Too Much CT Slush!

[gumboot]

I'm addressing Dr Griffin's alleged lies of omission and distortion in the 9/11 Commission Report.

I'm finding a major problem here is sorting through the CTer slush.

One of my key approaches is to address the origin of the claim being made. But given the way CT sites paste and copy each other's work with abandon, I'm getting a migraine just trying to sort it out.

I've had to buy a copy of his book off Amazon to identify his sources (don't worry, I bought a second hand book, DRG isn't getting a cent off me).

While I wait for the book to get here (it has a long way to go) I seem to recall someone doing a thread exploring the origins of the CTs. Help, anyone?

Also, while we're at it...

I'm addressing the claim that Hani Hanjour couldn't have flown the aircraft. I've established that both DRG and the 9/11 Commission Report agree that he was, at best, an average pilot.

My investigation now is focused on how hard the flight of AA77 actually was to pull off.

Anyone got any good bookmarked sites addressing both the CT side and the "reality" side of "high speed stall", "ground effect", "g-forces", and "navigation"?

Thanks,
-Gumboot

[Kryptos]

The way Loose Change and other CTs portray Hani as not capable is absurd, since Hani Hanjour was the best trained of all four hijacker pilots. He got his commercial pilot license with instrument rating in April 1999. The main concern was his ability to speak English.

Atta and al-Shehhi received commercial pilot licenses in December 2000. Ziad Jarrah was the most poorly trained, only having a private pilot license and never got a commercial license.

[MikeW]

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf and http://www.911myths.com/Ground_Effect.pdf might be helpful, if you've not come across them already.

And there's more on the ground effect at http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0274.shtml

[MG1962]

Quote:

My investigation now is focused on how hard the flight of AA77 actually was to pull off.

The only thing from the debunking side is an unisigned **sigh** letter from a chap caliming to have developed flight software for Boeing.

His claim....

Modern jets are designed to be flown with a dog and a human as flight crew

The human is there to feed the dog

The dog is there to bite the human if he tries to touch or change any of the controls

[a_unique_person]

Just jump onto flight simulator for a try at a commercial jet. The easy part if flying it once it's in the air. The landing is the hard part, that was never a concern of theirs.

[Architect]

Trying to sort of the slush is the reason I usually annoy them by asking them a series of questions to clarify exactly what that individual thinks happens, because otherwise the wee devils just claim they don't support that debunked aspect of the CT "case". It's a trick I've seen done in public inquiries and expert witness work.

But it can make for a lot of dull, dull groundwork.

[gumboot]

I've got a pretty good grasp on the debunking for these particular claims (thanks MikeW your site offers a lot, as always), it's more a case of trawling through the CT sites to find the originators of their claims.

I could, in my paper, just summarise in my own words what the various CT claims are, but I'd rather actually quote them and provide links.

Unless I'm mistaken, a couple of CTer pilots did papers on AA77 going into a high speed stall, and how ground effect would make hitting the Pentagon impossible, didn't they?

I already have good data lined up to demolish these positions, but it would be good to identify them first if possible.

Otherwise I'll have to wait for DRG's book to arrive, which will take weeks.

-Gumboot

[Architect]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I've got a pretty good grasp on the debunking for these particular claims (thanks MikeW your site offers a lot, as always), it's more a case of trawling through the CT sites to find the originators of their claims.

I could, in my paper, just summarise in my own words what the various CT claims are, but I'd rather actually quote them and provide links.

Unless I'm mistaken, a couple of CTer pilots did papers on AA77 going into a high speed stall, and how ground effect would make hitting the Pentagon impossible, didn't they?

I already have good data lined up to demolish these positions, but it would be good to identify them first if possible.

Otherwise I'll have to wait for DRG's book to arrive, which will take weeks.

-Gumboot

My advice, having done expert witness and inquiry work, would be to hold fire pending the book and then deliver a fully reference piece of work. Opponents (be they CTers or otherwise) invariably try to undermine your case using the "well I never said exactly that" or "its our of context" strategy.

[T.A.M.]

As much as it is a CTer site, they are perhaps the most "honest" in their research here...and they often list within the text, who makes the claims...worth a look...

http://911research.wtc7.net/

TAM

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I've got a pretty good grasp on the debunking for these particular claims (thanks MikeW your site offers a lot, as always), it's more a case of trawling through the CT sites to find the originators of their claims.

Ah, okay. The "ground effect" claim was around for a long time, but Nila Sagadevan (I think) was the first to make a significant fuss about it (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006...ng13jun06.htm).

The piloting issue overall appeared right after the attacks, though, along with many other things. Take a look at this - "how could the passport be found at the WTC", "there were no hijackers on the passenger lists" (quoting the CNN victim lists) - it's surprising how little has changed. Or how little they've learned.

[AZCat]

Originally Posted by MikeW

Ah, okay. The "ground effect" claim was around for a long time, but Nila Sagadevan (I think) was the first to make a significant fuss about it (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun06.htm).

The piloting issue overall appeared right after the attacks, though, along with many other things. Take a look at this - "how could the passport be found at the WTC", "there were no hijackers on the passenger lists" (quoting the CNN victim lists) - it's surprising how little has changed. Or how little they've learned.

Sagadevan's article manages to make a rather extraordinary claim without any backing:

Originally Posted by Nila Sagadevan

I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000 pounds airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

I don't think I've seen this article before, but the argument isn't new. What Sagadevan is missing is an actual analysis of low-level high speed flight, because it really is far too complicated for him to dismiss it as easily as he has. I doubt his claim, but don't have the requisite knowledge to prove him wrong.


Sagadevan is the author of at least one other 9/11 article, titled "Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check", written about the WTC tower collapses. I am qualified to critique this article (it isn't very sophisticated) and I conclude that his whole basis is flawed. He uses the argument that since the towers collapsed at a rate near free-fall that the collapses couldn't have happened without help - an argument that has been dealt with a number of times here and elsewhere. I am not impressed with his analytical skills, to say the least, so this doesn't improve my view of his claim regarding low-level flight.

[gumboot]

Thanks MikeW, that' what I was after...

A few snips from that, followed by a demolishing from the counter-article you've got on your site should seal the deal. It's going to be 6 - 8 weeks before I get the book... *sigh*.

I might address some of the easier stuff (for me) while I'm waiting like the NORAD stuff.

I'll take a look at Gravy's links and things he's posted too, there should be some good material there.

-Gumboot

[Architect]

It's not so much good as excellent!

[gumboot]

Anyone happen to have some stuff on G-forces? I couldn't find anything in Gravy's links.

Specifically, I'm looking for calculations of the G-force involved in AA77's 8km across circle descent from 8,500ft to 2,200ft in 3m18s at about 300KTs.

Also, I seem to recall articles about other Boeing 757's undergoing much higher G-forces during emergencies. Someone had a newspaper article about one, I think.

I just need the g-force calculations for the final stage in demonstrating the approach performed by AA77 was nothing remarkable.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Oh,

And does anyone have links to the videos of amateur pilots pulling off a hit on the Pentagon first time up? I couldn't find it.

-Gumboot