Expert Top Gun/Airline Pilots say Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Yes, he's essentially still referring to the border on the right side as the "breaking point", while it clearly isn't.

Besides, Balsamo doesn't have the wind tunnel data from Boeing, so he can't even create diagrams, let alone the blatantly fake one discussed here.

The expertise of people who claim AA 77 would have been (A) uncontrollable or would have (B) broken apart instantly on Vmo excess, is in question.

Their claims are based on blatant fraud, and so are their attempts to cover their tracks now.

Period.

Aerospaceweb has already been cited dismissing fantasies such as espoused by P4T.

Period.

As we know from the DFDR, AA 77 did not not experience excessive g-loads and so wouldn't suffer the sort of structural damage predicted by P4T.

Period.

reply to post by snowcrash911


And again. as more evidence of the fraud, it is shown in your second link, and the mention of American 587.

Yes, he does this often by cherry-picking a specific incident in order to shoe-horn it (wrongly) into an attempt to support his assertions....by selectively leaving vast amounts of detail.

You can see it there, with AAL 587.....yes, it was indeed a wake turbulence encounter, but that alone did not cause the structural failure.

(If THAT were true, we'd have jets falling out of the sky several dozen times per day). One could even use a "generic" Vg Diagram to show that at the airspeed involved, it (AAL 587) was NO where near any flight envelope limits.

No, what happened is simply a very poor, inappropriate and overly aggressive pilot technique, and reaction. Partly due to some poorly thought-out American Airlines Flight Operations Department, Training and Standards division, that for a while was giving really poor procedural "advice" for turbulence encounters. This pilot (the First Officer) tragically took the Program information much too literally, and for whatever reason also did not understand the consequences of his actions....

......concurrently, the Pilot Flying at that moment in time (and many who were trained and qualified on the Airbus A300-600) may have not understood the way the rudder authority amounts were actually programmed, and just when authority began to become more limited (as airspeed and altitude increased, per the Airbus Flight Control programming parameters).

See, it is FAR more complicated than Balsamo's toss-off attempts to mis-use one incident or accident in order to further his agenda.


Earlier up-thread we saw many, many fine examples of the sorts of abuse large Transport Category jets can take, and still remain airworthy enough to be safely landed....to include extreme airspeed excursions beyond limits. When pointed (repeatedly) to Balsamo, they are merely hand-waved away.....he uses examples (altered) when convenient for him, and him alone....then, places fingers in ears and hums "La, La, La...your're wrong, I'm right so there!" while throwing temper tantrums......not to mention the many, many other examples of just plain goofy statements.


The type of things pilots know better than to say....but, even pilots are only Human..(as seen with AAL 587, and any number of other accidents caused by Pilot Error). It's just, some are much better than others....but, proper training and knowledge is possible to "level the playing field" in ways that help to prevent mistakes, common mistakes, from falling through the cracks.

It's sometimes referred to in the Industry as "Breaking the Chain" of mistakes that are almost always involved in leading, ultimately, to an accident or incident.

reply to post by ProudBird


You and Trebor are both pilots are you not? How about Aerospaceweb? The experts at pprune.org?

Why aren't your and their experienced opinions taken into consideration by TrueAmerican?

Probably because opinions don't matter if they do not agree with P4T. That's where we're at.

In the end, argument from authority isn't the right way to go. Data is. And data shows passenger planes have even survived structural damage from flight envelope excess. This is nothing compared to the few seconds of supposed excess by AA 77, which can be seen in the FDR data, too.

It crashed. Because it was never meant to land. As such, it's a complete non-issue. The only real issue at hand here is the proven incompetence of several experts, some of which are still flying. That is worrisome in the extreme.

Hell, AA 77 knocked over several light poles, clipped a VDOT pole and hit a tree on the way to the Pentagon. And here we are nitpicking over flight envelopes. If the plane can fly though light poles, that exceeds "design limitations" too. Yet it flew into the Pentagon, as the witnesses described.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Maybe in your fantasy world.

You know, I am not a pilot so I generally tend to not get involved in these threads. But for you to suggest that flying in a circle is ultra ultra difficult is insane. Must be step 2 after flying in a straight line isn't it ?

It is. Stuck in there somewhere is chewing gum and walking in a straight like out to the airplane. Ol' Ralph Kolstad would undoubtably have trouble doing that since he says flying an almost-21st century airliner into the broad side of one of the tallest buildings in the world at high speed is "impossible".

Seriously. You have got to bringing an impressive truck load of the stupid to claim that. Next? They'll be claiming an airplane will break apart 1 knot above its design speed!

Hey Trebor,

Just what the hell does the "height" of the towers have to do with anything??

The problem is the width of the buildings!

125ft (alleged) wingspan vs 208 ft width of twin towers at well over the speed that makes flight uncontrollable.

Even if you and proudbird base your "counterclaim" on "videos" of aircraft that are actually flying within the limitations set out in Pilotsfor911Truth's V-G Diagram (350 knots), you still have to take into account the controllability of the aircraft in both Manhattan and the Pentagon.



I know you won't bother your arse to watch it so I'll quote from it.

Dan : "After their Sim training period I said 'Hey, let's try something. Let's see if we can hit these buildings...uh..like we saw happen. We used a 737, a smaller much more manouevreable airplane. So, I set it up for these pilots and keep in mind these pilots have many years experience.. They all took turns trying to hit the buildings AND THEY COULDN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY SLOWED DOWN TO ALMOST LANDING SPEEDS. THEY COULD NOT HIT THOSE BUILDINGS. AT HIGH SPEEDS THEY COULDN'T DO IT"

Interviewer: " I guess they were getting into 'Dutch Roll' and everything, right?" Dan : " That's right, that's EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING"

Dutch roll

Dan : "PEOPLE DON'T REALISE TO HAND FLY AN AIRLINER AT THOSE SPEEDS IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT...PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE A NOVICE. ..IF YOU EXPECT TO MOVE THE CONTROLS OF AN AIRLINER AND EXPECT IT TO REACT THE SAME AS A LITTLE AIRPLANE (CESSNA), YOU COULDN'T STAND THE G-FORCES. EVERYTHING IS FINGERTIP CONTROL. SO BASICALLY OUT OF THE TEN TIMES THAT EACH PILOT TRIED NOBODY COULD DO IT.

I WAS ABLE TO DO IT AT THE LAST ATTEMPT. THAT WAS WHAT OPENED THEIR EYES AND SAID 'SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT' WE WERE FINDING THIS ALL THE TIME. EVEN THESE AIRLINE PILOTS, WITH THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF EXPERIENCE HAD A HARD TIME CONTROLLING..

THE AIRPLANE AT THOSE SPEEDS. EVEN WHEN I WAS MAKING THE FILM AND I WAS DOING ALL THOSE DIFFERENT MANOUEVRES TO SET IT UP TO HIT THE PENTAGON..COMING IN FROM THE TOP, COMING IN FROM THE SIDE, COMING IN FROM THE OTHER SIDE GOING INTO WHERE RUMMY WAS SITTING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND THEN I TRIED TO LINE IT UP EXACTLY HOW THE OFFICIAL STORY STATES, IT TOOK ME 5 OR 6 TRIES..

Mach tuck

Aileron roll

AT EXCESSIVE SPEEDS THE "DOWN AILERON" GRABS MORE AIR FROM THE RELATIVE WIND AND ACTUALLY CAUSES MORE DRAG, PULLING THE AIRCRAFT IN THAT DIRECTION. OPPOSITE TO TURN. THE PILOT WANTS TO TURN RIGHT BUT THE AIRCRAFT TURNS LEFT. THIS IS CALLED "CONTROL REVERSAL". AGAIN, THE AIRCRAFT IS OUT OF CONTROL.

CONCLUSION PILOT SKILLS -

CONTROLLABILITY SOME MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE THE WTC BUILDINGS WERE SOME OF THE TALLEST BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD THAT THEY WOULD MAKE EASY TARGETS TO HIT WITH COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT. NAVY PILOTS KNOW THE SKILL IT TAKES TO HIT SUCH A TARGET (AIRCRAFT CARRIER), EVEN AT LANDING SPEEDS, IN HIGHLY MANOUEVREABLE JETFIGHTER AIRCRAFT. IT IS CONTRADICTORY TO SUGGEST THAT THE WTC IS SO LARGE AS AN EXCUSE FOR "HIJACKER PILOT'" ABILITY.

COMBINE THAT WITH THE CONTROLLABILITY FACTOR AT HIGH SPEEDS AND DYNAMIC PRESSURES. IT IS ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT THESE "HIJACKER PILOTS" WHO COULDN'T CONTROL A CESSNA AT 65 KNOTS COULD EASILY HAVE HIT THEIR TARGETS, COMPLETELY AND THOROUGHLY. THREE OUT OF THREE!

THE BLACK BOXES FOR AA11 AND UA175 ARE CLAIMED TO NOT EXIST. THE DATA THAT THEY HAVE SUPPLIED SHOWS IMPOSSIBLE SPEEDS.

Frank Legge makes the same claims as you. Why not endorse the poor guy's "paper"?

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by ProudBird

 

You and Trebor are both pilots are you not? How about Aerospaceweb? The experts at pprune.org?

Why aren't your and their experienced opinions taken into consideration by TrueAmerican?

Why not ask them to endorse Frank's paper Snowcrash? Now's your chance!

The "experts" at pprune.org? Read the posts. Only one guy/girl with 3 posts total, all in the same thread and obviously obsessed with Rob Balsamo questions the validity of the VG diagrams while one of their top tech pilots, Pugilistic Animus, admits a VG can be drawn if v speeds are known.

www.pprune.org...

Remember to ask the "pilots" here to give Frank a hand, eh?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Even if you and proudbird base your "counterclaim" on "videos" of aircraft that are actually flying within the limitations set out in Pilotsfor911Truth'sV-G Diagram (350 knots)

There is no "V-G Diagram". P4t Vg-diagram is a proven fake.

In addition, Balsamo is known to cover up his blunders

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Frank Legge makes the same claims

No he doesn't. I know Frank Legge, I've e-mailed him, and collaborated in his paper on AA 77's FDR. You are lying.

The hijackers sought extra training in simulators.

I agree on one thing, in the specific case of Marwan Al-Shehhi, what he did was remarkable and improbable. But that does not make it impossible. He practiced in simulators, specifically to make those risky maneuvers he later executed.

There were other attempts to replicate the hijackers' actions in simulators:
Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175

What happened to John Bursill? Why, he was HARASSED of course... it's the ONLY THING P4T is ANY GOOD AT.

Here's another simulator reconstruction, obviously not hitting at the exact same spot Hanjour hit, but it still worked without the plane disintegrating, with constant audible warnings in the cockpit:



Can't understand Dutch? Ask me.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Why not ask them to endorse Frank's paper Snowcrash? Now's your chance!

I know what the experts at Aeospaceweb dot org endorse, and it isn't your delusions:

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006

Source

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
The "experts" at pprune.org? Read the posts. Only one guy/girl with 3 posts total, all in the same thread and obviously obsessed with Rob Balsamo questions the validity of the VG diagrams while one of their top tech pilots, Pugilistic Animus, admits a VG can be drawn if v speeds are known.

Balsamo (with yet another sock puppet alias, what a surprise, he's afraid to use his real name, why?) is constantly dismissed, ridiculed and his threads are closed by the moderators. PA wasn't responding to Balsamo's fraudulent photoshop, he was responding to a generic question. The fact of the matter is Balsamo's diagram is a fraud, as explained in the same thread by other contributors you don't want to acknowledge.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Remember to ask the "pilots" here to give Frank a hand, eh?

From pprune...

First, it should be easy enough, if there is a legitimate need, to source a Boeing V-G diagram. The fact that the "need" is based on a whacko 9-11 conspiracy theory probably takes going to Boeing out of the picture.

Second, while you can graph a few V speeds onto a generic V-G diagram and make it work for students, but hardly good enough for engineering data. There are lots more to a V-G diagram than those 3 speeds.

Last, an airplane does not suddenly come apart at the right side of the diagram, as any number of LOC events have shown in numerous types. There are a number of other factors to the right side-bird strike protection, flight control characteristics (aileron reversal, hydraulic control limits, wing bending) and flight test design. None of which was a concern to hijackers. I have no doubt a B757-767 could exceed the right side and maintain integrity for the short while they needed it.

Source: pprune.org

To which Balsamo responds as if they were in agreement. Balsamo only went to pprune again after I confronted him at 911oz, again to revise history and to try to cover up his blunders.

The admin of pprune.org closed the thread, agreeing with "galaxy flyer" above:

Conspiracy things belong in other forums. I think that this thread has passed its use-by date, perhaps.

Source: pprune.org

What other forums does Tullamarine allude to? Balsamo's forum, where delusions are the norm, fraud is a virtue, and deceptive incompetence is raised to an art form.

You will never get any traction with your claims at any serious pilot forums but your own echo chamber.

Now if you ask me, did I once believe otherwise? Yes, probably. I have adjusted my convictions, however, after studying the data more carefully. Whereas you stubbornly insist on promoting technically inaccurate claims from known frauds who harass, falsely defame and slander their detractors.

When I say Balsamo is a fraud, a charlatan, a liar and a stalker who disrupts forums with sock puppets and makes death threats to researchers and debunkers who disagree with him, I am stating facts.

That is why April Gallop's court case was dismissed as frivolous and the lawyers in question slapped with a hefty fine.

This man is not an expert, his reputation is decidedly awful, so the alleged 'expertise' is in question. Back to the data.

Let's look at this part again (emphasis mine):

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006

Source

And shaking (fluttering) there was:



Now look at those g-loads.... were they in the danger zone? No. Well, at least not until it crashed, evidenced by the pink line going to the maximum recordable value for longitudinal acceleration, in this case a negative acceleration, meaning deceleration.

What can we conclude from those g-loads? That Balsamo's g-force calculations were catastrophically WRONG.

So what do we have?

We have no less than THREE simulator tests, all confirming the "design limit" wouldn't instantly break the plane apart, and it would have been possible for the hijackers to hit their targets.

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Compared to P4T? No contest.

reply to post by snowcrash911


I would say that those vertical G-loads are more indicative of the pilot's actions....he would have been extremely tense, and certainly not concerned as a professional pilot for smoothness of 'finesse' in terms of ride comfort.


It is also important that people looking at the last five seconds graph for the first time understand the baseline level is 1 G.....normal Earth gravity.

Just as the last five seconds of tracing (blue line) begins, we see it already at slightly less than one.....this is very insignificant in terms of "sensation" felt, as it's only a few tenths below 1.

This would indicate a minor push forward on the elevators...(or relaxing of the back pressure, depending on where the Stab trim was at the time.)

Accelerating as shown in the FDR (with full thrust added) would have the effect of the nose trying to come up, thus necessitating a forward pressure on the controls......and, if he didn't have a panicked death grip already, he could sue the Trim to equalize the forces.....but, those last seconds, it is not beyond a person's normal strength.

This would also show the erratic G readings.....as he jockeyed to prevent ground contact prior to impact.

Also should note that a better representation of the blue line could be had if each data point were "interpolated" to smoothen the curves....those were individual digital readings, taken at intervals....in real life, the actual sensation would have been more "analog" in nature. (The actual g-forces transitions between interval readings).

Finally, we see that (referring back to the concept of speed and G-forces, and their relationship), the airplane approached just over 2 Gs just seconds before impact, for very brief moments.....still not even at its certificated "maximum" of 2.5 Gs.


And those are limits that are artificially lower then theoretical true maximums.......as have been demonstrated in other incidents and events where the published "limits" have been exceeded, yet crew and passengers survive....in the hands of professionals.....

reply to post by snowcrash911


I have a little bit of beef with John Bursill, and "Test #1"....whilst his analysis of the speeds of AAL 11 and UAL 175 are valid, and prove conclusive that John Lear and all the other "no planers" are woefully mistaken, The problem I have is Mr. Bursill's cavalier attitude about "ease" with which (he suggests) that the AutoFlight Systems on stock B-767-200s could be modified for "remote control".

He may be an avionics engineer, but unless he is a pilot, trained on the equipment, and familiar with their limitations, then he is taking the difficulty of such a thing, from a practical and engineering aspect, too lightly.

One glaring mistake in those assumptions: The final bank angle of UAL 175. Estimated at 38° (or so). The stock AutoPilot software would not allow that, if it was "remote controlled" (as he suggests) by interfacing with those systems. This includes the fact that the AutoThrottles would not have allowed the airplanes to exceed Vmo, either.

Originally posted by ProudBird
I have a little bit of beef with John Bursill, and "Test #1"....whilst his analysis of the speeds of AAL 11 and UAL 175 are valid, and prove conclusive that John Lear and all the other "no planers" are woefully mistaken, The problem I have is Mr. Bursill's cavalier attitude about "ease" with which (he suggests) that the AutoFlight Systems on stock B-767-200s could be modified for "remote control".

He may be an avionics engineer, but unless he is a pilot, trained on the equipment, and familiar with their limitations, then he is taking the difficulty of such a thing, from a practical and engineering aspect, too lightly.

One glaring mistake in those assumptions: The final bank angle of UAL 175. Estimated at 38° (or so). The stock AutoPilot software would not allow that, if it was "remote controlled" (as he suggests) by interfacing with those systems. This includes the fact that the AutoThrottles would not have allowed the airplanes to exceed Vmo, either.

I understand. He and Frank Legge talked on his podcast "9/11 Visibility", and Frank Legge disagreed with Bursill on that and they debated it.

I take a generic position (and thanks for your clarification, btw): if there was any sort of "remote control" involved with respect to UA 175, I want positive evidence, not negative evidence. I've introduced this concept to truthers countless times in the past, and if applied properly it will prevent the adoption of mistaken beliefs.

I am willing to accept that Al-Shehhi did what he did all by himself. You have to admit though, that that was the "best" piloting of the bunch. You could also say he took an unnecessary risk taking the high speed turn he took.

A rookie like him? He might just as well have missed the South Tower and plunged his plane into lower Manhattan, something Rudi Dekkers pointed out on Dutch TV. Turns out he didn't, though.

I would have loved to analyze UA 175's FDR. Unfortunately it isn't available to us.

Moreover, I want to strongly emphasize that all phone calls made from the planes are real. This does away with all "Northwoods" theories immediately, and underscores there were hijackers on those planes in control of the cockpit.

We have a recording of UA 93's pilots under severe duress, being (probably fatally) assaulted in the cockpit.

The information relayed from on board those planes does, however, present a problem for people high up in the hierarchy claiming to be blissfully unaware of what was going on until UA 175 hit the WTC.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by trebor451

 

I'd like to know what qualifies Kolstad as an "expert".

Well......the man is no doubt an aviator. It his judgement that is called into question.....judgement for getting involved in this circus known as "PilotsForTruth" (**).....and thus, sullying his (Kolstad's) reputation in the process.

ADDING (**)....I tried, over there.....at "PffffT". And, no.....many have misidentified "ME"......Rob Balsamo does NOT play "fair"....as a website "Administrator". He is an over-bearing "Lord" of the site that he maintains, and there is nothing balanced, nor reasoned. This is very, very important to note, and to understand.....

I feel a bit sorry for him (Kolstad).....I think he was "used".....and, thing is....once ANYTHING is put on the internet, it just never seems to ever disappear.....good OR bad....truth OR lie........

I will work on a full de-bunk of the 51-minute video, several pages back......holding my nose, and diving in......
(sigh)....

edit on Tue 14 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Yo, mods, any chance of nipping this bs in the bud?
You've just posted a warning and a flurry of "up yours" posts are flung on to the thread.

Can we keep on topic please?

Originally posted by snowcrash911
You were clearly not aware of the history of the diagram you were posting. You were posting a fraud peddled by Balsamo and you bought it hook line and sinker.

Why? And will you apologize for it?

There is no instant structural failure. Your beliefs are based upon vicious lies, disinformation, half-truths and sciolist technobabble.

A plane crashed into the Pentagon, the witnesses know this, they were there, and what's more, phone calls from AA 77 (which aren't 'fake' except in the deluded world of no plane theory) confirm it was hijacked.

Pentagon Witnesses: They Saw The Plane Hit!

Hypocrite or is there something affecting your memory Snowcrash? I'd get that checked out.

Those people all claimed to see the plane "crash" did they?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Rafe_

 

There is SOMTHING going on here, that you may not understand.......

But of course he would never want to find himself one on one with Kolstad because it scares him. If proudbird (who is not a pilot himself) was so convinced he would jump at the opportunity.

Yeah.....I am a pretty accomplished pilot.

You?? Bring it.....

Are you going to endorse Frank Legge's paper proudbird? I see Snowcrash hasn't the stones to ask you in public.

And I see you all ignored the controllability aspect of my earlier post.

1. Have you ever tried those manouevres at said speeds? Do you know of anybody who has tried those manouevres at those speeds?

2. You don't believe that controllability is a factor when trying to fly a 767 into a 208ft mark? At the OCT speed?

3. You believe that the 100% success rate on both towers and that on the Pentagon is possible given the issue of controllability? Especially by people who had never flown a commercial aircraft?

I don't want opinions. I want precedence and facts.

Cheers.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
If NTSB data shows at least 462 knots, and this is 112-138 knots over the Vmo of a standard 757, then why is ProudBird posting videos of aircraft at airshows, operating well within their flight envelope?

Yeah, AA 77 was flown beyond its safety limits, and we can see that in this graph, showing flutter:

And whatever structural damage it was incurring or about to incur, mattered little, because as you know, it crashed shortly thereafter. (See graph, severe longitudinal deceleration is observed, impossible if not due to a crash, and certainly not commensurate with a 'flyover'

)

But that doesn't mean airplanes exceeding safety margins, even suffering structural damage, immediately break into pieces and fall out of the sky; some of them recover and land safely, like China Airlines Flight 006:

Proudbird, Trebor or any other "pilots" here agree with what Snowcrash has posted? Do you think that Warren Stutt's work is valid?

If so, why don't one of you answer his and Frank Legge's calls for an endorsement? Just one?

Cheers

While you're all tapdancing around "answers" to my questions, here's a reminder on the alleged sim recreation carried out in Holland.

Read it.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The Dutch simulation test was performed prior to the release of the Flight Data Recorder information, so clearly the Dutch researchers did not have any scientific data to examine the maneuver, nor implement the maneuver properly. Their main focus was to debunk claims made that the turning maneuver was impossible, which we agree is possible according to the data now released. However, other aspects of the flight path are impossible (See "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" at pilotsfor911truth.org...).

This is what we do know about their simulation: It is not based on data; The crash logic was disabled; The over-speed warnings were disabled; They did not include topographical obstacles; The light poles on Washington Blvd are non-existent, and, most importantly, the simulator is not a 757! All of these are major factors when attempting to recreate a real-life maneuver which Pilots For 9/11 Truth have shown, based on data, is impossible.

On first attempt during the taping of the video, Mr. Ruigrok hits the top northwest corner of the building which would have spread large pieces of wreckage everywhere, unlike the alleged object that hit the Pentagon which left very little wreckage. The second hit plowed into the front lawn and foundation. No such damage is observed at the Pentagon. The third time looks like a more direct hit but again plows into the foundation. Conclusion - It took 3 tries on video to get it close. How many times did Mr. Ruigrok "practice" prior as the video admits? The simulator crash logic being disabled is a major factor as the simulator would have crashed long before getting to the Pentagon due to excessive speed (See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"). The over speed warning also being disabled is another major factor as it's a huge distraction to the pilot while flying. Combined with the fact the light poles on Washington Blvd are missing and the fact the simulator is not that of a 757, how can anyone take such recreation for this purpose (ad-hoc and incidental) as scientific?

There's more about the flight experience of the guy who allegedly carried out the tests and how the sim wasn't "certified".

Go read.

I understand. He and Frank Legge talked on his podcast "9/11 Visibility", and Frank Legge disagreed with Bursill on that and they debated it.

Pssst.now's your chance Snowcrash. Ask proudbird if he'll endorse Frank and Warren's paper.

He mightn't agree with Frank's take on 9/11, but he and the guys have quoted Warren's work to death.
Why not give the guy the break he needs and step up to the plate?

Shhhh..between you and me. Fingers crossed.