NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[Bad_Doggie]

What burden of proof do the authorities have?

1. Positive identification of the airplane.

2. A subset of this is proof of the airplane type.

Neither of these have been done.

If you look into the four possibilities that I included in my post to AIAA, one pertained to whether the airplane type is correct. I think this is the first issue that should be pinned down.

So now you are contending that it wasn’t a 767 and wasn’t Flight 175? Is that really what you are contending?

Woof!

 

[dadeets]

So now you are contending that it wasn’t a 767 and wasn’t Flight 175? Is that really what you are contending?

Woof!

I'm not contending either of these things. The authorities are contending both that it was Flight 175 and therefore, a 767. They have offered nothing to support their contention. The burden of proof is on them to support their contention.

 

[Reheat]

What burden of proof do the authorities have?

1. Positive identification of the airplane.

2. A subset of this is proof of the airplane type.

Neither of these have been done.

If you look into the four possibilities that I included in my post to AIAA, one pertained to whether the airplane type is correct. I think this is the first issue that should be pinned down.

This has been pinned down. Apparently you're just not aware of it. In the case of UA175, radar was able to track the aircraft from it's take-off at Logan all of the way to the WTC. In fact, this is true for ALL of the aircraft involved. In two cases we have the FDR, which includes about 25 hours of the previous flights the aircraft made. There is ZERO possibility that there was a substitute aircraft in ALL cases of the aircraft involved in 9/11. Yes, this information came from the Gubermint. Ultimately, what you're contending here would also have to be Gubermint supplied information.

Of course you're alluding to the fact that no cross correlated serial numbers have been published for the various aircraft components which have them. What would you do with those serial numbers? They would have to be supplied by the FBI (an ebil Gubermint organization) and would need to be cross check with the maintenance logs from the respective airlines. Could you personally do that in your capacity as a private citizen? Is that what you want?

When Col George Nelson first raised the serial number issue it was a slightly valid point, however it no longer has validity at all. During most of his career serial numbers were used to determine if aircraft components were the cause of an accident. Only in a few cases were those serial numbers important for aircraft ID. Subsequent to Nelson's utterance of the serial number issue several other means have positively established the identity of the aircraft involved even without serial numbers. Has he revised his original statement?

Have the aircraft insurance companies refused to reimburse the Airline companies for their loss based on the lack of positive ID of ANY of the aircraft?

It seems to me you're using this as a "cop out". So far, all you're doing is using tired long debunked truther canards for your arguments, which based on your resume is disappointing. I would have expected more.

PS: I have not sourced the compiled radar tracks to which I referenced above because it would take considerable effort to find all of them. If you would accept that as positive ID of the aircraft they can be provided. Otherwise, I'll wait for a response.

 

[alienentity]

What term would you prefer? I do think "which aircraft" is an important component of the question. Thus, I think the participants in this discussion fall into two camps. Those who aren't troubled by the failure of the authorities to provide a positive identification of the aircraft, and those who are trouble by it.

I'd prefer you stop avoiding the burden of proof to support your claim, and that you stop shifting the goalposts.
Remember, you initially were claiming that the airspeeds were not possible, now you've shifted to another claim, that of 'failure of the authorities to provide a positive id. of the aircraft'.

Let's deal with your first claim and the burden of proof which is still upon you before dashing to the next bare assertion fallacy, shall we?

IF your attitude is going to be a complete avoidance of competent answers to your questions and claims, then there is no point to further discussion with you.

 

[beachnut]

What burden of proof do the authorities have?

1. Positive identification of the airplane.

2. A subset of this is proof of the airplane type.

Neither of these have been done.

If you look into the four possibilities that I included in my post to AIAA, one pertained to whether the airplane type is correct. I think this is the first issue that should be pinned down.

1. Truth Flight 175 was identified many ways.
RADAR is positive proof Flight 175 impacted the WTC tracked by MULTIPLE RADAR sites from takeoff to impact. Fact and evidence step in to prove your statement is false.

2. Flight 175 was the plane, so it was the correct type.

This issue was pinned down the second they pulled the RADAR data.

The burden is now on you to explain why the RADAR data does not identify Flight 175. You need to udnerstand the plane was filed to fly, the weight and balance was on record, the passengers list and crew is on record by name. Therefore your statement is false. Why are you spraeding false information? Do you understand the FBI investigation included NTSB experts collecting data on Flight 175?

BTW, I have flown Boeing heavy jets over Vmo, the jet got more stable, and flew great. A pilot I was in formation was miles behind me, I was at Vmo, he caught me at well over Vmo and only caused some minor delamination under the leading edge of the wing; no flutter, no major damage. Looks like the demons for Boeing are past .86 MACH at low altitude. Looks like pilots can go over Vmo and the plane works, it worked for me and my wingman; and I am an engineer from AFWAL who can certify the events of flight over Vmo. I knew the limits on the jet are for safety and long life of the airframe, not some brick-wall. That being said, there is a point where things go wrong, a fellow crew member (friend of the family) was on a Boeing jet, it was put in an inadvertent dive, after passing MACH 1 it broke up, he was killed with the crew.

Someone at this forum posted a very good Vmo summary about Vmo. Good summary that even us engineers and pilots can understand, and it is reality based common sense.

 

[twinstead]

There ARE two camps. Those who understand that the positive identification of the aircraft is incontrovertible without serial numbers, and those who are trying to desperately undermine that fact to instill doubt in the "official story" and insert their pet theory by default, no questions asked.

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm not contending either of these things. The authorities are contending both that it was Flight 175 and therefore, a 767. They have offered nothing to support their contention. The burden of proof is on them to support their contention.

Mr. Deets:

Do you consider the video evidence, and the hundreds of witnesses to be valid evidence?

Do you consider the DNA evidence (of passengers from flight 175) to be valid evidence?

Do you consider the recordings from the Plane as recorded by the ATC to be valid evidence?

Do you consider the testimony of Lee Hanson, father of Peter Hanson, to be valid evidence? Was he lied to? Is he lying?

Thanks in advance, yes or no to each will do, as the rest we have all been through here a million times.

TAM

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I'm not contending either of these things. The authorities are contending both that it was Flight 175 and therefore, a 767. They have offered nothing to support their contention. The burden of proof is on them to support their contention.

Yes they have, and looky there I’ve just done it again and provided as much evidence as you feel one ought.

Now, back to this

No what I’m asking you to do is: support/modify or retract this statement.

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

Woof!

Woof!

 

[BigAl]

I'm not contending either of these things. The authorities are contending both that it was Flight 175 and therefore, a 767. They have offered nothing to support their contention.

Hogwash.

If you intend to destroy your opponent's case you have to know his evidence better than he does. By saying "They have offered nothing to support their contention" you admit ignorance of the mountain of interlocking evidence and eyewitness testimony that shows that Flight 175 was hijacked by 5 Islamists; Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan, Ahmed Alghamdi, Hamza Alghamdi, and Mohand Alshehri and flown into a tower.

 

[dadeets]

I'd prefer you stop avoiding the burden of proof to support your claim, and that you stop shifting the goalposts.

Look which camp is shifting the goalpoasts. The legal and standard procedures way to provide positive identification of the airplane is by way of the aircraft identification number. This camp of goalpoast shifters now argues such things as (1) I won't be able to do anything with the ID number if it was given to me, and, (2) there is a better way to establish positive identification, and that is thru radar tracks.

Well then, give me the aircraft identification number of the airplane that left the airport, and give me the radar tracks, and it is left as an exercise for me to figure out which airplane struck the 2nd tower. Why not just follow standard procedures?

 

[dadeets]

This has been pinned down. Apparently you're just not aware of it. In the case of UA175, radar was able to track the aircraft from it's take-off at Logan all of the way to the WTC. In fact, this is true for ALL of the aircraft involved. In two cases we have the FDR, which includes about 25 hours of the previous flights the aircraft made. There is ZERO possibility that there was a substitute aircraft in ALL cases of the aircraft involved in 9/11. Yes, this information came from the Gubermint. Ultimately, what you're contending here would also have to be Gubermint supplied information.

In all my experience at NASA with aircraft accident investigations, I never recall anyone reporting back to the Board that the investigation procedures should not be followed, but rather, a line of reasoning should be followed that would make following the procedures unnecessary. Not only unnecessary, but add an argument that following the procedures would just result in information that wouldn't be all that useful to the Board.

 

[tfk]

Mr Deets,

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

I've generated some probabilities of my own, based on the last several days, that I'd like to share with you.

1. Probability that you'll provide simple direct answers to simple, direct questions: 1 in 100.

2. Probability that you'll finish with one topic before bringing up some unrelated bit of misdirection: 1 in 100.

3. Probability that your answer will make sense: 1 in 500.

Joint probability that we'll get a meaningful answer to our questions: .01 x .01 x .002 = .0000002.

Not looking good, at this point.

Perhaps you could work on improving those odds.


Tom

 

[Fonebone]

1. Truth Flight 175 was identified many ways.
RADAR is positive proof Flight 175 impacted the WTC tracked by MULTIPLE RADAR sites from takeoff to impact. Fact and evidence step in to prove your statement is false.

2. Flight 175 was the plane, so it was the correct type.

This issue was pinned down the second they pulled the RADAR data.

The burden is now on you to explain why the RADAR data does not identify Flight 175. You need to udnerstand the plane was filed to fly, the weight and balance was on record, the passengers list and crew is on record by name. Therefore your statement is false. Why are you spraeding false information? Do you understand the FBI investigation included NTSB experts collecting data on Flight 175?

BTW, I have flown Boeing heavy jets over Vmo, the jet got more stable, and flew great. A pilot I was in formation was miles behind me, I was at Vmo, he caught me at well over Vmo and only caused some minor delamination under the leading edge of the wing; no flutter, no major damage. Looks like the demons for Boeing are past .86 MACH at low altitude. Looks like pilots can go over Vmo and the plane works, it worked for me and my wingman; and I am an engineer from AFWAL who can certify the events of flight over Vmo. I knew the limits on the jet are for safety and long life of the airframe, not some brick-wall. That being said, there is a point where things go wrong, a fellow crew member (friend of the family) was on a Boeing jet, it was put in an inadvertent dive, after passing MACH 1 it broke up, he was killed with the crew.

Someone at this forum posted a very good Vmo summary about Vmo. Good summary that even us engineers and pilots can understand, and it is reality based common sense.

Mr Deets- An ATC controller on duty on 911 , Dave Bottiglia ,has stated the Flt 175
changed transponder codes , then made a sharp left turn, climbed 3000 feet in altitude
in about one minute. Then the ATC states the Boeing 767 dove down at a rate of 10,000
feet per minute as recorded on his RADAR. Can a fully fueled Boeing 767 climb 3000 feet
in one minute or dive at 10,000 feet per minute ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W2Hu70y_D8

Could the transponder change over allowed another aircraft to be substituted
that could climb and dive at those rates the ATC states they did ?
Finally , the ATC states he called to report the incident to the FAA command center
and was told by by the FAA command center that they had another similar incident in
progress.
Has this other incident been identified? Flt 77 was also reported to have executed a
similar steep decent while executing a "military jet" bank maneuver but
this was later in the morning. Were other steep climbs and descends executed on 911
besides Flt 175 and flt 77 ? Thank you

 

[waypastvne]

The legal and standard procedures way to provide positive identification of the airplane is by way of the aircraft identification number.

Debris on top of World Trade Center 5

N612UA (cn 21873/41)

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Can a fully fueled Boeing 767 climb 3000 feet in one minute or dive at 10,000 feet per minute ?

Yes.

From the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's Report Number A04O0020:

Air Canada Flight 984, a Boeing 767-233 aircraft (registration C-GAUE, serial number 22518) was on a regularly scheduled flight from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Ontario, to Kingston, Jamaica....

The aircraft accelerated through 170 KIAS about 3 seconds after lift-off, and continued to pitch up until a pitch attitude of approximately 16º was established. This pitch attitude was maintained and the aircraft continued to accelerate to approximately 185 KIAS during the next 20 seconds. The vertical speed was approximately 3000 feet per minute (fpm) during this time.

Approximately 25 seconds after lift-off, the pitch attitude began increasing over the next 10 seconds from 16º to 22º. The rate of climb increased to approximately 5100 fpm and the airspeed began to decrease.

Summarizing:

• The 767 was fully fueled for a flight from Toronto to Kingston.
• The 3000 fpm rate of climb was normal.
• The 5100 fpm rate of climb was achieved but was abnormal, and led to a stall warning.

Descending at 10000 fpm is not normal, but can be done. The following excerpts are taken from a flight evaluation by Capt. Terry L. Lutz:

....After accelerating to 250 knots, our climb rate was 5,300 feet per minute....

As I mentioned earlier, our objective was to bring a line pilot’s perspective to the evaluation. So our first maneuver east of the mountains was a rapid descent, simulating loss of cabin pressure. To make this more interesting, and because it is standard procedure at some airlines, I flew the maneuver completely on the autopilot. I dialed the altitude from FL290 down to 11,000 feet, disconnected autothrust and brought the throttles to idle, dialed the speed up to 350 knots, and deployed the speedbrakes.

On the initial pitchover, the rate of descent increased to 9,600 feet per minute at 7½ degrees nose down, then slowed to 5,300 feet per minute as the airspeed stabilized at 353 knots.

As performed by Captain Lutz, that 9600 fpm descent was a safe maneuver. During the final minutes of Flight 175, safety was not a concern.

 

[Reactor drone]

In all my experience at NASA with aircraft accident investigations, I never recall anyone reporting back to the Board that the investigation procedures should not be followed, but rather, a line of reasoning should be followed that would make following the procedures unnecessary. Not only unnecessary, but add an argument that following the procedures would just result in information that wouldn't be all that useful to the Board.

If these were aircraft accidents you might have a point. If one plane had crashed you'd probably do an accident investigation to determine the cause, if four crash and you have evidence of hijacking you can be pretty sure it's not a mechanical issue. What is it about deliberate controlled flight into terrain that makes you think it was an accident?

 

[alienentity]

I'm not contending either of these things. The authorities are contending both that it was Flight 175 and therefore, a 767. They have offered nothing to support their contention. The burden of proof is on them to support their contention.

For the record, the bolded statement is a lie.

I note dadeets has now abandoned his original claim that the speeds were not possible, having been shown that they actually are, by precedent.

Oh well. A bad fail all round for dadeets.

 

[beachnut]

Mr Deets- An ATC controller on duty on 911 , Dave Bottiglia ,has stated the Flt 175 changed transponder codes , then made a sharp left turn, climbed 3000 feet in altitude in about one minute. Then the ATC states the Boeing 767 dove down at a rate of 10,000 feet per minute as recorded on his RADAR. Can a fully fueled Boeing 767 climb 3000 feet in one minute or dive at 10,000 feet per minute ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W2Hu70y_D8

On 911 Flight 175 only had 10,000 gallons of jet fuel when it impacted the WTC. Maximum fuel load is over 23,000 gallons, flight 175 only had 66,000 pounds of jet fuel at impact. Gross weight at impact ~277,580 pounds. A fully loaded 767-222 weighs, 315,000 pounds, so the fully loaded aspect is off. However, flight 175 can easily go up 3000 feet in a minute. What the controller said was it was never done! Because you need clearance to change altitudes, you never climb that fast without clearance. The jet can easily pop up 3000 feet in a minute. The controller saw it, it is confirmed; you don't have to be an instructor in heavy jets or hold an ATP to figure this out.

10,000 feet per minute descent, I could do better than 15,000 with my heavy jet, but I knew the jet inside and out and had flown the Boeing jet for years. The terrorists aimed at the city from 17,000 feet and went for it. The airspeed of 175 at 17,000 feet was 455 knots, and during this last portion, the last 2.5 minutes of Flight 175, they descended to below 2,000 feet averaging about 7,500 feet per minute descent. The airspeed went from 455 to over 520 knots and about 510 knots at impact. Why ask Deets, he is not a pilot, and he does not know much about a 767-222, he has no clue it can go well past Vmo, and Vd. I am a pilots and I have flown over Vmo, and I have descended at rates >15,000 feet per minute. Climbing at 3,000 feet per minute, a piece of cake for a 767 at 280,000 pounds.

The 3,000 feet "never seen before" from ATC, BECAUSE pilots use 1,000 to 1,500 feet per minute climbs for passenger comfort at higher altitudes; in addition we ease into climbs slowly! Ease in, not rapidly climb! Pilot stuff the controller sees everyday from airliners.

I hold an ATP, kind of like a PhD in flying, and I have a masters degree in engineering, and you are asking someone who does not know how fast a 767 can go about performance issues? Do you go to a car mechanic to get you broken arm fixed? I have worked with ATC controllers since 1973, and Deets? Does Deets have an ATP? Was Deets an instructor in heavy jets?

Another point; if the terrorists nose over, the jet will speed up quickly, and the plane will want to climb as it goes faster. The initial 10,000 feet per minute can not continue without the plane exceeding MACH 1, therefore the plane's descent slows and averages about 7,500 f/m the last 2 to 3 minutes. I been a pilot since 1973 and flown heavy jets, I can't find any anomalies about the terrorists flying on 911; Almost anyone could hit buildings with a 767/757 without training, it is amazing they wasted the money learning to fly.

...
Could the transponder change over allowed another aircraft to substituted that could climb and dive at those rates the ATC states they did ?
Finally , the ATC states he called to report the incident to the FAA command center and was told by by the FAA command center that they had another similar incident in progress. ...

NO. A 767-222 can climb and dive that fast. And the actual rate of descent in the last 2.5 minutes averaged about 7,500 feet per minute.
The controller told you in the video, when they changed code it was the same plane. The RADAR shows the same blip with a different code. You can't substitute another plane it will be seen on RADAR, especially since they did not turn off MODE C. NO, you can't do that, if you keep your transponder on, it gives ATC your altitude and a blip is recored on multiple RADAR sites.

After 911 they pulled the RADAR data from all RADAR sites and have a record exactly where each plane was on 911. No substitutions were found, you can get the data yourself and check.

How do you think anyone could substitute another plane? Why would Deets know this? He was in NASA, not the FAA, and not a pilot who has an ATP to be qualified to fly heavy jets.

...
Has this other incident been identified? Flt 77 was also reported to have executed a similar steep decent while executing a "military jet" bank maneuver but this was later in the morning. Were other steep climbs and descends executed on 911 besides Flt 175 and flt 77 ? Thank you

77 did not execute a military jet bank. 77 was speeding below 10,000 feet. The only jets that go that fast without being against the rules, are military jet; this is why ATC commented it looked like a military jet, the speed was high! The bank average of 77 was less than a normal airliner does, and not near the maximum a pilot could use in a 757 like 77.

Of course the other incident was identified, if ATC mentioned it. source?

references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ Path _Study_UA175.pdf

Actual descent rate for last 9 minutes from 34,000 feet to impact ~3700 f/m, last 2.5 minutes averaged 7500 f/m. Portions may have been as high as 10,000 f/m.

Actual climb from 31,000 to ~34,000 feet took over 2 minutes, climb average 1500 f/m, there were a few seconds with rates over 3,000 feet/minute. Average was close to normal.

The "never seen before" from ATC, is pilots turning and climbing without clearance, and the rapid rate of climb, erratic rate!.

In all my experience at NASA with aircraft accident investigations, I never recall anyone reporting back to the Board that the investigation procedures should not be followed, but rather, a line of reasoning should be followed that would make following the procedures unnecessary. Not only unnecessary, but add an argument that following the procedures would just result in information that wouldn't be all that useful to the Board.

Oh? How many times were you board president? Pilot member? Pilot expert? Owned the crash scene after fire handed it over? Worked with Boeing experts? Are you a trained aircraft accident investigator?

Mr Deets, this is not an aircraft accident, it was a crime by terrorists. FBI does crime, NTSB assists as needed. The procedure in an accident is to get the RADAR data, I have been board president, we use the RADAR data to verify where the plane traveled; by itself it can verify it was the exact plane, since it tracks the plane from takeoff to landing or crash.

The big clue bird arrives when you find out the people are missing, never to be alive again, gone, dead, and the RADAR shows their last location at the WTC tower, and ABC, CBS, NBC all have video of a 767-200 hitting at the same time the RADAR track ends. The RADAR data is available and can be checked before having to make up claims of conspiracy!

As a board president on aircraft accidents, or the pilot member, or as the owner of the crash scenes, we did not have to use serial numbers to figure out which plane crashed. Never used serial numbers to figure out which plane was missing, non-combat in my experience with accidents in the USAF. Did you know NTSB accidents investigations are different than CRIME investigation with respect to LAW? Guess what that has to do with giving out serial numbers? Guess what aircraft accidents have that a criminal investigation does not have? You were spouting your experience with aircraft accidents, why are the legal aspects of accidents different than crimes? Got any liability reasons you can think of, privilege or purposes, etc.

911 was a crime, not an accident investigation, your experience in accident investigations does not apply.

You listed no procedures, or posted any reference where a serial numbers are required for positive identification of what plane crashed where! You also posted no procedure saying RADAR data can't be used to identify where a plane crashed.

There are zero accident investigation procedures required for a crime when a plane is crashed. It becomes an FBI investigation, no accident investigation is done. The big clue was final phone calls confirming terrorist activity by crew members to their airlines; one crew member in the last seconds saw the large building go by before she was murdered by impact with the WTC.

Now you make up false claims, false procedures you can't list or produce to make up false conclusions, non-conclusions.

The evidence shows Flight 175 impacted the WTC, and all passengers and crew were murdered by terrorists at impact. You may want to research and then list your procedures. You might want to prove why RADAR does not prove where Flight 175 impacted.

... Well then, give me the aircraft identification number of the airplane that left the airport, and give me the radar tracks, and it is left as an exercise for me to figure out which airplane struck the 2nd tower. Why not just follow standard procedures?

Please give us the standard procedures. A list and a source. With all your experience you should have the books. References please; source?

 

[Reheat]

In all my experience at NASA with aircraft accident investigations, I never recall anyone reporting back to the Board that the investigation procedures should not be followed, but rather, a line of reasoning should be followed that would make following the procedures unnecessary. Not only unnecessary, but add an argument that following the procedures would just result in information that wouldn't be all that useful to the Board.

Thank-You for continuing to evade the real issue.

I suppose in your years at NASA you had an aircraft crash that was NOT an accident, but was a criminal investigation by the FBI rather than the NTSB. And furthermore, you concluded that there was something nefarious involved.

It should be quite obvious to all that you are using a strawman to support your views and would not accept crosschecked serial numbers even if they were provided.

I don't think further discussion with you would be very productive. Good luck down in that rabbit hole. I hear it's dark and smelly there.

 

[T.A.M.]

Mr. Deets:

Do you consider the video evidence, and the hundreds of witnesses to be valid evidence?

Do you consider the DNA evidence (of passengers from flight 175) to be valid evidence?

Do you consider the recordings from the Plane as recorded by the ATC to be valid evidence?

Do you consider the testimony of Lee Hanson, father of Peter Hanson, to be valid evidence? Was he lied to? Is he lying?

Thanks in advance, yes or no to each will do, as the rest we have all been through here a million times.

TAM

Mr. Deets:

I know you have a lot of questions and comments directed at you, so you may have missed my questions. Where possible, yes or no will do. Please respond to my questions above.

Thanks

TAM