NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As Improbable

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

06/22/2010 - ( 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:


A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:


Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow. for full member list. to join.



Deets: "The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?"

1) I doubt the margin of error on the NTSB flight speed estimate is huge; probably not enough to compensate for the difference between 360-410 knots and 510 knots- but, for the record, what is it?

2) "maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots."
Does this refer to the maximum safe speed for which a Boeing 767-200 is rated?
What is the maximum speed a Boeing 767-200 can actually travel at?
Is it true that aircraft in general are engineered to be able to exceed the "maximum operating velocity" and the "maximum dive velocity;" is this the case for the Boeing 767-200?
Is there evidence showing that a Boeing 767-200 cannot travel at 510 knots; what is the evidence?
Are there any examples of aircraft failing at speeds which exceed their "maximum operating velocity" or "maximum dive velocity"?

3) Is it possible that a normal Boeing 767-200 could have been guided at 510 knots by remote control, either human and/or auto pilot, perhaps with some kind of homing beacon in the WTC towers? Operation Northwoods is evidence that the technology to remotely control planes existed in the 1960's; surely it was far advanced by 9/11.

4) Is it possible that, if the aircraft that hit the WTC towers had been modified, that these modified aircraft were in fact UA 175 and AA 11- and that no post-takeoff "plane swapping" was involved?

Good answers to good questions

As it turns out, the answers to your questions can be found in the video presentation referenced in the article. It's called "9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK" and can be viewed here:

I'm assuming you have not seen this yet - would that be correct?

the answers to my questions

nobodyparticular, if you have watched and understood the film, please post the answers here for the benefit of everyone.

It would be especially helpful if you also cited the sources used (if they're not self-evident in the answer). Links are even better.

Show "Do your own research!" by nobodyparticular

"No, I am not going to spend

"No, I am not going to spend the time detailing a film you can't even be bothered to watch - or did you? (You ducked my question)."

nobodyparticular; you asserted the answers to the questions I posed are in the film. Now you've declined to provide them, and have insisted people need to watch the film for themselves to see if they're in there. I'm not going to bother, as that's your response. If Balsamo has addressed these questions anywhere at PFT, you can post a link, as you're here defending their work, as well as apparently hanging out over there.

If you're unfamiliar with why users might get placed on moderation or banned, review the rules- I'm not going to comment here on individual cases.

John Lear

Let's remember who first pushed this idea of "impossible speed". Top PFT member John Lear, a supposedly ex-CIA pilot who also claims that the planes at the WTC were holograms, that there are cities and sunny meadows on the moon and that alien monsters are controlling everything from underground bases all over the world, among other novelties. Rob Balsamo claims that Lear is "highly respected" and when Lear's background was discussed on the Truth Action forum, Balsamo sent out a mass email accusing Truth Action of being "cointelpro". When John Bursill did the real legwork, gaining access to a flight simulator and proving Lear's claim to be nonsense, Lear responded by writing to Bursill's employer in an attempt to get him fired. This is who we are dealing with here.

What fond memories....

Spending a month wondering whether your going to need to sell your house while your every move is investigated by your employer....lucky I've got allot of friends and most in management had an idea I was not insane and maybe I was doing good work!

Fond memories hey Cosmos!

Kind regards John

Show "If you can't watch a film, why bother answer your questions?" by nobodyparticular
Show "You want a link?" by nobodyparticular

you called my questions "good"

But i posted them to anyone willing to answer; I didn't specifically address them to you- you chose to answer and then started making an issue out of it. Some of my questions were fairly simple, but the answers aren't common knowledge- if you knew the answers from watching the film, you could've just posted the answers for the benefit of everyone, rather than repeatedly coming here and asserting it's my responsibility to provide evidence to back up assertions you're making on behalf of PFT.

nobodyparticular: "It's a summary of the presentation, and should answer most of your questions."

Actually, it didn't. The only sources cited in that press release relate to the definition and use of the term 'Equivalent Air Speed'. No source is provided to support the following claim that EA 990 suffered "in-flight structural failure":

"A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft."

I used a variety of keywords to search the NTSB and ECAA reports and found nothing to indicate there was "in-flight structural failure."

I also searched the PFT thread for the film and found nothing to support the claim that there was "in-flight structural failure."

There is a claim on wikipedia that "The left engine was later torn from the wing by the stress of the dive," but no source is provided, and it's wikipedia

nobodyparticular: "I simply don't have time to help you further as, like others here, I have a life and other obligations beyond posting repetitively in response to whatever questions people think up."

Whatever- but it's not really about me; it's about whether you want to (and are able to) back up your assertions- for the benefit of the lurking public.

Now, it could be I'm an idiot, and just missed it in the reports, etc.; and I'm not a pilot, engineer or any other kind of expert on this stuff, and never researched this before.

As Balsamo et al claim to have checked this out, and since you hang out over there and are taking the time to repetitively post assertions here, then bring the evidence to support your claim that the answers to my "good questions" are in the film- if you want people to give any credence to your claim that they are.

Given that the premise for the rest of PFT's claims is based on the "in-flight structural failure" of EA990, that'd be a good place for you and PFT to start backing up PFT's and your own assertions. What is the source cited in the film for the claim that EA 990 suffered "in-flight structural failure"? Quote and link, if you can.

Also, according to this, 'Maximum Operating Velocity' refers to safe velocity; not the velocity beyond which an aircraft is going to break up in flight:

Loose Nuke...well said!

I think you have uncovered the theme here...NO DATA!

Not to forget "false assertions" and "miss representations"...etc...

Interesting to note that even though this aircraft was doing a whisker under the speed of sound and the engines were shut off P4T see the 420 Knots dynamic airspeed which is TEN KNOTS OVER THE RATED SPEED(2%) as the thing that cased EA 990 to break up...if it actually did? Well from what I've seen I believe it did because it MAKES is NOT PROVEN THOUGH!

Impossible speed....LOL....

Kind regards John

Show "John Bursill, you have some explainin' to do!" by nobodyparticular
Show "FYI" by nobodyparticular

not playing- plus more on EA 990

np: "as I said, I don't have time to go through the exercise of composing responses to your questions"

I notice you have enough time to keep coming back here to post comments saying you don't have time, when if you knew the answers you could simply post them and be done with it- it was simple enough to find out that PFT is claiming EA 990 is an example of a plane breaking up in the air due to speed + air pressure.

i missed these in the first key word search of the NTSB report:
"Although the recovery location of and damage to the left engine were consistent with it separating from the airplane before impact, no evidence of any preimpact catastrophic damage or fire was observed on either engine.60"

"It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field."

However, unless I missed it, the report doesn't offer an explanation of exactly when or WHY the engine came off- does it?

PFT is asserting it broke off cuz of speed + air pressure, and therefore the same thing would've happened to UA 175, if it was a normal 767-200. However, if there were substandard parts or improper maintenance or sabotage [EDIT: or a defect], that might also be a factor; have these factors been ruled out?

EA 990's engines were shut off at least once, it dived steeply, climbed steeply and then went into a final dive; seems that stresses would've been added during these extreme events; did these contribute to the engine coming off/have these factors been ruled out? UA 175 didn't go thru maneuvers like this.

Bursill proposes the following explanation for EA 990 losing an engine, which certainly seems possible:
"1. Transonic flight of "high speed" commercial aircraft above the aircraft "Critical Mach Number" has always been the danger that will cause structural failure due to "wing flutter" and "Shock waves". Flt 990 achieving .99 Mach speed is the single most likely cause of it structural failure in this case.

2. The turning off of the engines (as happened with Egypt Air) at an extremely high speed would cause a massive amount of torque onto the engine mounts, possible tearing the engines off and or the wings. The engines are designed to be pulling the aircraft forward not acting as a parachute. There would also be a very rapid change in the aircraft attitude due to these torque effects applying massive G forces. edit add... The engines are used for reverse thrust during landing opposing airspeeds of only around a 150 Knots as the aircraft slows, these forces are of a completely different magnitude compared to .99 Mach or EA 430 Knots. (I'm not saying this happened, it is just reasonable to consider it as I said at the start)"

np: "you simply won't watch the film, so it's an obvious Catch-22 you're setting up here, and I am not playing along."

Whatever. Again, if you knew the answers and sources, you could simply post them. I'm taking time on this cuz it's been posted at 911blogger; I've never been interested in this kind of research, and I'm interested in other aspects of 9/11. Also, I generally don't watch films; I prefer to read books and online material, and I like being able to easily check sources.

One aspect of 9/11 research I'm interested is also a reason I've been disinterested in PFT's work, as this stuff has been almost entirely ignored (other than stuff posted by users) in the nearly 4 years since the site was launched, despite PFT having a great number of members who should be able to shed light on this kind of stuff:

*The war games and military exercises surrounding 9/11
*The warnings received in advance of the plot and the response to them
*FAA and military intelligence and security procedures
*Standard FAA regs, rules and procedures for dealing with air emergencies, air threats, and confirmed hijackings, and historical changes to these procedures
*Standard NMCC, NORAD and Air Defense Sector regs, rules and procedures for dealing with air emergencies, air threats, and confirmed hijackings, and historical changes to these procedures
*The history of FAA and military responses to threats, warnings intelligence, off-course and unauthorized flights, and possible/known hijackings
*The actual response of FAA and military on 9/11; the multiple failures of common sense incl. failures to act by key personnel and people in charge, even while other personnel were going outside of normal procedures to deal w/ the emergency.
*The origin/reason for anomalous reports like of the 'phantom' AA 11, the orders that sent fighters on routine training missions instead of providing air cover/responding to air threats, and that sent the Langley fighters over the ocean, etc.
*Why there was no air cover over DC nearly a half hour after the 2nd WTC was hit
*Why anything was able to hit the WTC towers and the Pentagon after a 'summer of threat' that included warnings of plane attacks on NYC and DC

Show "What an obvious runaround game you're playing here, Loose Nuke" by nobodyparticular

Wikipedia text

"There is a claim on wikipedia that "The left engine was later torn from the wing by the stress of the dive," but no source is provided, and it's wikipedia"
I read the NTSB report, added it as a reference, and adjusted the Wikipedia text accordingly. The report concludes that the left engine separated prior to impact with the water, but it does not specifically say that it was due to the "stress of the dive". Since other causes of structural damage (such as explosives or external impact) are ruled out, the reader may infer that, if the engine did separate, it was likely due to stress during the dive. Wikipedia should not make that inference without sourcing, and with this edit, it no longer does.

Show "Examples to support your assertion, please" by nobodyparticular

WARNING to commenters re insults and accusations

John, if you have evidence that PFT/Balsamo are intentionally deceiving people, present the evidence or refrain from making accusations of lying.

If you have evidence they're in error, post that- but that isn't necessarily evidence they're lying.

If you have answers to the questions I asked, please post them

And if you know Balsamo's answers, please post them as well, along with the sources he uses.

The case is obvious and I have made the case many times!

I will be doing a radio show on this subject very someone above said:) just look at their video, it's all there!

I have made my case in brief below, it's pretty simple...yes? The case loose nuke is made by me and Robin....? I am confused....the aircraft is rated to do 410 K and Balsamo says it will break up at 420 K in his film? The Mach speed is the issue but he does not include that argument...excuse me for understanding the subject? Ask Deets if I'm right....I agree with him!

It seems this debate will never end as the concepts are just too dam difficult? Is that just a good enough reason to drop the subject?

I thought someone saying something we all saw, was impossible, demonstrated this deceitful approach to Deets's comments would be the one having to answer the questions? This article stinks it should not even be run....whatever!

Regards John

PS - FYI Balsam is questioning my qualifications in public and questioning if I did my Sim where's his proof...I am verified at License # L503114

PPS - The gloves are off!!

Show "Yes, you are confused" by nobodyparticular

mmmm read the article again...

"was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target" does relate to "speed" yes and to also control...

" this wasn't a standard 767-200;" relates to the aircraft type which includes speed but by no way exclusively, it also obviously refers to the system of control. I have argued from day own extra electronics were fitted etc

mmmm wrong again....

I see your point in two cases in the others no evidence is presented supporting those assertions that the speed was improbable, but I understand why Deets asks the questions though. It's called clarifying the issue.

So are you Rob or just his puppet? Please identify yourself and your qualifications?

Why I should entertain such as you I have no idea...I have a reputation, am known to nearly all well known prominent activists, organisers and academics, many of them I consider my friends. So I have no reason to react to your b/s accusations here.

I have an excellent track record of running international events, doing Podcasts and have contributed many thousands of dollars to this campaign. I have many people that can verify my activities that long gave up arguing with people like you here. My credentials are verified by AE911Truth. I have worked with (in person) Gage, Matthew's, Jone's, Legge, Harritt, Bowman, Zwicker, Rudkowski, Cosmos and Jenkins to name just a few...oh and how about Yukihisa Fujita MP...many who have stayed in my house.

I have the letter Lear wrote to my employer (to get me sacked) and the investigation notes that prove what I did, gee that was a mistake on Lear's part...because all I had prior was one witness who's name I have put forward and a full description of the occasion here in my blog! Unfortunately I am not allowed to share those documents with the public, but people have seen them. The question is why have the Pilots for Truth not done a Sim test? Hello...

Your right, I am confused to be doing such as this right now...what a waste of energy:)


I would like the source of the diagram showing the...

...FDR recording data and its end...the estimated altitude after the alleged airframe failure...the point at which there was elevato action separation...the point of top MACH speed...the altitudes of flight...the times of the activities...and the last two radar "hits" ? from EA990. I suspect that you will know which chart I mean.

If not, this chart is seen several times in the video, a smaller depiction early on, and then later, a much larger depiction. In doing preliminary research into the NTSB report about the EA990 crash, I have observed some significant conflicting information that needs to be clarified.

Its either for or against P4T's postulations about EA990 visa-vie UA175/AA11.

Thank you ahead of time for the link to that of yet I have not found it on the NTSB report.

BTW...has this chart been compiled by P4T?

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Conversation with Dwain Deets

I was able to talk with Dwain Deets about the article and get some clarification on the plane issues.

Link to conversation:


Pilots for Truth Spinning out of Control? Deets making sense!

Hello all,

In general I agree with Deets, we need the authorities to make comment on 175 and 11, especially Boeing. It is true to say with the said pilots and the said aircraft controlled manually, that it is not "probable" that these aircraft could achieve what we saw on 9/11! This is the context we should see here, not the b/s spin from Balsamo?

Think about a few points...

We know nothing about the possible speed of a 767-200 because we do not have the data from Boeing. The Capt's Balsamo sites say that say the know what is possible are simply demonstrating they can not be trusted as experts. How some one can make statements as fact without the data or doing the experiment is beyond me. These Capt's Balsamo quotes are not allowed to exceed 360 Knots dynamic airspeed, so how could they know how fast this highly powered aircraft could go in a slight dive in still air? Many, many Capt's that I talk to daily say THEY THINK the aircraft could do those speeds in the conditions seen.

Balsamo uses an aircraft crash as an example of the max speed achievable for a 767-200 "dynamic airspeed" that is relative to airpressue in his latest video WTC Attack. This is not apples for apples for the following reasons;

1. He does not know why Egypt Air broke up, he assumes it was 420 Knots of Dynamic Airspeed while he completely ignores the fact the aircraft is nearly at the speed of sound, way beyond it's rated limit. The speed of sound or the sound barrier is extremely dangerous to a high speed airframe like a 767, far more dangerous than the dynamic airspeed of 420 Knots. THE AIRCRAFT IS CLEARED BY BOEING TO DO 410 Knots in a dive during an emergency...and it will break up at 420 Knots? Are you serious? A 20% margin would be expected...come on?

2. The aircraft engines were shut down during this excursion approaching the sound barrier, can you imagine the load on the wings??

3. The aircraft is not in a controlled shallow dive it's in a out of control dive at massive Mach numbers!

Other points to consider if your being reasonable and scientific is that;

1. we have no evidence of plane swaps expect some grainy video photos.

2. We have no evidence that there are HIGH SPEED VERSIONS of a 767...NONE!

3. The only test done that could possibly be useful to this debate I did in a 767 simulator at my work place where it was seen to achieve far beyond 500 Knots at near sea level.

You as an activist are given a choice to back Balsamo on this adventure down this path backed by nothing than hot air or you can chose to be careful and reasonable? It's your choice good luck!

This was done in a very brief time...I will make a more detailed comment later.

One more point for your consideration, after my Sim test the man that really got this debate started the John Lear (Hologram Ledgend and tin foil hat wearing UFOand Alien champ) wrote to my employer and nearly got me sacked....he is still a very prominent member of the pilots group and ex-CIA?

Kind regards John Bursill - Licensed Aircraft Engineer Boeing 767-200/300, 747/200/300/400, 737/300-900

9/11 24/7 until justice!

And further...when is some other person with with expertease...

...going to step forward and call this for what it is? Why do we have to fight this fight time and time again?

All the pilots I work with are employed and will not go anywhere near this?

COME ON...PUT an END to this dangerous idea?

Regards John

PS - Look at what Deets said and how Balsamo spins you smell something?

PPS - Visibility 9-11 will be doing a show on this very soon...

Show "Time for you to show some good faith, Bursill!" by nobodyparticular
Show "Who I am doesn't matter - it's the ideas & arguments that count" by nobodyparticular

Pick any point that Balsamo makes to support his claim...

of impossible speed...and I will explain why it is false!

I'll do it one by by one for you nobody (important)


By the way it does matter who says what when and why. Idea's...please

Show "And tell me this too, while you're at it" by nobodyparticular

Did you know...

That Dr Bob Bowman agrees with me about "impossible speed" claim being false but does not want to get into a pissing comp?

As I have said dozens of pilots I work with flying 767's in the job THINK the 767 can do the speeds seen...can't be on the record because they are employed. I have not found ONE that says otherwise?

Good bye on this thread.

Show "Sorry, you don't get off that easy, John" by nobodyparticular

Robin Hordon another good friend of mine...Robin's interview and

.....evidence about the changed Protocols is my favourite interview on "Guns and Butter" KPFA the show Gage raves about in his presentations? I have said goodbye so lets let Robin an industry ATC EXPERT, PILOT and INSTRUCTOR and HARD CORE ACTIVIST state the simple fact at the heart of this matter...

"The ONLY source for establishing that A B767 can fly at sea level and at the speeds noted by FAA radar and some video analysis associated with UA175 on 9/11, is the aircraft manufacturer, Boeing."

It's that simple nobody....


Excellent...see ya!

I agree you should go:)

Russ Wittenburg

Who flew the actual plane alleged to have hit the south tower is on record indicating that he himself could not have flown the plane the way it was observed to be operating, at that speed and altitude.

Perhaps the plane could go that fast, but no human pilot could control it at that speed and altitude, so it wasn't an impossible speed, but an impossible to control speed.

Most certainly, poorly trained Islamist extremist fundamentalist terrorists could not have done so, nor, according to Russ Wittenburg, any human pilot, and I do think that's the POINT of the argument John.

I'm just curious - why do you defend this part of the official story..? It makes no sense, especially in light of proof of the controlled demolition of the twin towers, an operation which required, with absolute 100 dependancy, on successful plane impacts, and therefore, successful hijackings, in an overall framework, including the war games, within which nothing could be left to chance - it was an all or nothing proposition.

Do you "get" that? Does Robin?

Retract "IMPOSSIBLE SPEEDS"...and let the research continue

The ONLY source for establishing that A B767 can fly at sea level and at the speeds noted by FAA radar and some video analysis associated with UA175 on 9/11, is the aircraft manufacturer, Boeing.

Before any airliner is certified for use in commercial aviation it has to go through very comprehensive flight tests as well as extreme ground tests such as bending the wings upward simulating G-force limits to find out at what G loads the wings and airframe will break apart. There are similar tests for all the critical parts of the aircraft that are also tested to the points of failure.

Something similar goes on when these aircraft are flight tested as they are put into flight conditions that not only approach the above mentioned stress or "G" load failure points to the aircraft frame and fuselage, BUT, there are another set of characteristics that are also discovered and tested. These are the stresses to the airframe, control surfaces and engines, and the flight characteristics that change when the aircraft is flying under specific flight configurations...some of which include operation beyond any approved speed limitations that are established for normal and routine flight operations. In this case it would be flying at 510K at sea level.

Its in these flight test situations where speeds well above what are considered "normal limitations" are approached or flown beyond. This is done for two basic reasons:

1. To discover what the flight airfoils and control surfaces react like at excessive speeds and "G" loads in various flight configurations in part because, as aircraft approach the speed of sound [well above 510K], the airflows take on radically different shapes and characteristics. These different air flows may make normal control surface deflections often react very differently than when the airfoils are operating within the normal speed profiles. [see below]

2. To see what damage to the aircraft fuselage and it fairings and other proturbances might occur at critically high speeds. This is what is meant when aviation experts state: "The airplane will begin to break apart". Usually its NOT the control surfaces, the engnes nor the wings that first sucumb to destruction at high speeds. Usually its the fiberglass-plastic-laminate fairings and coverings that begin to break apart...and those parts are not control or lifting surfaces...nor engines of course.

An example of the critical nature of higher speeds of flight affecting airfoils that work well at lower speeds of flight are the inboard and outboard ailerons on the B727 wings. At lower speeds of flight, both inboard and outboard ailerons can be deflected up or down to get the desired lift changes to the left and right wings to initiate a bank required to turn the aircraft.

IE: If the aircraft was instructed to bank to the left, the right set of ailerons would be deflected downward affecting the chord, or lift capacity of the right wing to create MORE lift causing the right wing to lift upwards...and likewise, but to the opposite result, both sets of ailerons on the left wing would deflect upward a bit changing the wing chord or lift potential to create LESS lift thus causing the left wing to drop slightly. These aileron actions cause the aircraft to roll to the left...or bank to the long as the ailerons are deflected thusly.

However, at higher speeds flight at which the B727 wings [very thin chord towards the tips and highly swept back wings] have to deal with air flows that have different characteristics affecting those wings and airfoils, It was soon discovered [I'm sure it was suspected on the design tale too] that at certain high speeds of flight, if the outboard ailerons were deflected one way, the net result would cause the net lift of the wing AT the outboard aileron locations to create the OPPOSITE of the desired commands.

This is due to the fact that the thinner wing out at the wingtips would distort because when the outboard aileron would deflect downward in its goal for INCREASING lift on the outboard section of the wing, the actual force of that downward deflection caused the trailing edge of the wing to lift upward at the same time causing the leading edge of the wing to ditsort downward resulting in the net lift of the aileron deflection that was intended to INCREASE lift at that point on the wing to actually DECREASE lift thus encouraging a RIGHT bank when the aileron deflection was intended to cause a LEFT bank. And the same-but opposite result would occur on the left wing where the aileron was deflected to DECREASE lift yet the net result through the aileron induced wingtip distortion caused a net result of the INCREASE in lift.

In laypersons terms, this would be like a motorist, when driving under 60MPH using the steering wheel to turn to the left by turning the steering wheel to the left, BUT, over 60MPH using the steering wheel to turn to the left by turning it to the right. A big problem...

Anyway, Boeing's solution was to "lock out" or "lock into a neutral position" the outboard ailerons above certain higher speeds of flight or flap settings. Thusly, at higher speeds or higher speed configurations, the responsibility for making "aileron lift changes" to the wings became the sole responsibility of the inboard ailrons. why the looooong story about another aircraft?...its simple. Because flight characteristics of these sophisticated airvehicles are any thing BUT simple. Its a complex physical activity, and only the designers and "TEST PILOTS" of these aircraft are the ones who know what happens when aircraft are flown at and above the design limitations of any aircraft.

Back to the beginning...with the exception of a few pilots out there who may have had either very unusual flight conditions, or in-flight emergencies causing a B767 to fly well past its normal operating speed range...and have LIVED to tell us about it...the fact is that its only Boeing and its test pilots and other computer analysis of critical data are the ones who can give us accurate and truthful answers.

And last I heard Boeing gets quite a few military aviation contracts, and its test pilots are sworn to secrecy for a wide variety of reasons. So, I suspect that this is why we have not been able to get any answers from Boeing about the potential for B767s to fly at 510K or so. And I liken this to why the Pentagon has not released the videos showing events at the Pentagon on 9/11...because the truth will hurt them.

However, an interesting "slip" has been discovered by John Bursill Down Under.

John has had an opportunity to fly a B767 "simulator"...which is a combination of a physical replica of the cockpit...[along with hydraulic rams and the like that actually physically move the cockpit in manners simulating some aspects of normal flight] is the big one:

Boeing also created a computer program in which the B767 simulator/trainer unit could be put into a very wide variety of flight conditions and in various flight configurations...such as departure, approach and landing, climbs-descents-cruising, and...high speed descents...using full power from the engines.

Bursill was able to fly the B767 simulator AT such high speeds AT sea level without loosing control or anything bad happeneing. Howdid the computer flight programming have the knowledge about what the B767 simulator should behave like WHEN it was flying at speeds approaching 510K?

Well, where did that high speed flight characteristic and aircraft controllability change data come from? Flight tests maybe? I surely suspect so. In Boeing presenting a computer simulator program that is certified to be that of a B767 and that simuulated program KNOWS AND ALLOWS the simulator to fly at those excessively high speeds, its telltale that somebody on their test flight team and flight analysis team had DATA from which they could model that flight program.

So, if pilots who have tens of thousands of hours in the B767 but have NOT flown the B767 at speeds well above the normal flight profiles noted in this blog..aka...speed approaching the 510K as some have suggested the top speeds might have been...then their hours in the aircraft are not neccessarily telltale of that aircraft's capability to fly at such speeds at sea level.

So, neither Pilots for 9/11 Truth, nor anybody else other than Boeing, can credibly state the term "IMPOSSIBLE SPEEDS" regarding UA175...because such a fact simply cannot be proven.

And so far, if anything, it has been proven, AND SHOWN that such speeds COULD be attained by a B767 flying in a descent approaching sea level.

And as far as What Dwayne Deets has stated, I do not read any hard, definitive or positive statement that the speeds in question are...IMPOSSIBLE.

And there is a world of difference between improbable and impossible.

Retract the word IMPOSSIBLE...and let the research continue.

9/11 Truth for World Peace

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

interesting point

Robin: "Bursill was able to fly the B767 simulator AT such high speeds AT sea level without loosing control or anything bad happeneing. Howdid the computer flight programming have the knowledge about what the B767 simulator should behave like WHEN it was flying at speeds approaching 510K?

Well, where did that high speed flight characteristic and aircraft controllability change data come from? Flight tests maybe? I surely suspect so. In Boeing presenting a computer simulator program that is certified to be that of a B767 and that simuulated program KNOWS AND ALLOWS the simulator to fly at those excessively high speeds, its telltale that somebody on their test flight team and flight analysis team had DATA from which they could model that flight program."

Yes, where does the sim data come from? The goal is to recreate real world conditions, so actual flight tests is possible, even likely.

John has conducted an experiment that anyone with access to a simulator can replicate.

And NO ONE has?

"John has conducted an experiment that anyone with access to a simulator can replicate."

mmmm John Lear has talked about it?

Regards John

Hello Robin and well said...

It's funny how you mentioned how Boeing provides data to the industry simulators for flight training establishments.

I actually have interviewed the man incharge of quality control of the Sydney 767 Simulators (retired) he does not wish to named but he confirmed my airline was provided with graphs/data from test data that Boeing did as you say around performance, speed and drag...obviously to any sane person that makes sense!

Whould you build a car that would fall apart at it's top speed on a straight flat road?

Kind regards John

A layman's observations...

What strikes me, and presumably other relative newcomers, is the rabid debate as to whether Pilots for 911 Truth is on tack, or off. Their (Pilots) extensive research and propositions have been disputed at great length by authors published in Journal of 911 Studies, and other online journals, including 911 Blogger.
Not merely disputed, but more often than not, virulently opposed. Bit strange, don't you think?
One can scarcely argue with the Scholars, but.....there's something wrong with this equation. Why such instant, inflamed opposition, again and again? I bring this to the forum's attention in the hope that everyone will take a closer look at the evidence, and not be drawn in by lengthy, virtually inexplicable (more often than not due to their length) "scientific" diatribes/debates.

Strange, isn't it..

As strange as this debate, why everyone gets so heated about the identity and true nature of fhe south tower plane which was actaully recorded, on final approach through impact, from a whole host of cameras and angles, both video and still photos snapped at the right instant. The plane is physically recorded, in real time, when it happened, and it's the ONLY plane performing it's evil deed, with this distinction, with the exception of the one Naudet shot of the north tower plane (along with all the hidden secret videos of the Pentagon "plane"). Both twin tower planes also appear to DO something a little odd a split second prior to impact with the building's exterial wall.

I am convinced, from everything I've looked at, that no one was aboard the planes which impacted the twin towers on 9/11 - that they were remotely piloted drones, in the case of the south tower plane, a military reconfigured variant, of the Boeing 767, in this case, a 300, as opposed to a 200 series.

There's even a dark circular dot under the tail, on the bottom of the fuselage, at the precise location where the removable refueling boom is situated on the tanker, or, where the tail skid guard is located on the 300 (although the dark circle is too big for that). There is no such marking on a 200, no avionics blade antenna there, no tail skid guard (the shorter version unlikely to drag it's ass end on a steep takoff), nothing to account for such marking, seen in at least two photographs when magnified, and it is a perfect, dark circle, precisely what is seen on the tanker aircraft with the rear refueling boom when retracted or removed.

But, interestingly, I just get voted down according to some pre-programmed knee-jerk reaction by the "movement" or by that part of it represented here at 911blogger, when all I am doing is raising the notion that the south tower plane can be SEEN, and on comparative analysis, proven to NOT be flight 175.

I don't vote you down for comments like this.........

That's your opinion, and that's fine that you are convinced that it is a 300 tanker.

You do realise that the 300 is longer? So please present the easily calculated length by breath measurements in a ratio and you can prove your claim right now Robert? That would be helpful seeing as you "know" what it was!

I would also suggest this is "off topic" as this discussion is not about plane swaps of one 767 for another which I believe is definitely "possible", but seems unlikely to me for many reasons the most prominent being the radar track being continuous from take off to crash. The point we are talking about is the spin Balsamo has put on Deets's comment. Deets is referring to the "probability" of what we saw in comparison to what happened, he is not saying that any aspect is impossible. He is asking for a clarification from those that "do know" about such things:)

At this stage of the struggle people who care to win the battle for public support questioning 9/11 are ruling things out that can not be clearly proved or that are damaging to the campaign or because the are simply "misinformation".

Robert I would ask you opinion if you are really interested in this debate on a matter...if you think that a 767-200/300 Freighter or Fueller can do the speeds seen on 9/11? Because you would be aware that there is not any argument being made by Pilots for 9/11 Truth that any of these 767's can do this speed. I think that Balsamo in his "misinformation piece" is arguing the the aircraft was supped up. That in my understanding would require removal of the wings from the keel beam and a reworking of the structure from the ground up? Basically a aircraft specifically made for the occasion involving 100's of people?

Don't you agree that a 767 of some sort did do the speed that day so consequently Balsamo is recklessly "on purpose" in my view pushing something as fact that he simply has no clue about?

Kind regards John

Show "Bursill (deliberately?) misrepresenting Deets article again!" by nobodyparticular

So Deets helped write the article?

He is not listed as the author? I have seen no evidence except his comment at the centre of the article that he is it creation.

If he agrees with the way the article reads and supports "impossible speed" lets see it on paper or hear it with Deets's voice.

Nobody....where may I contact Deets?

He can write to me at or +61414878499

If Deets does support Balsamo film he is supporting misinformation, I hope he is aware of this?

Kind regards John

Show "I see no evidence Deets doesn't endorse the article" by nobodyparticular

This comment sets up this argument...

Quote "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."

Is Deets on of those so-called experts?

If you can drive a car for 20 years all over the country on the road at the speed limit, does that make you an expert on it's top speed, or it's structural strength?

To comment on the maximum possible speed of that car, would you not need to do the test?

Now would the vehicle break up at its top speed....of course not. Design principles would dictate that....this is such a silly argument:)


Show "Bursill making bad assumptions lacking the requisite experience" by nobodyparticular

Can you show me where Deets says this...

"NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

This nobody is where the argument is! The title of this article in called spin....this is not reflective of what Deets has said!

Explain to me how this is a correct title if it is about what Deets said in his "official comment"? If you can not then you will have to concede this point? Alternatively ask Balsamo to re-write the article or get Deets to make a new statement.

I find it very hard to believe that Deets supports the film without stating so? If he did why wouldn't Balsamo quote him saying so? Why this he said, he was etc lets hear from Deets?


As per your request

in reply to

"That's your opinion, and that's fine that you are convinced that it is a 300 tanker.

You do realise that the 300 is longer? So please present the easily calculated length by breath measurements in a ratio and you can prove your claim right now Robert? That would be helpful seeing as you "know" what it was!"


Please see my last posts John. Thanks.

Robert your measurements?

You said you have been researching the WTC aircraft for ages and you believe it is a 300 tanker that hit the South Tower?

I though you could measure the airframe in the photos and give us the ratio of length verse height or width to prove your assertion?

It's no good making just the claim make it a reality, its not difficult to do and you could prove your case and help the Pilots prove the plane swap?

Regards John

Show "If the twin towers were brought down with explosives" by Robert Rice

...rational deductive reasoning

"although once established, that fact does lead backward, by rational, deductive reasoning, to the notion that the planes were swapped out drone aircraft, remotely piloted to the target, and detonated at impact, to annihilate the evidence (that it was not flight 175). For that, the miraculous passport was produced."

i'm not sure that rational deductive reasoning does lead to this conclusion - aidnam monaghan's work has shown that 'plane-swapping' is by no means a necessary precondition for the remote-control of these planes.

Fair enough

But in such a scenario, wouldn't the successful hijacking of the aircraft be a pre-condition? your question...but I offer an interesting hypothesis..

It certainly IS an interesting question that you ask:

"Wouldn't the successful hijacking of the aircraft be a pre-condition"...[ for a successful attack on 9/11?]

My YES...means that at least the PERCEPTION of a "successful attack" on 9/11 would be required.

And THIS is why I personally feel that the flight of AA77 is the "Achilles Heel" for the Pentagon regarding the 9/11 attacks scenario...because it serves as a FAILSAFE flight...captained by Burlingame...and this has to be hidden from sight.

Without going deep and repeating all that I have posted about the flight of AA77 before, I will make clear my following observation and deep suspicion:

AA77 was the "Operation Northwoods" airvehicle on 9/11 and the following is what I mean...

If I were to create what I now call: "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario", and they included the VERY UNRELIABLE element of successful hijackings? of several airliners flying into the WTCs for that to happen, I would, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT... put into place a FAILSAFE aircraft hijacking? element that WOULD GO THROUGH TO ITS CONCLUSION NO MATTER WHAT...which would be a crash into an important site which could be SPUN into being an attack upon America...which in this case would be the Pentagon

In the scenario above, the net "perceptive result" would indicate that the USofA was indeed ATTACKED by those whom the HI PERPS wanted to blame for such an attack before hand...aka...the Arabs...and the "problems with" the other three airliners, REGARDLESS OF OUTCOME...would serve as back-up proof.

So, this is the light in which I see the entire flight of AA77, including its very, very coincidental???...or convenient???...piloting by Chic Burlingame. [Do your own research here...]

The Burlingame involvement is WAY beyond coincidental in my view...and as it turns out...and from other research that I have conducted...including radar analysis and Ops in the PEOC...and appears to me that the HI PERPS put into play their "FAILSAFE-Operation Northwoods" aircraft...and its AA77 with Burlingame at the controls.

Their thinking?:...regardless of the "success" of the other three airiners...[which would eventually serve as "proof" of an attack even if they DIDN'T hit their targets] least AA77 would make it all the way to the Pentagon and serve as the PRINCIPAL VALIDATION that the USofA was, indeed, suffering an attack "from without"...requiring a military attack-invasion upon...Afghanistan...which later could be swingled into an attack upon Iraq.

Please remember:..Cheney allowed the primary target to reach the Pentagon with his affirmation that the "orders still stand"...which were "stand-down" orders...[recheck the Pineta-Cheney PEOC dialogue]...

More research towards this hypothesis is required...but something about AA77 is very, very suspicious...indeed!

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Puget Sound's ONLY..."Port of Peace"

Don't see the conection...

I have not seen one reliable piece of evidence that the airliners in question were swapped OUT with other aircraft swapped IN...except for AA77 of course...

In fact, all the evidence that I have scoured shows that the three airliners...AA11...UA175...UA93...were not swapped out at all.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon

Remotely "landed" planes into predetermined locations

4.5 years after 9.11, which means this technology was more-than-likely available at the time.

"The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck. "

No Apparent Need For Drones

Drone theories are based on the incorrect assumption that standard commercial jets were not capable of the observed attacks. State of the art commercial aviation technology circa 2001 seem capable of performing the attacks upon the WTC under GPS-guided autopilot control. What is equally interesting is that all of these now standard systems became available just before 9/11 and were ideal for covert abuse.

It seems very unlikely that the NYC medical examiners office would or could falsify its recovery and identification results for the WTC and flight victims, therefore unmanned drones also seem very unlikely.

As for the high speeds, they seem to aid the accuracy of GPS-guided autopilot control while undermining human control for obvious reasons. Will hopefully publish that data shortly

Show "Who was at the helm of flight 175?" by Robert Rice

No radar evidence for a swap...except

...possibly AA77...and that's because AA77 was the only airliner that was lost to positive radar contact on 9/11. AA11, UA175 and UA93 were kept in positive radar contact even though they shut off their transponders and/or switched transponder codes several times.

The data seen on the NTSB's Flight Path study seems reliable but it is both from the US government and thusly, may have been manipulated, and also it focuses primarily upon the four aircraft involved and does not really present an analysis of OTHER aircraft merging, diverging or crossing with the four flights.

A true analysis of any "swap scenario" would have to analyze all the other flights along the routes of flights of the airliners and I do not know if that has been done. However, had any FAA Air Traffic Controller[s] flight following the airliners seen an UNKNOWN merging target [swapped IN] that approached any of the airliners, and/or then saw another target leave [swapped out] the merger point that exists in a swap/intercept scenario, they would have been very quick to bring this information forward...especially early on in the reporting. To my knowledge there has never been such testimony about other UNKNOWN targets merging and then diverging from any of the four airliners. Had such merger/intercept activities taken place on any of the flights, the ATCs would have seen it happen.

Swapping aircraft in and out is a very difficult aviation task to perform, and as noted above, it is a very observable event...especially in the aviation conditions on 9/11 where extra numbers of FAA air traffic controllers were watching the events unfold AND because they had selected/used primary radar along with secondary [transponder] radar on their scopes while/for observing the airliners in their individual flights.

Although the high speed eastbound primary target that "popped up" over central West Virginia has only been "presumed" to be AA77, this target, nor any other primary target has ever been positively identified as being AA77. However, if one presumes that it was AA77 that "popped up" over central West Virginia, this would have allowed over a hundred miles between where AA77 was lost to positive radar contact and where this primary target "popped up" from an unknown location.

From what I understnd, there is additional radar data in the research pipeline that should soon surface. This data purports to show primary radar returns along the entire flight path of the "lost" AA77...including between eastern Ohio and central West Virginia. And, if valid, this data should provide some more information for such analysis.

Regarding any of the airliners being special models of B757s or B767s, any external tanks or missiles or such would have easily been noticed by other pilots on the ground or air traffic controllers who are trained and eventually gain solid knowledge enabling them to identify such unusual things. However, this does not eliminate the possibility of modifications to engines or internal elements [remote control connections?] of the airliners...although such modifications would have had to happen somewhere in the maintenance history of the four airliners...and all of this activity would most likely become apparent at those maintenence locations and within their maintenance activities.

On another but related subject, I believe that it is but a red herring regarding all the chatter about the paper trails of the four airliners at their departure airports in which some people have concluded that there were never any such flights etc. Such paper trails are easily modifiable or removable from the records.

Its VERY common in the aviation industry that when crashes or troubles occur with a certain flight, employees, aircraft/airline owners, aircraft manufactureres, maintenance providers, local law enforcement, local transportation authorities, security providers and even the FAA take steps to search out for, modify or "loose" any paper trails that might show neglect or, will in other ways, show troubling involvement regarding their own activities regarding that flight or accident.

Once a crash happens there is an immediate scramble to scour all the paper trails in attempts to protect themselves and their companies or organizations from what surely will be high levels of scrutiny seeking blame or responsibilities for future litigation.

So, of all the evidence on 9/11, the paper trails at the airports are the least reliable to make any judgements upon.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

I just report what to me is clear

and only ask that people look into it, and watch all the videos of the plane on approach to impact, and examine all the photographs, taken from a multitide of cameras and angles, placing that aircraft, "flight 175" within what I would call a physical, evidenciary (eyewitness), framework (ie: filmed when it actually happened), or within a multiple, comparative, visual frame of reference. Not unlike videos of any crime in action, as recorded on film.
It's not the same plane, not in reality, in terms of what was there, what showed up at the scene of the crime, and was captured on film doing so.

I can only faithfully report what I see and believe to be true.

I am convinced that 'they' pulled a 21st century version of one of the Operation Northwoods scenarios, flying these aircraft within the smokescreen "grid" of the 9/11 war games operations, during which false rader "injects" were occuring on FAA radar, and the air traffic controllers were unsure as to what was actually occuring, requesting clarification on "real world vs. war games excercises", of which there were at least 3 occuring in simultaneity ON September 11th, 2001.

And what of the infamous black boxes at the WTC, recovered, then hidden by the FBI, never to be seen again.

I think we have to go by what was THERE, present, at the time, and there are many videos and photos of that south tower plane on final approach to impact.

Just because there's been a controversy surrounding the 9/11 truth movement's interpretations of these photos and videos, extending at the outer fringe to the "no planers" does NOT mean that we must continue to blind ourselves to ALL information AND phenomenon, including all videos and images of that monster plane as missile, doing its "evil deed". Like the videos of the twin towers' destruction, the south tower plane WAS recorded, and I've looked at it, and am only reporting what I see there - and it is decidedly NOT flight 175, it's not the same aircraft, for a whole host of reasons, including the very profile of the aircraft, which fits a 300, and not a 767-200 for one thign, I could go on.

Just take a good hard look at the south tower plane, and decide for yourself, that's all I'm asking. No need to vote me down for this view and for raising this..

Show "Very well said, Robert" by nobodyparticular
Show "Forget the handwaving over this" by Robert Rice

It may not have been that tail number, but here is the proof...

...that it was the United Airlines aircraft that was assigned that trip on 9/11/2001.

The evidence is contained in both:

The NTSB's Flight Path Study in which it was shown that UA175 was either observed visually by air traffic controllers at Logan Airport as UA175 pushed back from its gate and taxiied for departure, and then is shown by radar data that this aircraft was tracked or watched a vast majority of the time [ well over 99.99% of the time...the few missing radar "hits" were explained earlier] until it struck the south tower...and

There is not one single word or any testimony about UA175 being lost to positive radar contact that has been put forth by the series of Air Traffic Controllers that were responsible for UA175's safe flight path from push-back to collision with the south tower. In fact, this information serves as testimony for the opposite of your position...all the ATCs along the flight path claim that it was UA175 all along the way.

These are two pieces of HARD information that completely override the "theory" that the aircraft that struck the WTCs were NOT B767-200s and were some hybrid or "souped up" B767-200s or B767-300s.

[One caveat: airlines often switch aircraft "type" serving certain flights because the original aircraft slotted for that flight might have been rerouted due to weather or other reasons. This would require UAL to schedule a replacement aircraft and IF UAL also had B767-300s in its fleet, then its possible that one of those airliners could have been swapped in for the original B767-200. Existing records show that its the original B767-200 though.]

So, here is the standing proof that it was the original UA175 that hit the south tower and the burden is for you, or P4T to prove otherwise, which neither you nor P4T has been successful in proving such.

And yes, I have seen Balsamo's latest video focusing upon the Egypt Air in-flight event as it tries to establish an "aircraft swap" using that "disputed" crash...and it does not make a compelling case at all.

Seems to me that the dust-up on this thread may be more of a PR move by P4T to draw interest in the commerce behind Balsamo's latest video effort. Had his earlier video works been more competent, accurate, truthful and compelling, then this one would be flying off of the shelf. However, this production by Balsamo is one of the weakest efforts that I have ever seen in my involvement with the 9/11TM. So, sitting on a shelf undesired seems its appropriate destination.

This video is an embarrassment in comparison to the high levels of credible work being produced by the 9/11 Truth Community over the years.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

I have seen most of this video stuff about UA175...

...including the NTSB Flight Path Study, and have also checked for any air traffic controllers' statements indicating any swap-like opportunities etc...and found none. The other point that I will make is that sun, shadows, clouds and atmospheric "inversion" play amazing tricks with the "visuals"...or what you see in has always amazed me what I saw up there sometimes...and the reflections and shadows regarding UA175 seem normal.

So, I am very comfortable that it was original UA175 that crashed into the south tower.

Robert, I think that you have some things mixed up here regarding "inputs" onto FAA radar scopes and who asked who about if it was "real world" or or not.

One of the biggest and most ardently held points that to me, was a pure psy-op/disinfo plant from the outset, was BELIEF that the FAA air traffic controllers were confused because there were "inputs" onto their scopes. Its not only my belief that this capability only exists in the FAA's simulated training environments and NOT allowable in daily operations [current ATCs will confirm this], but more importantly, I find no confirmation from any FAA ATC or FAA facility anywhere of such "inputs" onto their radar scopes. If you have that hard data, and its not a repeat of Mike Ruppert's first claims of such in Crossing The Rubicon, then I would very much appreciate a link. I'd real;ly like to get my arms around that information to analyze it.

However, NORAD's computer systems actually HAVE the capability to both CREATE "inputs" onto the sector flight tracker's scopes..AND...[this is a big one for our work down the road]...the same NORAD computer program has the capability to DELETE inputs and data OFFof their flight tracker's scopes.

Truthers...let that sit in your thinking cap for a minute because we will be talking about this pretty soon...certainly after P4T posts its research about NORAD's activities on 9/11. THAT's gonna be some hairy fun...

Anyway, this NORAD computer program capability allows NORAD to design, manage and run their many War Games Scenarios.

And I ask you once again, except about NORAD this time...please give me a lead as to where any NEADS flight trackers were confused by the inputs that were allegedly on their scopes on 9/11?

I am aware that there were multiple War Games going on at that time...but it is my understanding that most of this War Game activity associated with "inputs" took place at locations thousands of miles away from the WDC-NYC-BOS corridor. Unless I have forgotten something, I also have not heard of any inputs confusing NEADS personnel either.

So, here is the interesting "psy-op" elemet about all of the above:

The problems surrounding radar targets on 9/11 WASN'T that there were too many "inputs" was that there were too few REAL TARGETS seen on NEADS' flight tracking scopes.

AA11 was not seen by NEADS in airspace that has ALWAYS been very capable of seeing such targets! Get it...the entire 9/11TM is all hung up about "inputs"...when THAT story isn't real...and yet the REAL problem is that NEADS could not see a REAL TARGET where for decades such a target could be seen in that airspace...and I personally testify to this because..."been there-done that" myself. Additionally, it was a really BIG target...AA11 is a B767...which is HUGE target regardingb primary radar reflections.

Now a real good "psy-op" or disinfo campaign...and too many Truthers are still humming the disinfo bars...

And, it was NEADS who asked ZBW's military liaisson [sp] [Scoggins I think?] if the phone calls and situation at hand was "real world"...and not vice-versa which you seem to imply.

Trust me on this...the aviation aspects of the events on 9/11 are a very complex, intertwined, multilayered set of events that are partially simultaneous...and ALL events are affected by the intricacies of TIME...or...what happened when...and what else happened at that time...and what happened earlier...and what happened later.

Its a FOURTH DIMENSION try and figure all of this out...and we are only about 10% of the way there.

So, there is way too much chat on this thread is conjecrture or opinion, or statements made without proof or sources or reliable back-up. But we will get there someday.

For now Robert I'd LOVE to know more about "inputs" that affected the FAA ATCs or NEADS flight trackers. Thanks

9/11 Truth for Wotld Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

I suppose I have to just take your word vs. what I see

Have you looked at all the photos of the plane as well? Like I said, for one thing, the profile is wrong, different proportion in terms of the fuselage length to wing ratio, and it's bigger, longer. There are a lot of reasons to believe that the plane which impacted the south tower was not the alleged flight 175, with passengers and flight crew, and hijackers, weather remotely piloted or no. Also, requiring a successful hijacking (breach of the cockpit) leaves by far too many variables, when you have these buildings all set for CD which required, in absolute terms, a successful impact by the aircraft (along with massive fireball).

You direct us, time and again, to the Pengaton plane, which is rife with problems, in so far as a plane was reported at the scene by credible eyewitnesses, and yet, prior to outer wall collapse at the Pentagon, there is asbolutely no evidence whatsoever of such an aircraft having impacted the Pentagon wall ie: implying some sort of strange flyover scenario, maybe with adaptive camoflage technology - something so loaded with seemingly outlandish, and endless, speculation and conjecture, that it is sure to throw a wrench into the mix, and create, not clarity, but confusion.

I am not professing to be an expert here, or to say precisely what happened - I'm only saying that all of the videos and still photographic evidence available, when taken together within a comparative frame of reference, suggests in no uncertain terms, that the south tower plane wasn't flight 175, but another aircraft altogether.

How it (the switch) occured, and precisely when, is indeterminate. In fact the BTS data base for take offs on some of the flights is problematic, they had a real "shell game" running that day, so who's to say what is and is not possible, I am only reporting on the physical evidence available, and it is available, including the observations regarding speed and performance, all of which indicates that another aircraft was employed for the task of ensuring a succesful impact at target, again, an absolute prerequisit for the entire shock and awe global psy-op to be successfully rendered before the horrified watching world, and one for which the "collapse" of the buildings was required, which itself could not occur absent a successful plane impact (the ruse), on BOTH buildings. Simulated hijacked aircraft in the mix, operating within the smokescreen grid of the war games, going LIVE, that is what happened, and it's what a Sherlock Holms would deduce - that no one was aboard the aircraft which impacted the south tower, which by extension implies the same for the north tower. Drones - can it be proven? Look to the south tower plane, and look at it very carefully under a magnifying glass, and you'll see. I once considered it as strong, in terms of physical evidence, as the CD of the twin towers and building 7. But the campaign to label it as "disinfo" was very strong, mounted from a few corners of the Internet, by people like the Salter Brothers and the guy who runs Whatreallyhappened, Mike Rivero, an ex NASA photo analyst of all things. Attacks on the south tower plane evidence, is even responsible for the "no planer" mini-movement, which just goes to show the lengths to which some will go, to obscure it, or distract from it..

There are a lot of people willing to go to great lengths to suggest that the evidence I've offered is "disinfo", but from where I sit, I see those very efforts as disinfo, and there are a few people here on these boards responsible for helping to propogate it, I'm sorry but I have to call that the way I see it as well.

Being voted down for suggesting that the plane which impacted the south tower was almost certainly a remotely piloted drone, I find rather odd, as there are some very smart and observant people here.

Look at all the videos and photos available, and do a comparative analysis against a 767-200 series, and you'll see, it's clear as day, and I am not just referring to all the pics and frames showing the infamous "pod", which is more than merely an odd reflection, given that it appears throughout the various images and videos frames, taken from different cameras and angles. Digital analysis has proven it to be 3 dimensional, and it's not merely a "wing root fairing" or a result of the UA livery paintjob either. However, that said, given doubts about it, the "pod" taken alone must be considered "indeterminate", that's just one piece of the puzzle.

The plane was not flight 175, not in reality, regardless of what people might like to think, or what is or is not "popular" in the "truth movement".

No self professed "expert" is going to tell me that what I see with my own eyes, cannot be right, only because having remote drones isn't "neccessary". All I'm concerned with, isn't theory - but what was actaully there, as recorded, when it happened, and it's the wrong plane. Not flight 175, not N612UA. No way.

What you "SEE" Robert are... and videos that were taken by people OTHER THAN YOU.

So, its not at all "your eyes" that are seeing what you claim to be seeing.

Additionally, aviation is one of the highest speed and dynamic physical activities that takes place on this earth. And part of that earth is sunlight, shadows, reflections, atmospheric inversions and variable temperatures.

Combined with the speed of the events here, [which should provide a slight modification or stretching or distortions in all the photos and videos solely BECAUSE of that speed and movement], the sunlight, shadows, reflections, and varying temperatures affecting the air along with the various differing types of cameras and their individual settings, simply dismiss your claim about YOU seeing anything with YOUR OWN EYES.

Eyes which were not there on 9/11/2001.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Not credible

I would think a positive identification of everybody - from a jetliner which at 580+ mph strucked into several layers of a dense grid of steel structural columns and girders, then the remains were involved in the fire inside the building for almost an hour, and then they were yet involved in a complete collapse/demolition of a 400m skyscraper - is for me beyond believable.
To this day we haven't even heard about any positive identificaton of any parts of any of that 4 jetliners, even it would be surely more plausible it could be identified from the part serial numbers, than that any of the alleged victims in the "UA175" would be positively identified after all that chain of events.
We know, there is the story of the terrorism expert and WTC security chief John O'Neill, whose body was allegedly found in tact within the rubble and then visually identified by Jerome Hauer. Although implausible, and likely a plant, it is still surely more believable than a positive identification of the "UA175" alleged passengers. Even survivality of a still identifiable DNA of all the alleged passengers throughout a jetfuel/office fire lasting almost an hour and engulfing several floors of a building seems to me being beyond plausible. Human cell DNA is never identifiable if subjected to a heat just over the water boiling point, but in fact it usually decomposes beyond identifiability at even considerably lower temperatures.

ha, you got voted down for expressing your

incredulity over the alleged successful identification of the plane passengers. That's interesting.

interesting find

I would maybe not even mind it.
Somewhere I've read recently, there's around 1000 victims from WTC who never have been positively identified from remains. I think it was in the connection with the recent information another remains were found. How then one could believe all the passengers from the "UA175" were identified being there? It just makes not much sense and to me it looks really highly suspicious if somebody insists all were identified. It is for me the same way credible assertion as with the Satam al-Suqami passport. And somebody even votes this opinon down? It looks like the usual game is going on here why I visit this site so rarely... a problem...

I'm sorry for being angry, prideful and conceited during this debate!

I apologise to 911blogger and the 911 Truth Movement for my rash actions in heat of battle for truth!

Kind regards John

It`s altered my view

of you and a few others here, and of 911blogger in general, who do not seem to be a very open minded bunch, concerned primarily with maintaining consensus.

I have not enjoyed participating in this debate at all.


Robert I think you missed the point...

Pilots are putting forward a position that is simply wrong. That is why we are holding the line...nothing more to it than that!

Regards John

Show "Robert Rice," by Lillyann

Thank you.

Funny how you got voted down for that. No worries I'll stick around to watch this corner of our little movement that could. ; )

"Over the target".....judge me please!

This is what I do for the cause on Australia's number 1 Music Station a few days back...

This is what Rob Balsamo does...

To All Core Members,

If I were to sum up this situation with just one sentence, it would be, "You don't get flak unless you're over the target".

This notice being sent to you based on a specific critic of our latest article released on 6/22.

As some of you know, John Bursill claims to be a skeptic of the govt story regarding 9/11. He is a resident of Australia and claims to work for Quantas as an Avionics Tech. He also hosts a very small internet radio show yet is perhaps the loud minority in this context, hence the reason for sending out this notice. Most of you don't even know who he is and this will be the first you ever hear his name, and probably the last. However, most of his time is spent attacking our work, our organization, and me personally. I have tried to remain civil with John in hopes we could agree to disagree on certain issues, yet work together on others. You can read this here.

John has refused to return and discuss the matter civilly and instead is libeling you, me and our entire organization all over the web and on his little internet radio show with guests who do not have the expertise to have an opinion on the matter nor have reviewed the data or presentations. Bursill attempted to rope Bob Bowman into this argument, but Bob gracefully declined to enter any "pissing contest" between Bursill and myself. The intelligent choice.

All of you are aware of and many of you were consulted for our latest project "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". John Bursill claims that the work we perform and place our names, credentials and professional reputations somehow discredits him and others who do not have the expertise, knowledge, nor place their name on our work (or have even viewed our work). That we create "division" and are spreading "disinfo". I mostly ignore Bursill and his rants as I too do not have time to deal with any "pissing contest". Especially with those who do not understand the subject matter, but this has gotten to a point where the responsible thing to do is make the organization at least aware of this issue.

I was recently made aware our latest article being posted to another site where members claim to question the govt story with respect to 9/11. Here is just one rant of many John Bursill is writing in reply to our latest article, "NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The Elephant In The Room"

Quote -
"It's not complicated, experience has simply demonstrated that P4T are bad news for our credibility.

It is obvious to any one with their eyes open that Rob Balsamo et al are not following the scientific method.

They rely on opinion and guess work to make broad statements as if fact but support no theories?

They create division and support disinformation both indirectly and directly, they also harbour dangerous high profile members.

One question as a "layman", if you don't have the data and don't do the experiment how do you have the conclusion?

Regards John "

It appears John Bursill has not reviewed any of our work as all of our work is based on data, mostly provided by the NTSB. We are also not the organization who focuses on a particular individual or other organizations, claiming they are "making US look bad", as does Bursill.

I normally would not waste your time (nor mine) and send this out to the entire Organization and leaders of other organizations, but the libel has gone on long enough (almost 2 years). Again, the responsible thing to do is at least make you aware of the issue.

If you come across John Bursill in the future (highly doubtful for most of you), and he starts ranting about our work, specifically the reported speeds of the 9/11 Aircraft, remind him of his own words,

"...but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction." - John Bursill
(Bursill wrote this in another rant at another site before he fled from a debate challenge)

And then remind him that the airplane reported to have struck the south tower was not only changing direction right up until impact, but pulling significant G loads at such excessive speed. Then perhaps tell John Bursill to learn the fundamentals of a Vg diagram and why aircraft manufacturers set limits on their aircraft.

I have given John the opportunity to debate this topic civilly and posed a few short questions as a prerequisite to make sure he understands the subject matter, that the debate will not turn into a Ground school. John Bursill fled.

I would also highly recommend you decline any invitation to be interviewed on his internet podcast or any event in which Bursill is one of the organizers as you will only end up in a circular argument of mostly libel directed at me personally, or the organization as a whole and the debate will no doubt turn into an impromptu form of ground school. You teaching John. I would also recommend the Radio hosts included in this email to not invite John onto your program as much of the same will occur. John had his chance to debate the topic, he chooses personal attacks instead.

"Ye shall know them by their fruit."

If anyone has any questions on this matter, feel free to call and/or email.

Hope you are all doing well.

Rob Balsamo
Pilots For 9/11 Truth

Full Core member list
Friends of the organization
John Bursill

Quote the quote and I retract nothing...

Quote the quote a I retract nothing...sorry blogger I'm just quoting Balsamo...sorry

Bursill says..

"It's not complicated, experience has simply demonstrated that P4T are bad news for our credibility.

It is obvious to any one with their eyes open that Rob Balsamo et al are not following the scientific method.

They rely on opinion and guess work to make broad statements as if fact but support no theories?

They create division and support disinformation both indirectly and directly, they also harbour dangerous high profile members.

One question as a "layman", if you don't have the data and don't do the experiment how do you have the conclusion?

Regards John "

Happy regards John

Show "This was posted here before and it got deleted! Here it is again" by nobodyparticular

c'mon guys focus

OK. Now while it's admirable that pilotsfor911 truth are investigating this, especially seeing as the alleged hijackers didn't have the skill to fly the planes, especially in such a manner (It at least 'suggests' remote control), the collapse physics alone proves controlled demolition and that's all we need. I believe what John is quite rightly concerned about is the harm disinfo released could cause to the movement. There is no harm in investigating the theory of 'impossible speeds' but until there is irrefutable scientific evidence for it, as there is with the collapse physics then it should not be an established part of 911 evidence.

That's not to say it can't be in the future, it just has to go through a rigorous scientific peer review process and discussion, it has to be able to refute all valid counter-arguments. There is no way the Government can validly debate the 2.2 seconds of freefall, the violation of newton's third law with the 64% freefall acceleration through greatest resistance, or the leaning section of the south tower not toppling off and somehow impossibly creating a symmetric collapse from an asymmetric off-centre mass..

This is why the Pentagon crash is irrelevant and dangerous, it just has too many holes in it and is debatable. Once we prove controlled demolition, as we have with the collapse physics, there is no need to risk the integrity of our argument by introducing other variables.
By all means investigate the aircraft speeds but don't officially acknowledge it as 911 evidence until it is watertight. John has apologised for his attitude, he's just concerned about potential disinfo scuttling the 911 ship. The argument put forth by Pilotsfor 911truth is not necessarily disinfo but the last thing we need and the thing that the Government wants, is division within the movement.

Bursill, you ignore both the rules of logic AND the site rules!

You are not only plainly contradicting yourself, but you are continuing to break the forum rules by calling P4T "dissinfo" [sic].

[ NOTE TO MODS: I appreciate your deleting Bursill's former post above entitled "Thanks for the post for sense and unity!" - which was clearly in breach of the forum rules.]

However, John, you keep repeating that you agree with Deets, who specifically stated that the reported speeds are "improbable." Yet here you are, once again, reiterating your conclusion that they are "probable"!

Are you not aware that improbable is the exact opposite of probable?

Most rational people would agree that there is only a fine line between improbable and impossible. So to suggest you literally AGREE with one, but not the other, does not put you in any position to contradict multiple experts - who openly agree that it is "impossible".

"However you keep repeating

Quote "However you keep repeating that you agree with Deets, who specifically stated that the reported speeds are "improbable." Yet here you are, once again, reiterating your conclusion that they are "probable"!

Are you not aware that improbable is the exact opposite of probable?"

End quote.

Deets says "an Aeronautical Improbability" you say he say "an Airspeed Improbability" you are obviously NOT genuine in this debate...and who are you again...?

You say improbable is the exact opposite of probable? You are obviously not aware of the simple statistical reality?

Possible: "that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc."
Impossible: "not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc."

These could be considered "opposites" I suppose...

Probable: "likely to occur or prove true"
Improbable: "not probable; unlikely to be true or to happen: Rain is improbable tonight."


Impossible = 0% chance
Possible = a chance really not defined and is open to debate or depends on data, parameters and precedent.

Probable: 51%+ likely
Improbable: 49%- likely

The probability that you are genuine would be low I would say from this simple reality. Who do you think your going to convince with ridiculous arguments like those above?



Deets's it s l o w l y nobody!

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

Where does Deets say the speed is improbable? Just please cut and paste the QUOTE?


It's right there in the statement's title - & clearly implied!

I don't know how else to explain it. Deets titles his statement "A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability" and the text is solely focused on the discrepancy between the reported 510 knots groundspeed just before impact and the 767-200's maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.

Article titles are typically a quick summary of the content. I can't honestly see how his title could be referring to anything else but aircraft speed, but you're welcome to communicate with him to clarify this if you want, or perhaps he will post directly here and clear it up for all of us. But there is no ambiguity or spin here in my view, and I am sorry you still seem to be confused on this point. Why don't you ask him yourself before desperately speculating something that contradicts the very content of his statement?

Deets refers to this discrepancy in aircraft speeds as "the elephant in the room" - that forms part of the title of the article he consulted on and approved. If it wasn't an accurate description of Deets' point why do you think he approved the article? If he didn't agree with this don't you think he would be angry at Balsamo for misrepresenting his beliefs? Don't you think it would be pretty easy for you to get Deets to speak out against Balsamo if this were the case? Why don't you try instead of desperately working to cast doubt with baseless accusations of deception?

By the way, I am still waiting for an answer to the question in the comment earlier in this thread, which you seem to have evaded perhaps more than 10 times now: do you feel UA175 didn't change direction on its path to WTC2? Yes or no?

Best regards,


I have answered your question....but the post does not appear!

All you've got is an example of your bent on proving nothing and claiming something, just more spin. By the way I already pointed out the title in an earlier post does not say "improbable speed"....

No reading this garbage any more, no one cares they all realize how weak your argument is. It's becoming the biggest joke in 9/11 Truth history. After "space beams", "holograms", "no Jews in the towers", "missile hitting the pentagon" and now "impossible speed", congrats you've made that list.

Yes of course the plane changes direction have you not seen the video? And yes that is when there is a risk to the frame breaking up at that speed, did it break up? No it did not, so obviously it held together during that turn....I assuming the G load was above maximum? Just goes to show how strong a 767 can be for a few seconds before it turns to shredded aluminium;)

Not once in the whole debate have you answered why the the fact that half of Egypt Air was at the speed of sound, well above it's critical Mach number and your experts just decide that's not important? They are not experts are they Rob, sorry nobody. Any pilot or engineer with any knowledge at all understands that the Boeing 767 is not a supersonic aircraft, so it makes me wonder what happened to your experts....memory loss maybe...? I'm glad they are retired, they could do with the rest:)


You wanted it straight from Deets' mouth? OK, here it is

John, since you apparently aren't willing to contact Deets yourself to confirm your unsubstantiated allegations about his involvement with the article (or lack thereof), listen to this 22 minute interview with him, recorded just today (June 30, 2010) :

This should finally put to rest your concerns that Deets did not fully approve the article. In this interview, Deets confirms: @ 3:25 that he in no way feels Balsamo spun the article:

Deets: "I read over the overall article, and it seems fine to me"

Balsamo: "Yeah, well, in other words, do you feel that I spun any wording of yours, or anything like that?"

Deets: "No, I don't... It was pretty right on."

Deets then goes on to confirm once again all the main points of his statement. And on your question of whether the observed speeds of the plane that struck the South Tower can be considered "probable" for a 767-200, just listen to this exchange at 21:25:

Balsamo: "There is nobody in our organization that say [the speeds] are probable, 'nothing to see here, move along'... is that correct, Dwain?

Deets: "Well, that's... I mean, anyone who says that, I would say... I'd guess, is in denial of what the issues are."

John, can we now an expect a humble apology from you for repeatedly insinuating that Balsamo tried to misrepresent Deets' concerns? And another one for repeatedly insinuating that Deets never meant that the speeds were improbable? Or are you going to argue instead that this recording is actually a forgery? I mean, how desperate are you to smear Balsamo at any cost here?

Oh oh..

on BOTH counts, it's beginning to appear like this entire argument, is moot.. that it comes down to the semantics of extremely improbable vs. impossible, and in the case of the physical evidence regarding the plane's identity, and what it was or I should say what it was most probably NOT (flight 175) - what I can "see" with my "own eyes", and what I cannot, since >I< wasn't actually THERE, on the scene, to witness the actual plane fly by, at 600 MPH, on the very day it happened, as if my testimony based on recollection would somehow be stronger in that case, than in visual, photographic evidence, that anyone can look at and "see" with THEIR own eyes, and evaluate for themselves, at any time, from now to eternity.

ok you can vote me down now, thanks.

P.S. I mean no disrespect to either John or Robin, but just look at this whole thread and argument.. let's just say it's been somewhat.. exasperating, to participate in, so forgive me if I've come across as being in any way rude, sarcastic, or, ah.. belittling.

Well there you go...Deets supports the article.

I've been away for a week in the outback, no phone or net, very relaxing.

Balsamo has spun Deets comment in that article in my view, but now that you have got his approval of it that obviously makes your point! Congratulations:)

I did not say that Deets did not support the article, so I won't apologise for something I did not do. If I insinuated that Balsamo et al where misstating Deets support for this article, then I do apologise for that, although I don't think that is true rather it misrepresents the point I was trying to make.


Balsamo: "There is nobody in our organization that say [the speeds] are probable, 'nothing to see here, move along'... is that correct, Dwain?

Deets: "Well, that's... I mean, anyone who says that, I would say... I'd guess, is in denial of what the issues are."


Deets' comments above seem a little ambiguous and unclear, so what are the issues exactly that people are in denial about, nobody?

Deets's appears to be being careful not to state anything he will be later called on, I wonder why?

Regards John

Did you even listen to the interview?

Deet's comments aren't the least bit ambiguous and unclear if you - or anyone else - were to listen to the full interview. If, after listening to this, along with watching the P4T presentation, anyone still wants to maintain that the observed speed of the plane that hit the South Tower is "probable" for a standard 767-200, then I would agree with Deets that that person is in denial.

But thanks for the apology for your falsely insinuating that Balsamo 'spun' Deets' words - the readers of this thread can decide for themselves what you did and did not claim - but an apology was most certainly warranted, as Balsamo did nothing of the sort, as this interview amply demonstrates. You might want to confirm any such unfounded allegations you intend to make before publicly voicing them in future.

Now, are you going to continue to avoid the questions posed to you earlier in this thread?

-Do you or do you not believe that PFT/Balsamo are intentionally deceiving people? If yes, provide specific evidence of such, and a link or some other documentation of your unsuccessful efforts to get this resolved - if not, you should retract the allegation. After all, you do seem capable of withdrawing incorrect allegations, as per Deets above.

-If Robert Bowman thinks P4T's work is "false", as you claim, why do you feel he is listed as a member? Do you have any evidence that Bowman finds the speed of the plane that hit WTC2 probable for a 767-200?

-Why are you not acknowledging that P4T has always said Boeing needs to release the wind tunnel data?

-What efforts have you personally made to get more information on this point? Any?

If you can provide answers to those questions, then your apology might have some significance to me and other readers of this thread. But if you are going to continue evading these issues, changing the subject, bringing up red herrings like whether Deets supports the article or not, then it is - as you state - clearly a waste of energy trying to clarify this issues and forge a consensus with you.

So what shall it be, John? Honest discourse to get at the truth here, or more obfuscation, character assassination, and hand-waving? Your response will be most revealing...

I agree with you

But I also believe that some day, future historians looking back, will be examining this thing with a magnifying glass and a fine toothed comb, and they will not be hampered in any way when attempting to do so.

My comment in reply to "C'mon Guys Focus" by Sabretruthtiger above Bursill's.

How to post photos?

I see what I can do in terms of putting up a comparative photograph regarding the proportions and length disparity between the south tower plane and flight 175. It's pretty obvious when you see it.

This will have to serve for the time being..

A proportion analysis may be constructed from the following (forgive me for not being able to render it here, being the 'puter idiot that i am)

Original 9/11 Photo, from Hereisnewyork on-line Gallary
# 2087


Actual flight 175

Poorly rendered split image, with UA175 in flight (south tower plane image frame from poor video, not Hereisnewyork image ref'd above)

Length Proportion Comparison - Schematic

- What we need is that Herisnewyork image at mid level magnification, along side an inverted left-right flight 175 image in flight (so as to make a better side by side ratio and length comparison).
Here's the first (found one)

Dark circle under tail section (as 767-200, there should be no mark there)

CNN image - different photo (different camera) but similar angle, slightly later, at impact (also shows "flame-flash") also showing dark spot under tail.

That's all I got for now - need someone to come along and work it and put it up, side by side, top and bottom, with the schematic to demonstrate the difference between the 200 and 300, which, although not huge is nevertheless significant, and sufficiently so, imo, to note the ratio and length disparity (for and aft of the wing section).

P.S. I can actually SEE # 2087 from the Herisnewyork gallary "with my own eyes". It's a fairy high res, high speed photograph, conveniently taken from a position which shows the south tower plane (flight 175..?) in a horizontal profile.

Something else I've noted, from a few photos, is the degree of wing bending that occured during that final high-g correcting turn, which according to Russ Wittenburg, who flew the actual flight 175 aircraft, would require superhuman strength, as the controls actually stiffen under those conditions. He said he himself could not have done it.

Funny what our eyes "see"...

That's a B767 shorty...

And how about those reflections...including the now yellowish one near impact...which was the sun reflecting off of the curved nose section and then back off of the WTC cladding and windows...

Robert, I now sense that you are pranking us...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon

Show "I didn't say it wasn't a B767" by Robert Rice

Here again from another perspective

using the Scott Myers video frames

from which an extrapolated A-B proportional comparative analysis can be made

Notes: (source -
Of course, doing a dimensional analysis like this is like walking into a minefield. A thousand people could repeat the process and you'd be lucky to get two sets of matching figures. "The World is Wide", says my friend Walter paraphrasing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So to prevent any quibbling, the figures shown represent the lower limit values for the ratio A:B. In other words, we've been as generous as is reasonably possible in defining the distance B (the left-hand line barely touches the rear wing-tips, while the middle line has been set just past where the leading edge of the wing meets the fuselage) and strict in defining A (the right-hand line is set where the nose touches the building, though it clearly goes beyond this point). Nevertheless, this still gives us a value for A that is greater than B.

There may also be a difference in dimensions depending on how the images have been obtained. Though irrespective of the method employed you'll still get a value for the ratio A:B that is greater than 1.
To satisfy the perfinicky I'll describe how the images were processed:
The Scott Myers frames were obtained from the CatQueen JPEG. This is at 26 pixels/inch, so the resolution was raised to 72 pixels/inch for importing into QuarkExpress to give the quoted figures. When clipped and sent back into PhotoShop this gave a JPEG of 766 pixels width, this was reduced to 600 pixels in the above picture for the purposes of page layout.

Open in a split screen to recognize what's being presented here.

A/B/C Ratio Comparison - Schematic

The Plane

Notes Cont'd:
You'll notice that distance "A" is longer than distance "B", whereas, in fact, it should be SHORTER for a Boeing 767-222. (This is more apparent when you draw the lines exactly along the defining points. Instead here we've used the Lower Limit Values throughout to counter the sceptics, see Notes above)

"Rubbish", I can hear someone say. Well, go back to QuarkExpress and check the measurements (or use a ruler and pencil). Click on the three lines and make sure that the "End Point" Y coordinates are all the same, realign if necessary. Note down the X coordinates for all three lines (though the fuselage does not follow the horizontal X axis it's the ratio between A and B that we want, so any straight line would do). This gives us X1 = 100.90 mm, X2 = 120.81 and X3 = 141.57, giving values of A = 20.76 mm and B = 19.91 mm. (Note that these are Lower Limit Values, see Notes above)

Now compare with a scale plan of a Boeing 767-200 series...

Therefore, the plane which impacted the south tower, was a Boeing 767-300, not a 200, and thus it was not flight 175.

Instead of trying to plug the holes in the rader, I'd be searching for them, or for IT, that one moment, probably if not almost certainly when the transponder codes started flipping, because I am absolutely convinced that the aircraft were switched, swapped, whatever you want to call it, and this monster-plane-as-missile (something other than UA175) was sent in to make absolutely CERTAIN, that the target would be reached, in BOTH cases, and therefore by extension, the north tower plane was also a drone aircraft, so look for the hole in the radar there as well. In both cases, there will be a hole in the radar coverage, I agree that's part of this, but those War Games Operations WERE going on, I don't think we can completely rule that out of the equation, as having some sort of cause in the actual execution of the 9/11 operation and I just don't think we can ignore first hand physical evidence, and eyewitness testimony (namely, yours and mine and whoever else looks at this between now and eternity).

So beginning with proof of CD, and, working backwards, we obviously look to the plane, and with magnifying glass in hand, not unlike Sherlock Holms, what do we deduce?

Was it the originating flight 175, in reality? CAN that image from the Hereisnewyork be considered a valid representation of reality, or can we not actaully SEE what's there? I don't see why not. What about the Scott Myers video frames, as referenced by NIST, are those "reality"? Sure they are. The plane was caught on camera, both video and still shots, from a whole multitude of cameras and angles. It's the only plane on 9/11 to carry this distinction. It's visible. This is physical evidence.

Are we to pretend that we cannot see it, or like the "no-planers" that it's not even there..?

And at the very least we must never assume or operate out of any sort of pre-concieved bias or even contempt, prior to investigation.

Lastly, I'd just like to say that proof of CD of the twin towers and building 7 does not depend on this evidence in ANY way at all, but, me, personally, I'd just like to have a better grasp on what happened that day, and, although much of it, like the War Games, remains hazey and shrowded in the fog of false falg operations (the patsy hijackers), occasionally you run across another piece of the puzzle, and for me that's all this represents.

And if I am mistaken about this, which I don't think I am, then it is misinformation, not disinformation. I have no interest in hurting this movement in any way, but some day, people ARE going to take a good LOOK at this, once they realize the REAL cause and effect sequence of the ruse for destruction, for the final global psy-op, as the whole world watched in horror, as the buildings crumbled to dust (in about 10 seconds flat) with 1000's of people inside them, that is the moment that the psychological rape occured, Philip Zelikow's (Bush/Cheney/Rice appointed 9/11 Commission Chair) imaginings, PRIOR TO 9/11 (Google: Philip D. Zelikow "Catastrophic Terrorism, Imagining the Transformative Event") saw clearly how the "transformative event" needed to be SEARED into the collective consciousness, so that it's power would be retained in history even beyond the experiencing generation. Well, it did not work "Dr. Zelikow", Dr. Evil, because the myth simply does not hold up to reality. So, now we are FREE to examine it from any angle or perspective we wish, and thus there is no need to vote me down for this, for raising this and bringing it to people's attention, there's nothing wrong with that or with me or my eyes or my interpretations of reality

It's just a piece of history (images and video of the south tower plane), which we can approach with clear eyes and an open mind on a purely rational basis - in other words, there is no reason at this point, surely, to believe it to be totally CRAZY to think that the plane which impacted the south tower on 9/11 was NOT flight 175, but a high performance military re-configuration of the Boeing 767, created solely for this task - however decompartmentalized the making and deployment of such an aircraft, a plane I refer to as "Waldo", because somewhere out there, would have to be missing, one (at least) suped up Boeing 767-300, very likely, a Tanker (all the better to "shock and awe" the world with, to 'suspend disbelief' as to the cause of the buildings' demise a mere hour or so later).

Fireball Magnitude (take another look)

Building implodes unto dust (at near total free fall speed)

Planes hit, the buildings collapsed. We were attacked.

That's the Zelikow authored, MSM sanctioned MYTH in history, that's it in a nutshell. The Pentagon attack was just gravy, to make sure everyone understood that the USA was at WAR.

G'night all, sleep tight.

May a new day dawn.

Took you up on it with my ruler...but...

...instead of using your measuring points...most noteably from the wingtips...I used the distances between the rear of the wings at the fuselage and the front of the elevators at the fuselage...and between the front of the wings at the fuselage to the point of the nose. I will call these the rear fuselage and the front fuselage respectively.

The notable differences between the 200 and 300 is that the fuselages have been extended approximately 10.5 feet in front of the wing, and approximately 10.5 feet behind the wing.

The constant is the wingspan...and real perspectives to consider and measure are these longer fuselage sections in front of the wings and in back of the wings. I will do this in my analysis.

An additional note to be made is that in the photo, we do not get to measure a truly accurate wingspan because the aircraft is in a moderate bank and is not at a pure 90 degree angle to the camera as is the diagram which is used as the other source of mathematical comparisons...and its a presumption that THAT diagram is anywhere near an accurate representation...aka...anywhere near actual scale.

However, when comparing the diagram to the photo in measuring the ratio differences between the wingspan and the tailspan, in the diagram we get a .392 ratio and in the photo we get a .399 ratio and that informs us that the angle of the photo is very close to 90 degrees...or virtually right under the banked aircraft. This small difference in ratio thusly minimizes the innacuracies of measuring the wingspan when using that wingspan for mathematical measurements.

Here is what I calculated under these very loose and variable circumstances...and only using an "inch" ruler for all measurements...honestly, its a HACK JOB:

From the diagram of a 200:
wingspan-to-front fuselage ratio is: .32 [shorter fuselage]
wingspan-to-rear fuselage ratio is: .29 [shorter fuselage]

From the diagram of a 300:
wingspan-to-front fuselage ratio is: .39 [longer fuselage]
wingspan-to-rear fuselage ratio is: .39 [longer fuselage]

From the expanded photo of UA175:
wingspan-to-front fuselage ratio is: .38
wingspan-to-rear fuselage ratio is: .30

So, here are a few conclusions based upon a gradeschool comparison:

First and observations are that its rarely a very accurate process when dealing with photographs as I have mentioned before. And again, I question the "scale" of the diagrams. But grinding on here...

Second...there is a total of .07 difference between the diagram of a 200 and the photo...

Third...there is a total of 1.0 difference between the diagram of a 300 and the photo...

Fourth...this slightly favors that the photo is that of a 200...but is not solidly conclusive...

Fifth...the photo shows no measurements that reach the lengths of a 300 and in fact show that the ratios, and net lengths of the front fuselage and the rear fuselage in the photo are shorter than a 300...

As I have concluded before by using other data such as the NTSB radar data shown in the NTSB Flight Path Study that the aircraft in question is indeed UA175, the PICS of UA175 that you have presented show that its a shorty version of the B767...aka...the B767-200.

And surely I admit that these photo-diagram measurements are at best a HACK...which is my criticism of your work Robert, and further, of the work that P4T has presented as being factual.

The only factual evidence that has been supported by eyewitness testimony [FAA ATCs] is that contained within the NTSB Flight Path Study.

I am in the process of studying the NTSB reports about EA990 crash and will try to see what P4T has taken liberty with in its presentation as they offer information or opinion as being facts when they are no more than projections, crossover conclusions and deep suppositions regarding the commonalities between the two radically different flights.

Its true that each aircraft was a B767...but beyond that, the flight profiles are SIGNIFICANTLY and wildly different from each other.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

I understand your point

About the wing span to fuselage ratio, but would you mind also taking a good look at that Hereisnewyork Gallary Image # 2087 while performing the same analysis? Thanks Robin. I appreciate it. I'm an open minded person you see, and am willing to re-examine things in light of any and all new information.

I cannot pull out that PIC...

Perhaps you could post it?

Its far better to simply let your approach and work speak to how open minded you are...and to who you actually are.

This and all other 9/11 Truth sites are loaded with snipers, cointelpro, disinfo agents and the like...and sometimes they are dressed up all pretty and nice.

So, please just post your work and we will go from there.

Thank you.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

I already did that in a prior post

in response to which you called me "shorty" I think it was and snarkily informed me that it was a B767 and therefore without having reviewed the information I posted .

You know, your expertise may be helpful, but your attitude really sucks Robin.

Never called you "shorty"...

The B767-200 versus a B767-300 is referred to as a "shorty" sometimes...because its SHORTER than the B767-300...which is LONGER. See?

B727s, B737s, B747s, B757s, B767s, DC9s...and many other airliners/aircraft that have early or "shorter" models of the basic airliner are often called "shorties" by some in the air traffic controllers and pilots etc.

And might I make six points:

1. I stand by my statement about just doing your work and leave your self-assessments out of it...

2. Repost the PIC as requested...

3. Thank you for verifying that this entire thread attempting to establish "Impossible Speed" put forth by P4T is high school science.

4. Thankfully, Deets has professionally, not "high schooly", asked the correct question to the appropriate companies, organizations, associations and/or people involved with "excessive speeds" on 9/11.

5. Other than the FDR [if its the real one and if not hacked], Boeing will most likely be the most important source regarding its B767s being able to fly at excessive speeds shown on 9/11...whatever speed source turns out to be the accurate one.

6. The 510K speed is presented by ONLY ONE of the sources showing excessive speeds flown by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. This point IS mentioned by P4T in the DVD...albeit very briefly.

Perhaps this is because their entire DVD is based upon the NTSB's radar analysis of "speeds"...aka...the 510K value. Otherwise, P4T may not have been able to produce a DVD for us to buy or deal with IF they had instead, focused upon the slower speeds shown by the other sources.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Here you go

Although to show true distance, and get a better sense for both length and proportion, it is best analyzed at the Hereisnewyork gallary with the viewpoint software.

Sorry for the misunderstanding re: "shorty".

More establishing that UA175 is a B767-200

I just realized that this thread is FAR less than "High School Physics".

I DEEPLY apologize to David Chandler as he has presented us with irrefutable information that indeed, HIGH SCHOOLERS can get their heads around. So, lets just call most of the analysis on this thread to be...amateurish...and hardly professional.

In keeping that level of analysis intact, I have done some more measurements based upon these photos. I have calculated the ratio of fuselage diameter to the front and rear fuselage sections and here is what I can show.

From the diagram of the B767-200:

The ratio of girth to length of the front fuselage section is approximately: 3.33
The ratio of girth to length of the rear fuselage section is approximately: 2.70

From the diagram of the B767-300:

The ratio of girth to length of the front fuselage section is approximately: 4.10
The ratio of girth to length of the rear fuselage section is approximately: 4.10

From the photos in the above link:

The ratio of girth to length of the front fuselage section is approximately: 2.66
The ratio of girth to length of the rear fuselage section is approximately: 2.33

In addition to again showing that the photos are unreliable sources of measurement, this breadown also shows again, [except this time using the girth of the fuselage as the given value], that the photos show ratios even closer to the B767-200 than to the B767-300 than shown in my previous post.

Further, in this case the difference in the various ratios seem to indicate that its even more clear that its not a B767-303...but indeed is the "shorty" B767-200.

Thank you for sending the can we all focus upon WTC7 as David Ray Griffin has suggested?

9/11 Truth for World Peace

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Why 'girth' to length this time

and not fuselage length to wing ratio? Just curious as to why you switched from your last analysis. Thanks Robin.

Oh and the focus ought to be as much on the destruction of the twin towers, as WTC7.

Tip, for viewing

Hereisnewyork Gallary Image # 2087

- install the Viewpoint plugin, to magnify and pan the image. It is the best image of the plane pre-impact - you can even see the UA painted 'livery', and the darkness of the cockpit window area by contrast.

Edit (911blogger experiment):
If, you found this particular photograph to be, at the very least, of interest, or in any way fascinating - please vote this one post up, as a signal that the people of 911blogger support open discussion and the introduction of information and yes, even hypothesis (provided they are wholly rational and subject to independant scrutiny and analysis(, in attempting to determine causes, occurences or events (ie: what happened) based on an open evaluation of all information and phenomenon in accordance with sound principals of reason and judgement, and analysis, and in adherence to Occam's Razor.

The last point that I would like to make about this, is this - sequentially, in terms of causation, the controlled demolition of the twin towers required not one, but TWO impacts from planes, in order to be successfully carried out. Therefore, if hijackers hijacked THE plane, which impacted the South Tower, (as well as the North Tower), then the entire mission was dependant on a successful hijacking of the aircraft (breach of the cockpit), along with the willingness, to committ suicide (unless they thought it only a "drill" of some kind, hijackers and flight crew both) and kill at the very least 100's of people - whether the hijackers were at the helm driving the plane, or simply allowing it, to fly itself. The entire global psy-op, 100% dependant, on an unknown variable.. ? And if they thought it a simulation, then when it started heading in to target, unless beadie-eyed islamist extremists fundamentalists (and crack Boeing pilots) WERE at the helm, everyone including the captain, would be doing everything in their power to re-take control of the aircraft prior to impact. Or, there was no one aboard. "It's elementary, dear Watson."

therefore, me I would now turn my investigation, towards not only all the data that Robin is now seeking, to really look into this, but also towards everything that can be known about the War Games Operations that day, and in what ways they might have intersected, what actually occured, with a few "simulated" hijacked aircraft suddenly going LIVE FLY, and carrying out the actual thing itself, while other planes, with 'hijackers', passengers, etc. headed to parts unknown.

In light of proof of CD why would people think and assume, that anyone who so much as questions the identity of the south tower plane is "out of bounds" or in some way a "disinfo agent", that's frick'n absurd!

So please, vote this one up, if you found the photograph to be in any way helpful, or informative, even if you somehow disagree with the analysis. Thanks.

Levels of Improbability

Note: Sorry for not posting sooner. I had problems logging in.

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

Assume such things as, a vanilla 767-200 series aircraft did impact the tower, the radar data were correct, and NTSB did the math correctly.

One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.