Just for the benefit of those not familiar, this was Mr. Balsamo's persona on ATS ("Above Top Secret") a few years ago:
"TiffanyInLA". (You can search the ATS site for his/"her" posts).
From what I understand, the profile avatar picture chosen was of a prominent female porn actress. (Though, I could be mistaken....).
In any case, you cannot see ATS members' profile avatars unless you are also a member of ATS.
Though a bit of a "slog", reading through it, you can see where Jim Fetzer claims to have had "expert" advice from an aerodynamics "expert", and writes this:
"A pilot and aeronautical engineer has explained to me that, at full throttle, a Cessna could not fly lower than 15 feet to the ground and that a Boeing 757, at around 500 miles per hour, would be unable to get closer than about 60 feet from the ground."
This is complete rubbish.
I can cite many, many instances of high-airspeed low-level flight. (I personally have flown a light airplane, such as a Cessna or Beech Bonanza LESS than 15 feet above a surface....in my cases, above the ocean, so it was legal....at normal cruising airspeeds).
My ONE video example does not involve a Cessna, nor a BeechCraft, it is the legendary Bob Hoover in an Aero Commander:
HERE is the full video re-creation, from take-off at Dulles, until just seconds before impact at the Pentagon:
I am SORRY it is an hour and a half in length. ALSO....there are some mistakes in RE: the time references. When you
see times referenced as "EDT", they must properly be understood as "GMT", or more commonly, "UTC".
OF COURSE, in the video above....(IF you watch it) you can discern when the actual hijacking occurs. Yes, 1 and 1/2 hours? Well, "Welcome" to my world of airline flight!!
PLEASE note the primary aspects ... on the right are Airspeed, Altitude, Attitude and Heading.
On the bottom part, you see (at left) throttle lever position. Then, control wheel position.
THEN, the "A/P" cue is which autopilot is engaged....the green means that that particular autopilot is engaged. (The B757 and B767 BOTH have a three-autopilot system...only one is engaged at a time, EXCEPT for an "Auto-Land" scenario).
The Dunn reply to that also seems unsatisfactory. They are both discussing ground effect which is the buildup of higher pressure air underneath an aircraft as it nears the ground. The rule of thumb is that it becomes apparent at roughly half the wingspan of any particular aircraft.
Dunn cites the F-111 being designed to fly at 20 feet. That is incorrect. It routinely operated at 200' AGL but not 20.
When an aircraft is flying at high speed in ground effect, it requires lots of nose down stick force to stay there. Anyone who has read Chuck Yeagers autobiography may recall a paragraph where he is flying at ultra low altitude over a dry lake and trying to push the nose down and was unable to.
This effect, IMHO, was the reason why this flight hit the side of the Pentagon instead of hitting the ground in front of it.
When an aircraft is flying at high speed in ground effect, it requires lots of nose down stick force to stay there. Anyone who has read Chuck Yeagers autobiography may recall a paragraph where he is flying at ultra low altitude over a dry lake and trying to push the nose down and was unable to.
This effect, IMHO, was the reason why this flight hit the side of the Pentagon instead of hitting the ground in front of it.
Bare in mind too ground effect at those speeds would be minimal at best. Although in my texts I can find no direct correlation between ground effect and speed, I know for certainty that maximum wingtip vortices (which are the cause of ground effect) occur at slow speeds and high angles of attack. Therefore minimum occur at high speeds and low angles of attack. I can only relate from there that therefore AAL77 would have experience negligible ground effect, not that it would change anything anyway.
But as usual, I'll just leave the link to my blog here so conspiracy theorists can ignore it.
Yes, indeed. Also important to note that the airplane was only within half a wingspan distance above the ground for a fraction of a second.
ETA: I just found this YT video....unfortunately it's a B737, not a B757. (But, note that the B737 typically is MORE restrictive in terms of Max Mach and Max Airspeed limitations).
Not sure if it should go here, and/or also in the thread about the so-called "impossibility" of the speeds seen by the other airplanes on 9/11?
Anyway, it is of course a simulator, but the airspeeds shown speak for themselves:
Please note at the 1:30 point...the airspeed indicator display switches to the amber "SPD" annunciation. This is because the airplane has now exceed the "limits" of the Air Data Computer...which is indicated airspeed of 450 knots. The airplane remains in excess of
450K for several seconds, and when it decelerates below 450, then the airspeed indication returns.
For non-pilots, the point I am making in the video is that even at 450 knots, the airplane was fully controllable, as you see in the final seconds of the vid, as they are recovering from the horrific aerobatics.
(Anyone who wishes to have the instrumentation symbol displays interpreted may feel free to send me a PM).
One of the aims of this exercise is learning to recover from "Unusual Attitudes" or UA's. I did a similar exercise in my last simulator session. The A330 has a design dive speed of only 365 knots/mach 0.93. This is due to the required dive criteria needed for recovery being modified to take into account fly-by-wire protections which limit how far past VMO the aircraft can physically fly.
In that session we saw a speed of 450 knots as well, which is Vd+85. The aircraft was perfectly controllable and recovered normally. In the A330 Flight manual there are references to control law reversions that take place at speeds in excess of 440 knots/Mach 0.96.
Robert Balsamo's assertions that VD is some sort of structural/control-ability limit are contra-indicated by these factors.
I was pleased to find this on YouTube....as "my" experience in the curriculum of unusual attitude recovery in airline training was far less extreme. But, we'd all learned that years ago in smaller airplanes, as part of getting an Instrument Rating, eh?
Reason I was "pleased" to find it wasn't about the "UA" training aspect....it was the simulator that continued to be controllable WELL beyond MMo and VMo.
This blows the "P49/11T" people (or..."person") out of the sky....dunnit??
(ETA): And of course, further "zeroing-in", great find!
Robert Balsamo's assertions that VD is some sort of structural/control-ability limit are contra-indicated by these factors.
Casual readers may wish to scroll up, and review TWCobra's contribution.
Of course.....I will expect that a certain "someone" will hysterically claim that it's
"a different airplane!!"
Nevertheless....whether an A330 or A340, or a B757 or B767....(or ANY other commercially vetted airplane)....they MUST withstand rigorous testing standards before being allowed into commercial service AS a passenger, or cargo-only jet.
In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.
Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening. They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention. This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all. This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag "black operation" involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.
If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you. We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.
The basic premise is that according to many eye witnesses the flight path of the plane is drastically different than that officially reported, and that this inconsistency makes the observed damage to the building impossible from the witnessed angle of attack — pardon the pun.
In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.
Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening. They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention. This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all. This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag "black operation" involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.
If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you. We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.
The basic premise is that according to many eye witnesses the flight path of the plane is drastically different than that officially reported, and that this inconsistency makes the observed damage to the building impossible from the witnessed angle of attack — pardon the pun.
To cut to the chase Michael, what actual new evidence--besides people saying that they remember such and such--
you know, film, photos, etc., is there to contradict what is known?
Is "Citizen Investigation Team" anything more than a couple of California truthers?
Why would this video have gained no traction in the over 7 years it's been out, if it were truly groundbreaking?
Sorry, but the video summary just looks like the same old, same old: big promises that never get delivered upon...
Maybe I need to stop drinking. Maybe I need to START drinking. But I am watching your video.
The first point made at 8:00, they claim that eyewitness claims of where the plane crossed with respect to a particular gas station:
1. Perspective is difficult to resolve visually with flying objects, particularly since several of the witnesses were apparently either driving or riding in cars (or else the video means to say they were standing in the middle of active streets!), however every eyewitness variant trajectory ends in a collision with the same point on the Pentagon after a gentle bend to the right. This disproves nothing, and in fact, what the video shows is multiple eyewitnesses saying a plane hit the Pentagon but from perspective disagree about where it passed above buildings.
Points 2 and 3 are both about the final maneuvers. First, the real video does not show what the animation does, there's not enough to conclude the plane was completely level. Point 3 actually makes this clearer - the light poles "concealed on the decline" (a very gentle slope in the landscaping) shows how these lamp poles were raised higher than the ground floor of the Pentagon itself. They were all MUCH taller than the slope and the guard rail combined, and also shorter than the Pentagon's roof, meaning there was no need for the "drive and pull up" maneuver shown in the first animation, and indeed THIS animation doesn't involve such a maneuver, but a mild slope into the wall. The exact location of the light poles is not only documented by corporate proxy, but by direct documentation of the site. I mean, the video INCLUDES THE PICTURES FROM THE SCENE.
Incidentally, points 2 and 3 also call into question the eye witnesses infallibility - the video's evidence clearly shows an airliner with the appropriate wing span would hit the light poles it did hit when coming from something close to the official flight path.
This doesn't make the eyewitnesses in point 1 liars, it makes then normal eyewitnesses. Perspective with flying objects is something human eyes are abjectly terrible at resolving, evolution has equipped us to kill or escape things at close to medium range on the ground, not to deal with flying threats. This is a point that comes up constantly in chemtrail conspiracy theories as well, without flight tracking software (that wasn't available in 2001) it's nearly impossible to accurately determine the distance and altitude of a plane, even a low flying one, without either special equipment or some significant expertise in the area.
The department of transportation's information on light pole positioning was by intended spacing along the length of the road at a fixed distance from the curb. Once installed, they generally don't retain even that much information, since new poles are installed directly on the bases of the old ones. When the base is damaged, it's dug out and replaced in the same hole, and if the base is insufficient due to an upgraded light pole, they may either do that or (to keep an old pole active while the upgrade is installed) install a new base next to the old one before removing it. There's no reason to retain positioning data as precise as the video thinks they should, because streetlights don't need to be positioned with that level of precision to begin with.
The one time that that precision might help - when multiple light poles are completely obliterated and their bases either destroyed or severely displaced (not the case on 9/11, the bases were still in place) - is incredibly rare, and in such a case they would resurvey the road. Something that would displace bases that way will also mean sidewalk and curb damage at best, road or utility damage very likely, and fixing that would invalidate the old positioning anyway.
Further claims that, because none of the interviewed witnesses could see the moment of impact, none of them could see or hear the plane flying away is silly. The video even says several of them couldn't see the impact because of topography - that gentle slope outside the Pentagon conceals much of it from view from those vantage points, but does NOT conceal a plane flying away, and do not abate the noise of one doing so, as its engines would remain active and very loud for much longer than the sounds of the crash would last.
None of this is new, all of it's been covered before. In fact, this "independent investigation" consists of little more than recutting an existing and fully debunked Pilots For Truth video with a different speaker!
In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of ... We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.
The basic premise is that according to many eye witnesses the flight path of the plane is drastically different than that officially reported, and that this inconsistency makes the observed damage to the building impossible from the witnessed angle of attack — pardon the pun.
Radar and FDR prove the "official" flight path. FDR found in the Pentagon, along the flight path final true course, CIT ignored this hard evidence, as they did the DNA. RADAR, FDR, show the actual course, hard evidence for the flight path. Damage pattern matches the FDR true course.
The CIT show witnesses pointing to the "official flight path", and anyone could find the Radar data, and FDR data. CIT failed to use it.
Eye witnesses need to be interview with a "real investigator" who understands our limitations as humans; aka, a trained NTSB investigator, or a trained aircraft accident investigator. What we all suffer from, perception problems. Not knowing the size/type of plane, we make it closer, or further away depending on our experience.
Ironically, the witnesses say 77 hit the Pentagon; what did CIT say. Now that is special.
5 or 6 different Radar sites were tracking 77 final approach (DCA, ADW, BWI, PLA, IAD looks like 5). The NTSB was able to pull the recorded Radar data to study for 9/11. There are many airports around the Pentagon (10/20/30 miles) which have Radars, and this data proves 77 flight path. Radar is proof 77 took off and impacted the Pentagon. It was 77, and DNA from all the Passengers prove this (the small kids DNA was not recovered).
Do fantasy claims have to be refuted? There is no evidence, thus the claims are refuted on face value, lack of evidence proves the claims are opinions at best.
The blue line, is based on the final true course of Flight 77, and it hit the Pentagon where the DNA for Flight 77 was found, along with the FDR. Which flight path drawn for CIT is the flight path CIT is going to use? Did you know the flight paths are impossible as drawn, the g-force on some would rip of the 757 wings at 483.5 knots which 77 hit the Pentagon at.
A real trained investigator in flight mishaps would never ask a person to draw a path, however we would not reject one if they offered it in their sit down when they write up their story... but use it? No.
We would take them to where they were, and with a yard stick have them sight where they saw, this gives us a vector to where they saw the aircraft, we would use compass etc. However, for 77 we have the FDR, so all the witnesses statement and field work notes are great, but FDR is the hard stuff, and beats witnesses, and the Radar helps too.
If we lack the FDR, and Radar, then witnesses are more important if we need to understand an accident, but an on purpose crash, is easy, we can use the path of damage to nail down the exact path.
What hit the lampposts, a 757 witnesses watched hit the lampposts and hit the Pentagon. This ends up being easy, CIT made up a fantasy version of 9/11 with no valid evidence.
I can post the final true course of 77 if needed, from the FDR, and I have the Radar plot of 77 on Google earth... CIT ignores the evidence, and made up the claims.
I found CIT to be unqualified to investigate anything to do with flying... based on their body of work. Witnesses pointing in the direction of the "official" flight path.
From CIT videos, their witnesses clearly point to the "official flight path", aka the reality flight path verified by Radar, FDR, DNA, damage to lampposts and damage to the Pentagon. I was laughing as I watched "CIT witnesses" pointing to where 77 really flew, and did not support CIT position.
This is where I would have had a yard stick, and the witnesses would point/aim; and this has to be done that day, or the next day, or ASAP, not years later; humans are not great witnesses, unless you understand our limitations and perception errors.
Flight 77 true course... it does match "the angle of attack", the damage to the Pentagon is on this true course. The DNA is found around this "final attack course", CIT ignored data. The FDR files were released, CIT failed to use it.
Off topic, but a mid-air collision is a typical reason for being outside the normal flight envelope? I mean, I get that it would put you there, but typical?
As Keith pointed out above, some of the plots ascribed to the witness descriptions are simply not possible, but moreover some are mutually exclusive.
The CiT then simply ignores or pooh-poohs the witnesses they themselves say are telling a true narritive of what happened when those witnesses say, explicitly, that the plane hit the Pentagon. Sean Boger for instance: He was in the heliport control tower, saw the plane coming and said it was coming over the Citgo station. So far just what the CiT ordered. Then he says he watched as it came across the lawn and hit the Pentagon THEN he ducked under his console. The CiT excuse this by saying that Mr. Boger must have ducked under his console before the plane reached the Pentagon so he could not have seen impact and must have simply implied it when the bombs went off.
Dozens of eyewitnesses, evidence of a massive kerosine explosion, many small but visible pieces of a 757 on the lawn, an almost complete body count AND those pictures, and a believable computer simulation sort of swung it for me. I must be easy, eh?
I'm sorry, there was I thinking that this engine had just hit a reinforced concrete building at 500 mph while turning at 20,000 rpm.
He's replying to a post for nearly 4 years ago where Jazzy was just approximating the speed of the Pentagon impact as "500 mph". I'm sure there's a variety of contested estimates of the speed, which are irrelevant to Jazzy's point, that the engine was unlikely to have survived intact, 400mph or 500mph or 556mph does not change that point.
The last entry for speed in 77's FDR found in the Pentagon was 483.5 knots, the engines had been shoved up to 100 percent 34 seconds prior to impact (FDR shows the engines were pushed up to 100 percent). 483.5 knots is 556 mph, or so. The damage to the Pentagon is what you get with a 556 mph impact, about 1215 pounds of TNT for the Kinetic Energy impact.
483.5 knots is not an estimate, it is what the plane was doing in that last second.
OK I've been lurking on this thread, so I thought I would jump in here for my first official Metabunk posting. Whenever I get into a discussion about Flight 77, which inevitably includes camera angles, ground effect, light poles, etc.....I always come back to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology team which positively identified the remains at the Pentagon crash site of the 64 passengers from Flight 77 through DNA analysis.
OK I've been lurking on this thread, so I thought I would jump in here for my first official Metabunk posting. Whenever I get into a discussion about Flight 77, which inevitably includes camera angles, ground effect, light poles, etc.....I always come back to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology team which positively identified the remains at the Pentagon crash site of the 64 passengers from Flight 77 through DNA analysis.
The obvious answer would be that the report is a lie.
My favorite rejoiner (to doubts of a plane) is the the Pentagon Building Performance Report, which most theorists have never heard of. It's harder to dismiss as a fabrication, as it matches the scene photos. https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/
the DNA evidence is a good one, because although the inevitable response will be "it's all a lie"
it the allows you to ask "what evidence would convince you?"
9 times out of 10 you will not change the position/mind of the original responder - but for the lurkers it may be the start of themselves questioning their beliefs
"just how deep am I willing to go"
in that to defend them, they may realise that you have to go further and further into the "rabbit hole " - the conspiracy gets ever bigger
more people involved, bigger paper trail - yet no actual evidence apart from "it's all a lie"
In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.
Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening. They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention. This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all. This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag "black operation" involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.
If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you. We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.
The basic premise is that according to many eye witnesses the flight path of the plane is drastically different than that officially reported, and that this inconsistency makes the observed damage to the building impossible from the witnessed angle of attack — pardon the pun.
I only just saw this post but the fact is that most of those witness reports are drastically different from each other. That removes veracity from any claim that they are usefull at all.
