CHEMTRAILs are what???

So your 'point' is, that because you don't have a clue what you are talking about, you feel it is OK to rename shit that already has a name...

Got it~

So you are insisting . . . What you are seeing are bands of precipitation. . . Which the presenter denies. . . If I accept him at his word and these are not precipitation bands nor Chaff. . . Then you tell me what they are. . .

Last Edited by George B on 01/20/2012 10:07 PM

"
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"
06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:"

[link to pilotsfor911truth.org]

Hmmmm..."doesn't think it's possible" means "fact"...got it!

That is pretty weak. . . Even for you Noble. . . .can't you do better than that? . . .

So...

Because YOU and some other fuckwit have never heard the term 'Virga', it is proof of some sinister plot...

Got it...



:fuckingidiots:

So?

Honestly, I don't care what you morons believe about 9/11. Nor do I care what the pilots say. It's pure assumption and supposition. The fact is, airplanes hit the towers. They were flown by someone...and there is no evidence they were remotely piloted.

An airplane can be flown in a straight line...PERIOD

I see no evidence that they were traveling "500 miles an hour" when they hit.

Just because pilots believe that the terrorists didn't have the skills...doesn't mean they didn't have the skills! Just because they trailed on smaller aircraft...doesn't mean they didn't also train in larger planes.

These pilots are just arrogant and refuse to believe that a bunch of "no_racial_epithets_4_Us" could fly better than they do in those conditions.

It's the truth...why is that "weak"?!

Oh, because I disagree with you...I get it.

[link to www.911myths.com]

Great find!!!...Your google skills are...so far...better than Georgies googling skills!

He's only looking for one side of any issue...

His...

Seems there are many pilots that think differently. . . . Here is the list . . .

[link to pilotsfor911truth.org]

While Virga is a plausible explanation. . . there are no images of Doppler returns on Virga that I can verify, in any way, appear as those on the images presented on the video. . . If you can supply a link to such images I would be happy to review them. . .

Read the list...

Their 'Core List' (drop down box on your link) consists of less than 115 credentialed people in the industry, and less appx. 3/4 of those are 'pilots' of any kind...

This is out of the:

72,280 student pilots
234 recreational pilots
3,248 sport pilots
211,619 private pilots
125,738 commercial pilots
144,600 airline transport pilots
21,268 glider-only pilots
15,298 rotorcraft-(helicopter)-only pilots

That have no issues with the way those Arabs flew that day...

Numbers were as of 2009...

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

You're a fucking idiot, George...

Any pilot joining this organization is taking an enormous risk and jeopardizing his/her career . . . that carries a very high weight with me . . . the fact that any expert or pilot is a memeber sends a loud message . . .

As stated...

You are an idiot...

You believe what you want to believe, not what the facts point to...

Sure there is evidence . . .

:NTSB Speed:



:911 Speed Report:

He got ya on that one. Just sayin' ;)

In what way? . . .

He was talking to Noble...



Last Edited by SnakeAirlines on 01/21/2012 07:06 PM

O.K. . . .

By-The-Way Noble 510 knots hitting WTC is equivalent to 587 miles per hour . . . that is pretty darn fast wouldn't you say . . .

Last Edited by George B on 01/21/2012 09:21 PM

OK, I didn't dispute it...I just said i didn't see that figure before.

It changes nothing....

It's funny how you pick and choose what evidence you'll accept as truth...


Why won't you accept the conclusions about the AWAC?!

Where they say the trails could have formed like normal contrails....because they were!

Cherry picking at it's finest...only the "truth" that mirrors your beliefs is acceptable.

Sure, you can say the same thing about me...But, my beliefs are the truth until someone proves them wrong...until then, the trails are contrails...and there is no evidence that anyone is purposely spraying anything in an effort to fix any problem with the atmosphere. Nor are they trying to harm anyone.

Virga Images on radar are very hard to find . . . seems there are few available . . . so how do you know the images from our friend are Virga? . . . Did any expert say that they were? Do you have examples you can compare with or demonstrate how it should look? Sounds to me you assumed they were . . . you know that is not enough Snake . . . Link it or it is not real . . .

"This TA LITE shows what happens when the chaff gets mixed in with real weather echoes. On this day, there were a few bands of weak reflectivity with virga and sporadic light rain. In the case presented here, the chaff blended with several weather echoes causing them to become indistinguishable from actual higher-reflectivity cells. It is hypothesized that this occurred because of turbulent dispersion in the convective cells with which the chaff mixed."

[link to www.wrh.noaa.gov]

:Virga Image:

Last Edited by George B on 01/21/2012 09:58 PM

Noble, there is a test pilot with years more experience than you that disagrees . . . see below . . .

Thread: I am the real John Lear...ask me a question

"The following are the reasons that it is aerodynamically impossible for a Boeing 767 to achieve 470 kts. (560 mph) true air speed.
Several uninformed individuals have found that in the type certification data information that the VD or "Dive velocity" of the Boeing 767 is 420 kts. They think that VD or Dive Velocity is an airspeed limitation that he FAA imposes and that the airplane can be safely 'dived' at 420 kts. They then propose that since it is can go 420 kts. then it ought to be able to exceed that speed by a few more knots to equal 470 kts. This is a false assumption and here is why.

The "Dive Velocity" VD is 420 kts. CAS (calibrated airspeed) is a speed that is a maximum for certification flight tests accomplished under 14 CFR Part 25.253 High Speed Characteristics and has not necessarily been achieved but is far above VFC (390 kts. 450 mph) which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated (14 CFR 25.253(b)).

What this means is not only was VD not necessarily achieved but even if it was, it was achieved in a DIVE demonstrating controllability considerably above VFC which is the maximum speed under which the stability characteristics must be demonstrated and by very experienced test pilots.
Further, as VD is considerably above VFC a alleged hijacker who is not an experienced test pilot would have extreme difficulty in controlling the airplane which would be similar to flying a buffeting bucking bronco, much less hitting a 208 ft. wide target dead center at 800 feet altitude. A remote controlled airplane would have similar problems.Also, lets consider the aerodynamics of your proposed 470 kt. airplane.

First, drag vs. power ratio. Drag is the effect of the air pushing against the frontal areas of the fuselage and wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Drag also includes the friction that is the result of the air flowing over these surfaces. There are 2 types of drag: induced and parasite. We do not have to consider induced drag because induced drag is caused by lift and varies inversely as the square of the airspeed. What this means is the faster you go the lower the induced drag.

What we do have to consider in parasite drag. Parasite drag is any drag produced that is not induced drag. Parasite drag is technically called 'form and friction' drag. It includes air pushing against the entire airplane including the engines, as the engines try to push the entire airplane through the air.

The parasite drag varies with the square of the velocity so to double the speed the drag doubles meaning it simply cannot go any faster. There is too much drag.

Commercial air transport wings began using supercritical or 'aft loading' technology about 20 years ago. The supercritical wing was the idea of Dr. Richard T. Whitcomb (Langley Research Center) and what he was trying to achieve was less drag before buffet onset. Without going into extreme detail what they were trying to do was design the wing so that it would cruise the most efficiently at the highest speed. Their second goal was to insure that the drag rise occurred as soon as possible after this highest speed.

The reason for this is that during flight test you tell the FAA what is the maximum speed you want to cruise at. Then the airplane is flown to this speed and 'upset' or placed into a dive for 30 seconds or so.
During the recovery, which must be accomplished with the use of aerodynamic controls only, the airplane may not achieve a speed any higher than VD (420 kts. CAS). What the designers of the wing are trying to accomplish is to place the 'drag rise' right after the top speed so that the airplane will not achieve VD. If it does go over VD then the max cruise speed has to be backed off, until it complies.

To propose that a pilot could exceed 400 kts. in level flight is to ignore the aerodynamic facts of life. The drag is increasing much too quickly.
We have 2 other things to consider for your 470 kt. airplane: induced power and parasite power.
Induced power varies inversely with velocity so we don't have to consider that because we are already going fast by assumption and it varies inversely.

Parasite power however varies as the cube of the velocity which means to double the airspeed you have to cube or have three times the power. So to add 100 kts. to the velocity of the aircraft we figure one quarter of the cube of the power. Lets say the power is 120,000 pounds of thrust (this is unachievable at 470 kts at sea level but let us make the assumption) take the cube of that and divide by the difference between 360 kts and 470 kts and you can see the impossible of the amount of thrust required to achieve 470 kts.

One more consideration is the impossibility of the PW4062 turbofan engines to operate in dense air at sea level altitude at high speed.

The Boeing 767 was designed to fly at high altitudes at a maximum Mach of .86 or 86/100ths the speed of sound. This maximum speed is called MMO, (Maximum Mach Operating). Its normal cruise speed, however, is Mach .80 (about 530 mph) or less, for better fuel economy. (The speed of sound at 35,000 feet is 663 mph so 530 mph is Mach .7998 see [link to www.grc.nasa.gov]
The fan tip diameter of the PW4062 which powered UAL 175 was 94 inches, over 7 feet in diameter making it, essentially a huge propeller.

This huge fan compresses an enormous amount of air during takeoff to produce the thrust necessary to get the airplane off of the ground and into the air.
At high altitudes, in cruise, where the air is much thinner and where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the fan and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust.

But at low altitudes, in much denser air, such as one thousand feet above sea level, where the air is over 3x as dense as at 35,000 feet, going much faster than Vmo or 360 knots, the air is going to start jamming up in the engine simply because a turbofan engine is not designed to take the enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight.

Because of the much denser air the fan blades will be jammed with so much air they will start cavitating or choking causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. The turbofan tip diameter is over 7 feet; it simply cannot accept that much dense air, at that rate, because they aren't designed to.

So achieving an airspeed much over its Vmo which is 360 knots isn't going to be possible coupled with the fact that because the parasite drag increases with the square of the speed and the power required doubles with the cube of the speed you are not going to be able to get the speed with the thrust (power) available.
It can be argued that modern aerodynamic principles hold that if an aircraft can fly at 35,000 ft altitude at 540 mph (Mach 0.8), and for a given speed, both engine thrust and airframe drag vary approximately in proportion to air density (altitude), that the engine can produce enough thrust to fly 540 mph at 800 ft. altitude.
That argument fails because although the engine might be theoretically capable of producing that amount of thrust, the real question is can that amount of thrust be extracted from it at 540 mph at 800 ft.

To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.

My affidavit should be in here:"
[link to nomoregames.net]

John Lear

Yes, every bit as credible and much more knowledgeable than you and Noble combined. . . .

"would be similar to flying a buffeting bucking bronco, much less hitting a 208 ft. wide target dead center at 800 feet altitude. A remote controlled airplane would have similar problems"

OK, so airplanes never hit the towers...you have proven that.

Again, I'm not here to discuss paranoid 9/11 truther bullshit.