS already on February 7 2002!

If we add the obvious counterwind the TAS then would be something like ~520 kts TAS.
This agrees quite exactly with the estimate made later by FEMA and with the 3D simulation based on the known videos.

In my opinion there is no controversy about the "UA175" ~510-520 kts speed value (although the controversy there indeed is - it is really way above the Vne) and the other estimates ( i.e. NIST - 542 mph/471 knots ±24 mph/21 knots, or even the MIT's 503 mph/437 knots) are not plausible and are clearly too low.

So why 420 knots iimpact speed for "UA175" in this 2010 video ?? Confusion with the "AA11" speed?

Looks like, because at 8:16 into the video there is "AA11" estimated speed "440 knots".

The NTSB in the same linked report from February 7 2002 as above estimated the "AA11" impact speed to 430 kts GS. If we subtract the wind, we end with ~420 knots TAS. This estimate agrees with the simulation. (there is the NIST estimation 443 ±30 mph/385 ±26 kts which again clearly is a bit too low).

For the "AA77" the speed shown in the video at 8:58 is "460 knots=530 Mph=850 Kmh". And the first source cited is "NTSB".

NTSB itself released the "NOC" simulation video purportedly based on FDR where the last speed of the aircraft is 462 knots (at full throtle, descending and accelerating, so it would be possible to assume the final impact speed was >462 knots - as estimated by Rob: 475 knots/546 mph) - if indeed there was an impact at all...

Quote: «The 420kt by "UA175" is the lowest estimate I've ever seen.»

Adam Shaw, in his video, includes an excerpt from a video made by Italian Massimo Mazzucco "12 Questions To The Supporters Of The official version ", in which Massimo reports this speed estimation certainly too low for flight 175. Being French, I know the French version of the Massimo Mazzucco video.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xasydx_11...-aux-defen_news

13 minutes after the start of this video there is (in English) a simulation of high speed flight at sea level of a Boeing 747. The aircraft becomes uncontrollable at a speed of 320 knots.

Great Information.. as usual.

There is only one way to solve this puzzle. we need Popular Mechanic magazine and all the rest of the 911 debunkers to rent a 757 or 767 and attempt the same flight paths of the 911 jets.
The same speeds at the same altitudes.

Maybe we the people in the 911 truth movement could raise the funds to rent a 757.

We might attract some public interest just by suggesting the re-enactment of the flights.
No Airline would rent out one of thier jets for such a dangerous stunt.
No Insurance company would cover the jet used in such a dangerous stunt.

After watching the video posted on this site, and hearing real pilots claim the flights were near impossible, would any of the debunkers still board the test flight jet.??

Yeah, its possible that video was shot and edited before Adam knew the reported speeds. He knows them now, which further confirms his original thoughts that it is impossible for an aircraft to fly at more than 150 knots over its Vmo, and remain controllable, stable and/or hold together.

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/767_V-G_Diagram_Illustrated_Guide_To_Aerodynamics.jpg)

For a more comprehensive and detailed analysis, please view "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" - Full Film

Good video. The more professional/experienced opinion the better. The more videos the better when sticking to real problems with the official presentation. Good all around touching on most of the questions.

Everyone can measure for themselves the speed of the second plane when it hit the second tower by watching the various videos and pausing with their remote and clicking it forward with the remote, frame by frame and count the frames from tip to tail as it enters the building, and knowing it is 30 frames per second video and knowing the length of the plane, deduce the speed of the plane. There's more than one video and they are consistent. Its direct straight measurement of the plane versus the immovable object at the time it impacted it from multiple video angles. There is some slight room for error as the tail enters between frames.
Counting the frames and doing the calculation gives me the impression of about 435 knots at impact using the international air mile as being a "knot".
I hear a lot about ground effects, but haven't yet been fully statisfied with explanation and evidence. I do wonder about the evenly distributed grass laying by the taxi, why it is not pushed up against the road divider, and why the tops of the light poles weren't sucked along with the plane that hit the Pentagon, one even photographed laying underneath the bottom section of the same pole.

Yeah, I would also recommend to watch the 9/11: World Trade Center Attack - for those who don't understand from the above graph at the first glance there is a huge elefant in the room.

I'm not an aviation engineer, yet the evidence looks to me understandable and overwhelming - a commercial jet can hardly fly 510-520 kts at sea level and even bank and turn. (I almost don't wonder some buy into the NPT terrories trying to escape the facts about the speed and the implications, so they imagine holograms and UFO and like.) But who I'm, just a psychology of terrorism spec from former soviet bloc, who would listen, one feels quite feckless, that's why I'm glad the P4T does the excellent job, a bit of hope remains...

What looks quite scary to me is that NTSB knows this facts about the speed since very early after 9/11, much earlier than I've learnt about, and I'm quite sure they also know very well what does it mean - they're experienced in aviation investigation, aren't they. Can't they much do about it just because the FBI took over the investigation? Apropos, have anybody seen any major outcome of the FBI 9/11 investigation? Me never. Not even any positive identification of the 4 airplanes, which one should begin with. Nothing. Zero. Not one of the serials of the miriads of time tracked parts, not even the FDR's serial... Just coverup. (oh yes, they purportedly identified the bogeyman and 19 suicide hijackers the same day and some of them then showed alive, nobody ever cared to remove them from the list and the bogeyman never appeared as wanted for 9/11...) So the idea the planes were RC, not the ones we were told, and the whole 9/11 was a military black-op seems to me not far-fetched. The answer to the cui bono looks to me overwhelming too. But who would investigate, prosecute? The fishes never empty their own pond. One hardly finds a federal agency which since then is not involved in some scandalous or criminal activity. US if continuing like this will soon make the Orwell look naive. The whole federal government more and more looks like a rogue entity which completely went out of control. Like many regimes aspiring to world dominance before. Even if it would be possible, can one imagine the scale of a tribunal which would judge about such a vast conspiracy. WTC93, OKC, embassies, USS Cole, 9/11, Patriot Act, war in Afghanistan, Gitmo, war in Iraq, 11/3, 7/7, Af-Pak war, controlled demolition of the economy, and many many more...just more or less important moves of the same game. Who could stop it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

You want a really useful Federal Emergency Management camp? Fence the Washington D.C., Arlington and Wall St. around and bring there all brigs. I'm sure the US will do better.

... the Congress aprooved the largest military budget in history and the third carrier reportingly heads to Korea and WTF China prepares for war ...

Thanks, Rob for a credible video with rational, reasonable, and knowlegeable subjects. It is still unbelievable that there are sooooo many people in the United States who do NOT know, believe or even think the government's story of 911 is false. It is even more unbelievable how many in the government DO KNOW and are unwilling to stand up! Certainly a sign of the times and the complete control of the mainstream media by the government. In the sixties you had 80% of the people who didn't believe the governments story about the JFK assassination and now those figures are about reversed for those who believe 911 was an INSIDE JOB. Joseph Goebbels would be astonsished at the progress made in controlling the propaganda machine especially in the age of the internet! Just further proof the American people don't read as was proclaimed by insiders on the Warren Commission when some voiced concern about the "inconsistencies" within that report. Happy New Year! HOPE is NOT a plan of action!

Mr. Shaw,

Thank you so much for your post. I was like you and believed the first reports but when the towers fell, it raised questions in my mind.

Mr. Rob, Thanks so much for reminding us all the time about false flag operations. It is just like what the news did on 911. The more we hear, the more we see the truth. People are starting to question the official story and that is a great thing. It raised questions for me from day one, about the collapse of the towers. Don't even bring building 7 into play, I know beyond a shadow it was rigged! The towers were designed to withstand a hit from a 707. I have worked in the airline industry as a ground person. It couldn't have happened the way they told us. I was a fueler, baggage handler, aircraft cleaner. Aircraft fire couldn't have brought down the towers.

Today, I'm a telecommunications technician and a person with an electronics engineering degree. I was a Marine and worked with the avionics on the Boeing FA-18 Hornet. I never believed that the people claimed to be terrorists could even program a GPS much less any computer inside a 757/767.

God bless you all, and stay safe. Please watch your's and each other's backs!!

Eric

Correct me if I am wrong please.

All the data received by the ATC control system aside from radar returns is broadcast via radio.

Radar returns can likewise be broadcast such as RACONS which in marine navigation send a blip out supposedly when they received in a radar signal, so radar also is a radio signal.

Further, at some point in a radar receiver the radio signals are converted into line voltage which appears as data on dispay screens and is recorded on drives or tapes or some medium.

If the above is basically true (I am not a EE)... then is it not possible to insert data into the system at various points?

Would it not be possible to simulate an actual plane by simply transmitting data from a "radio transceiver" which was pre programmed from a flight simulator?

And or couldn't this data be inserted via some back door into the ATC system. I can't imagine there are not "ports" to insert data for "alignment" and turning of the equipment.

Therefore if any of the above (or all) is basically factual, then it would be possible to create any "environment" of ATC "screens".

Further, even conversations with the cockpit could be likewise staged and there would be no way of know where the transmissions were coming from. The ATC might think he (or she) was speaking with a cockpit and they were conversing with a radio shack down the street in some undisclosed location.

Further, any black box which may be recovered may likewise be a substitute place in whatever aircraft crashed... with data created in a simulator. If each Box has a unique serial number it could even be removed from the plane which we were told was hijacked... programmed and placed into the one which was used to crash into the buildings on 9/11... or perhaps connected so SOME flight transducers and not others to use the actual data of the crashing plane...

Some might say this is overly complex. It doesn't seem so if one has a year to create these fakes.

There appears to be a lot of "illusion" associated with 9/11. We see something... but it happens rather quickly... we are told what we saw which seems to make sense. But we are denied the careful examination after the fact to actually determine what we saw... or heard.

Those phone calls made from the aircraft have this similar aspect. On the face they seemed compelling. But on further thought we learn that it was impossible that these calls took place.

The same goes for the Pentagon and Shanksville plane crashes. What were told and saw does not seem to make sense.... the evidence to support the official account stretches credulity.

The more we look closely at 9/11 the more it looks like a magic show - an illusion. Not the entire event for sure... stuff definably happened. But we don't know EXACTLY what it was or how it happened.

And the government has denied the people the ability to look at the evidence. Trust us they say and if you don't... you're a nut case.

On this:

"If the above is basically true (I am not a EE)... then is it not possible to insert data into the system at various points?

I'm not an EE either, but I 'used' to calculate the flight plans for one of the airlines involved. Specifically, overwater flight plans that do not operate in a radar environment. So you're right about the insertion of data. The contacts that an over-water flight makes with the various centers as they cross say, the Atlantic, are built into the flight plan that is uploaded to the Flight Deck Computer, prior to departure. That upload of course takes place from a central location, regardless of the physical location of the aircraft. In effect, the airplane itself is programmed to send intermittent information to the Centers that track over water flights. These SAME aircraft generally have a domestic portion to them as well, (ie AA flight 11 was at the time an Intercontinental/Domestic flight that continued on to Europe or the reverse) and I'm only adding that for the persons who may believe this to be irrelevant since these flights were not operating in a NON-radar environment at the time of the incidents.

Having said that, I suspect that all of the aircraft involved were probably equipped for over-water flights, and so this is of course a possibility, IF we believe that those were the aircraft that actually hit the WTC as well as the Pentagon and Shanksville. I personally cannot believe that, just because we know that the Northeast Corridor didn't all of a sudden turn into the Bermuda Triangle on Sept, 11, 2001, and manage to DISAPPEAR 4 commercial transport airliners. It just didn't happen. 767's do not simply VANISH without leaving a trace of debris, even if it's at the bottom of the Ocean.

Yet we are expected to believe that they DID. I have never seen any signs of an aircraft, (not even a wing light), at any of the sites. At the Pentagon, all we see is a hole. There are NO signs of any emergency response such as would be seen IMMEDIATELY after any incident, as we saw with AA flt 191 in Chicago back in 1978, or DL flt 191 (no error - same flight number, different carrier) back in the early 80's at DFW. Airplanes just don't do that, not even if they break up due to structural damage as the Egypt Air flight did. Even THEN, investigators could immediately find a debris pool.

The only people I saw in the images from the Pentagon attack were the ones being carried out by the likes of Rumsfeld and others, (have you ever seen that photo of him carrying someone on a stretcher?) and those were ONLY of the people actually in the Pentagon at the time of the attack. No passengers, no baggage, no anything from the aircraft itself. How can that be? Same thing at Shanksville...a little tiny depression in the ground nothing else.

OK, I think I get it now. The dynamic pressure is the same as the aircraft going supersonic at higher altitudes, even though it is subsonic.

Could a militrized version of the 767 go that fast on the deck (with say bigger engines and beefed up structure)?

Looks like Japan may have paid for developing just such a critter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767

[edit] From the above website it looks like these had the standard 767 General Electric CF6 engines. I wonder if those engine parts found at the WTC ever been (for sure) identified?

BTW, a quick Google search seems to indicate that the jury may still be out on that question

You are absolutely right. This is a common pattern throughout the official story. There are many things that are loosely or vaguely or inadequately explained and then papered over by giving the public a simple, easily repeated slogan or theme to fill the gaps. Example - "Hot Jet Fuel Fires".

But such things are easily attacked and discredited. Just find one thing that can be easily proven to be false or incorrect and the rest of the phony edifice must fall.

Rob recognizes all of this. The video is great because it focuses on one specific aspect of aerodynamics to take one aspect of the OCT - that they planes were normal commercial airliners - and show such planes would fall apart from the stresses before they hit the buildings. Thus they must be abnormal commercial airliners that were beefed up structurally and/or souped up performance wise and/or fitted with a "remotely guided pilot assistance system". Having such a sharp focus keeps things simple.

Rob is concerned about the explanation being to technical compared to the government's simple slogans. He's right to be concerned. However, I think his presentation is simple and easy for anyone to understood once they grasp three things (1) the scientific fact that air is densest at sea level and gets significantly less dense at the altitudes where planes spend most of their flying time; (2) planes are designed and constructed as lightly as possible to maximize their flight efficiency while still being safe and (3) denser air and higher speed significantly increases the structural stress on a plane. Most people already know these three things separately but never have any reason to tie them all together into one train of thought, and with 911 providing a reason, all they need to connect them now is Rob's good guidance in the video.

So Rob is fighting the government's false simplicity with the simplest possible explanation, with the added advantage that what he says is both sensible and true. Not only that, everyone likes to think they are smart, so Rob's explanation should be appealing to people. It's not too complicated and at the same time sophisticated enough to make people feel smart because they understand it. The downside might be that some people will think that they were real dumb asses for not having already seen it and instead accepting the OCT explanation.

Please watch the video, it is addressed thoroughly. Those who make the excuse for the extremely excessive groundspeed, must also posit the theory there was a 85-90 knot wind pushing United 175 from the south.

Hint: The winds were light from the Northwest. Based on heading, groundspeed was virtually the same as its True Airspeed. If anything, True Airspeed was more than the 510 knot groundspeed making the govt story that much more implausible for a stock 767 to have completed such an approach intact.

Gotta love these armatures coming in here crying "Groundspeed!". Little do they know they need Hurricane force winds to hold onto their theory.

I am curious about the air speeds or ground speed of the planes which hit the Twins. Where are these speeds derived from? Personally I don't trust any data on a ATC screen.

Therefore to determine to speed you would have to do some sort of analysis of the video footage.

Maybe they were only going a few hundred knots.

Tell us about how we know the speeds of the planes.

We tell you all about it in the above film. Perhaps click play. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But if you need an official document, click here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Dat...AA11,_UA175.pdf

Rob,

I've seen the excellent film. And I understand the discussion about the limits of those air frames to move through the atmosphere at various elevations at various speeds. Likewise one can do the same calculations for hulls though water, flat water, waves and so forth.

However, my questions were:

Who supplied the air speeds/ground speeds of those planes?

Were the air speeds/ground speeds of those planes taken from RADES or ATC supplied information?

Has anyone calculated the air speeds /ground speed from the videos of the planes hitting the towers?

In general I find that so much of the information about 9/11 was supplied (without question or independent data) byu official sources. It is essentially a fiction, a myth... a 9/11 narrative and very little is fact based.

When you watch a "docu-drama" on TV you believe it to be a real depiction... even any movie... We give "the benefit of doubt" to the producers and story tellers.

However, in a court of law, or a laboratory, this sort of depiction has no validity whatsoever.

9/11 appears very much to be a "live docu drama"... with some actual events which people experienced but mixed in was all the production work... and connecting the dots into a convenient narrative for the American people.

We saw some planes hit the towers. They can't be ID'd from video. There are no identifying parts recovered. We are told they were various flights and individuals boarded those flights and were never seen again.

Yet we have ID'd their DNA, but not a single serial number of a part?

We have things like passports and bandanas recovered from the alleged hijackers?

We have no black boxes? (even though it is easy to plant them on site)

We are told that those airframes can't travel at the reported speeds... so what hit the towers? Slower planes or different planes than we were told?

There are too many odd coincidences and facts which don't add up to a coherent story... too many lies and fabrications. Yet people believe that we are being attacked and the enemy of Al Qaeda... so it all makes sense to them. Who else could do such a thing?

*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only *** CAVEAT LECTOR *** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser. Please check for daily real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email all posts) at http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr or http://tinyurl.com/yzbolzu ; You can also subscribe to the multiple daily emails by sending an email to total_truth_sciences+subscribe@googlegroups.com ; free book download: http://tinyurl.com/2afxwx2 ;*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only. *** NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) may have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse, nor protection.......... IF anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail is reading it, you are in violation of the 1^st & 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R. 1955 Disclaimer Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire & are all intended for intellectual entertainment only. To be removed from the weekly list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"