It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"ZERO" by Giulietto Chiesa....New/Unreleased 9/11 Documentary.

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You're assuming that pilots flew any of the planes at all. I don't think any human was flying the planes that hit the towers and lack of evidence shows no planes hit the Pentagon and Shanksville.


What? Actually I thought I was arguing that they couldn't have been flown by pilots? Of course they weren't flown by professional pilots, so it's either the terrorists flew them, or they were remotely controlled by hacking the on board computer and changing the auto-pilot.



First off, I was part of the staff of Pilots for 9/11 Truth until I resigned, so I know what "real" pilots are saying. Secondly, there are many adjectives I could use to describe John Lear after reading his disinfo statement of how no planes could have hit the towers, but suffice it to say he has no idea what he's talking about, or he's just "lost it", and he's uncredible for either of the above. That's the end of that discussion.


End of the discussion? Please provide facts that John Lear was lying. You might be satisfied but I'm not.

Also the idea that no planes hit the towers is not disinfo imo, the hypothesis still has potential. There are a lot of problems with the way the planes enter the towers, no wings shear off, no crushing of the nose as it enters etc., but hey it's just my opinion I'm not married to it, my mind stays open to all possibilities. Claiming that no planes is disinfo makes you as close minded as the debunkers imo, and I'm not about to jump on the truther bandwagon just because everyone else it.

There was no planes at the pentacon, so why not no planes at the towers?

Who has tried this using Microsoft flight sim? Anybody?




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 



Indian, you wrote:


...so it's either the terrorists flew them, or they were remotely controlled by hacking the on board computer and changing the auto-pilot.


Firstly, I actually have several thousands of hours in the real thing, and I can tell you that there is no "link" to the Flight Management System onboard. YES, flight plans and messages and such can uplink, through the ACARS to the FMS, BUT a pilot has to scroll thru the menu and hit the 'EXEC' button iin order to load. AND, there is no way to control the MCP remotely, in order to operate the HDG SEL, V/S, A/S, LNAV....none of that. AND, the Autopilots....cannot be activated remotely.

Secondly, it was you who said how difficult it was to fly a simulator. This is even worse, and completely in the realm of fantastic. There are no cameras onboard for any alleged 'remote pilot' to have any idea where he was going....


You asked about the 'nose cone' and the 'wings shearing off'...

Answer: Kinetic energy. Think about it, it's not a cartoon event, it was real life. Just look at what happens in other high-energy impacts, even in water. The airplane is shredded into small pieces.

Same at Shanksville, same at the Pentagon. At least we have the SSFDRs for those (sorry, BoneZ, I'm still not convinced about the other two).



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(sorry, BoneZ, I'm still not convinced about the other two).

None of us will be completely convinced about the black boxes from the WTC until they're made public. However, two witnesses from the New York fire department and a source at the NTSB all saying the black boxes do exist is quite compelling.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by CityIndian
 



Indian, you wrote:


...so it's either the terrorists flew them, or they were remotely controlled by hacking the on board computer and changing the auto-pilot.


Firstly, I actually have several thousands of hours in the real thing, and I can tell you that there is no "link" to the Flight Management System onboard. YES, flight plans and messages and such can uplink, through the ACARS to the FMS, BUT a pilot has to scroll thru the menu and hit the 'EXEC' button iin order to load. AND, there is no way to control the MCP remotely, in order to operate the HDG SEL, V/S, A/S, LNAV....none of that. AND, the Autopilots....cannot be activated remotely.

Secondly, it was you who said how difficult it was to fly a simulator. This is even worse, and completely in the realm of fantastic. There are no cameras onboard for any alleged 'remote pilot' to have any idea where he was going....


You asked about the 'nose cone' and the 'wings shearing off'...

Answer: Kinetic energy. Think about it, it's not a cartoon event, it was real life. Just look at what happens in other high-energy impacts, even in water. The airplane is shredded into small pieces.

Same at Shanksville, same at the Pentagon. At least we have the SSFDRs for those (sorry, BoneZ, I'm still not convinced about the other two).


All this assuming it was a "normal" aircraft that had not been tampered with previous to flight. If it was necessary then this could be done on the ground to over-ride these systems.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator
I watched this on The History Channel a few hours ago and this would have to be one of the worst 9/11 documentaries I have seen.

Any film that asserts at this point that no commerical aircraft hit the Pentagon does not deserve to see the light of day.

I found Dario Fo's demeanour in this video appalling and offensive, and I found it hard to stop myself from putting my foot through the TV to rid the screen of his googly eyed ridiculous grin.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by discombobulator]


Huh? Dario Fo's arguments were logical, brilliant and made sense.*Snip*

It is a fact that planes cannot fly at 500mph while 6 feet off the ground. And it is a fact that amateur pilots cannot do a 270 degree spiral turn at 500mph in a 757 while descending 7000 feet in two minutes. Even expert pilots would have a hard time doing that. As Robin Gordon said in the Zero film, the most skilled pilot would have to take between 10 and 20 tries to pull off that maneuver.

Why do you have a problem with facts?

For some reason, when presented with the overwhelming evidence against the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, many react with ridicule and denial rather than objectivity and rationality. People seem to have some weird psychological block that prevents them from applying reason to the subject.

Oddly, they religiously cling to George Bush's conspiracy theory of 9/11 with unquestioning faith despite the fact that Bush is a proven pathological liar who has pretty much lied even about everything, even the smallest things (e.g. claiming to see the first plane hit the first tower on TV on 9/11 when that footage wasn't aired til 9/12). People seem to have some deep psychological need to believe the official story. It's very odd and irrational. They religiously cling to the words of a known pathological liar in the face of overwhelming evidence, data, testimonials, and scientific facts.

I'm glad to be free of such madness. Are you?

The film has an ebb and flow that makes you feel every point. Many valid arguments and logical points are presented that make so much sense, some of which are irrefutable. It's a MUST SEE for any truth seeker. Many comments on YouTube and Google Video have said that the film has left them "without a doubt" that we were been lied to about 9/11.

Here is the link to watch it on Google Video: video.google.com...

Or on YouTube: www.youtube.com...

[edit on 19-3-2010 by WWu777]

Mod Note: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posting Conduct – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/20/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Thank you Schrodingers Dog! S & F

I like it and thanks for sharing it with us. Now, I have to learn Italian


[edit on 3/19/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
The very first clip in this movie is the audio recording of a victim in the tower as it collapses, which ends with a loud roar. I have heard that clip in other places and seem to remember that sound after the girl yells for help a couple of times. Seems odd to me that it would keep on recording for a couple of seconds and capturing the sound of the building collapsing. Is that added or is that the actual sounds?

Either way the clip sucks - listening to someone die just isn't fun - but that thought just occurred to me now as I turned the flick on to check it out again as I hadn't seen it in a while.

I know this is relatively a stupid question but it's not worth a thread and this thread was here, so I asked. I don't know if it being real or not makes a difference but, well, there are no stupid questions, right? Sure, yeah.

One of the better 9/11 movies out there IMO, to try and keep it on topic.



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
you DECEPTIVELY put "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" in your signature with a link that points to a site that debunks them, speaks volumes about your integrity

When I click on the link in my signature, it goes directly to the AE911T website where I'm a member and have been since their inception.



Originally posted by WWu777
You are just some anonymous guy hiding behind a user name

Am I? My name is available on the AE911T website, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice website, and I've had previous research of mine recognized by CNN. Where's your name listed?



posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
NOTICE: MODERATOR ADVISORY

This is a reminder that courtesy is mandatory and steps are being taken to eliminate rude, disruptive behavior from our forums.

Members are advised to avoid such behavior and thereby avoid consequences that may include temporary suspension of posting privileges or permanent account termination.

Please stay on topic and avoid ANY commentary whatsoever, whether considered "insulting" or not, regarding the person or characteristics of any member. ANY such commentary is off topic and subject to warning and removal, so please, don't.

Direct responses to this advisory in this thread will be considered off topic and will be subject to warning and removal. Comments are welcome here:

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION##

It is strongly recommended that members acquaint themselves with the forum rules before posting, because ignorance of them will not stand as an excuse for misconduct.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ADVISORY. STAY ON TOPIC.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I wrote a Russian friend of mine about this film "Zero An Investigation into 9/11". He told me that it was shown on national TV in Russia. Here is what he said:


Yes, this film was shown in Russia nationwide (it was discussed in many mainstream evening shows), and all over Europe, because that part of the world is free and not beholden to the soft totalitarianism of the US -- the people there actually possess common sense and a rational mind and can clearly see that the US government definitely had a hand in the attacks, if not carrying them out entirely.

It is incredible that nine years will have passed since the attack come this September, and the US American sheeple are still asleep and do not even bother to ask questions, much less hold the Bush regime responsible. It is definitely a phenomenon that should be studied by future generations of scholars - such an entire mental paralysis of a society.

I have also seen In Plane Sight, by Dave Vonkleist (2004). It is widely available online. There is much material shown which is thought provoking and yet solidified by concrete proof. Another is the popular Loose Change, available on YouTube.

As for the moon landings, well, I'm not sure what Russians think but there have been several Russian attempts to disprove the authenticity of the landings, yet largely ignored, I presume, because it begs the main question: Wouldn't somebody have blown the whistle by now? There are, of course, many inconsistencies in the film and photos, which I'm sure you have seen yourself, but still really difficult to prove or disprove. And of course: why did Neil Armstrong avoid the public eye for so many years after the supposed moon landings? Listen to his somewhat cryptic speech on YouTube regarding the moon landings, filmed in the mid 1990s. Transparently, the importance of extracting the truth regarding the moon landings is minuscule compared to the much more heinous crime of 9/11, and the heinous US crimes that followed it.


[edit on 18-6-2010 by WWu777]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I love Robin Hordon's points in this film. He knows what he's talking about and explains this clearly and passionately.

On the website patriotsquestion911.com, he states:

patriotsquestion911.com...


Statement to this website 4/10/07: "I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen.

It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing "IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES" such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire "national defense-first responder" intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem.

This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years. ...

Article 3/12/07: "When it became clear that there hadn't been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets.

"I'm sorry but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticut—bang, done deal." ...

The unfathomable delays seen in military action on 9/11 are inconceivable to those who have painstakingly investigated the matter -- and for a man who worked for years keeping air travel over the U.S. safe. ...


Also, here is what NORAD tactical director Capt. Daniel Davis had to say about it:

patriotsquestion911.com...


Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
I love Robin Hordon's points in this film. He knows what he's talking about and explains this clearly and passionately.

Robin Hordon hasn't worked as ATCO since 1981. He may have been fired (as part of the PATCO strike) or he may have quit, but in any case he had been out of the loop for 20 years.

Hopefully, I need not remind you what the major difference between the 1981 and 2001 is, but I'll repeat it in any case: In 1981, the Soviet Union was still a very real threat. The US had a hell of a lot more fighters on call to intercept Soviet bombers in 1981, than they did in 2001.



Statement to this website 4/10/07: "I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen.

Without knowing for certain, I'm suspecting that mr. Hordon is referring to Eastern Air Lines Shuttle Flight 1320 and TWA Flight 355, both of whom crossed Boston airspace while hijacked. In both cases, the pilots were at the controls and the transponders were still operating. That was not the case for any of the hijacked aircraft.



It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing "IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES" such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire "national defense-first responder" intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem.

This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years. ...

Mr. Hordon is neglecting one VERY important detail. All of these intercepts had taken place within the ADIZ, which a) is monitored by the USAF, b) overwater (next to zero clutter on the primary radar compared to overland), and c) the ADIZ are well-defined areas, giving a clear area in which to search for the missing flight.

The one SINGLE intercept within US airspace that did not take place within the ADIZ, was golfer Payne Stewarts jet, whose crew stopped responding after passing out from hypoxia. In that case, the transponder was still working, yet it still took over an hour to intercept it. 76 minutes to be exact.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   


Article 3/12/07: "When it became clear that there hadn't been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets.

"I'm sorry but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticut—bang, done deal." ...

The unfathomable delays seen in military action on 9/11 are inconceivable to those who have painstakingly investigated the matter -- and for a man who worked for years keeping air travel over the U.S. safe. ...

The system DID work on 9/11, as the launch of intercepters from Otis and Langley showed. But without the transponders, it became very difficult - if not impossible - to find the aircrafts they were chasing.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Check out this article.

30 million people in Russia have already seen the film "Zero An Investigation into 9/11"!

www.dailypaul.com...

A Russian guy I am corresponding with told me this about the film:


"Winston,

Thanks for the prompt reply.

Yes, this film was shown in Russia nationwide (it was discussed in many mainstream evening shows), and all over Europe, because that part of the world is free and not beholden to the soft totalitarianism of the US -- the people there actually possess common sense and a rational mind and can clearly see that the US government definitely had a hand in the attacks, if not carrying them out entirely.

It is incredible that nine years will have passed since the attack come this September, and the US American sheeple are still asleep and do not even bother to ask questions, much less hold the Bush regime responsible. It is definitely a phenomenon that should be studied by future generations of scholars - such an entire mental paralysis of a society.

I have also seen In Plane Sight, by Dave Vonkleist (2004). It is widely available online. There is much material shown which is thought provoking and yet solidified by concrete proof. Another is the popular Loose Change, available on YouTube.

As for the moon landings, well, I'm not sure what Russians think but there have been several Russian attempts to disprove the authenticity of the landings, yet largely ignored, I presume, because it begs the main question: Wouldn't somebody have blown the whistle by now? There are, of course, many inconsistencies in the film and photos, which I'm sure you have seen yourself, but still really difficult to prove or disprove. And of course: why did Neil Armstrong avoid the public eye for so many years after the supposed moon landings? Listen to his somewhat cryptic speech on YouTube regarding the moon landings, filmed in the mid 1990s. Transparently, the importance of extracting the truth regarding the moon landings is minuscule compared to the much more heinous crime of 9/11, and the heinous US crimes that followed it."



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Check this out folks.

This guy is as qualified and experienced as it gets when it comes to flying. This is NOT some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL with a long prestigious career in the US Navy and commercial Airline industry.

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100. Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and Grumman F-14 Tomcat. 23,000+ total hours flown.

Listen to his interview with Kevin Barrett about the 767's flying into the WTC at 500 knots on 9/11. It's very revealing.

noliesradio.org...

In the first half of the interview, Kolstad explains why flying a 767 into the WTC isn't as easy as you think. You can't just point the plane at the towers. Steering an airliner is very tricky, especially at sea level. The aerodynamics are more complicated than people assume.

A 767 can only do 500 knots in two scenarios - at cruising altitude (above the clouds), or in a straight nose dive. If you were at the altitute of the WTC, you cannot do 500 knots on a 767. And if you pulled the throttle at full speed at that altitude, you'd lose control of the plane and could not even steer it. That's true even if you're the best pilot in the world.

Hitting a target he explains, especially a narrow one like the WTC, is very difficult and only achievable when you come in at LANDING SPEED, not at full throttle like the hijackers did.

In fact, he saw highly trained professional pilots in flight simulators try to hit the WTC and ALL of them failed. They were only able to hit it when they came in at landing speed. (which is NOT the speed that the 9/11 hijackers came under)

Most astonishing of all, he said that HE HIMSELF COULD NOT HAVE FLOWN those 767's into the WTC like the hijackers did on 9/11, despite all his vast experience, training and skill!!!!!!

Imagine that! That says A LOT.

As to how the planes on 9/11 hit the WTC, he admits he does not know the answer and does not like to speculate. To say that it was a military plane disguised as a 767 or a remote controlled jet, or whatever, would be speculating and he does not want to go there. All he knows for sure, he says, is that a trained professional pilot in a 767 flying 500 knots at sea level would NOT be able to hit the WTC, for various reasons. Anything else is purely speculative.

Now if one of the most experienced and qualified pilots in the world is saying this, that really does mean something. This is NOT some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL with a long prestigious career in the US Navy and commercial Airline industry.

He also gives us some insight into what other airline pilots he's talked to thinks about the whole thing, and how many would rather not even talk about it at all.

And he said that most debunkers on the internet are not qualified to know what they are talking about (you know who you are).

Listen to the interview here:

noliesradio.org...

See Kolstad's official statements and qualifications here:

www.patriotsquestion911.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I have some questions about these two clips from the Zero film:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

1. Ok so why did the FBI ignore numerous warnings from its own agents and leads just before 9/11 that terrorist attacks were imminent?

2. Why did the hijackers get visas into the US so easily? And why was the US consulate agent told not to talk about the visas given to the hijackers or report it?

3. And why was Bin Laden's family safely flown out of the US when OBL was public enemy number one?

This YouTuber put it eloquently:

"funny thing,Bush demands that all leaders of Al-Qaeda be handed over to the US
yet they have Bin Laden's family in the US,flown off after 9/11
the only way they could receive any info on Osama was by his family,yet they were flown out of the country,away from Surveillance.
instead of being under protected custody and Surveillance by the government,they are flown to safety overseas
wow,either the government is really stupid or they are hiding something"

How come the mainstream media is too chicken# and controlled to cover all this?

[edit on 28-6-2010 by WWu777]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Oh. Ralph "Rotten" Kolstad has been trotted out for a long time, first time was many years ago...(BTW, "Rotten" is his nickname, it is NOT a slam against him...).

He, and a bare handful of others who ARE qualified on the airplanes in question speak out of both sides of their mouths. For what purpose, and to what end, I know not.

However, I (and many others who I know) who ARE also qualified on the airplanes in question vehemently disagree with many of the claims made by Kolstad, et al.



Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100. Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and Grumman F-14 Tomcat. 23,000+ total hours flown.



I was not in the military, civilian all the way. Retired commercial airline captain, 23 years. Airplanes flown: B-727, DC-10, A-300, B-737 B-757/767, DC-9/MD-80. First three in the right seat, type rated on the Boeing 737 and 757/767 and the DC-9/MD-80. 20,000+ total hours.



Listen to his interview with Kevin Barrett about the 767's flying into the WTC at 500 knots on 9/11. It's very revealing.

In the first half of the interview, Kolstad explains why flying a 767 into the WTC isn't as easy as you think. You can't just point the plane at the towers. Steering an airliner is very tricky, especially at sea level. The aerodynamics are more complicated than people assume.


Huh?? Thanks for pointing out exactly what I wanted to bring up. It is not "tricky" to "steer" the airplane!! The aerodynamics are actually a bit more complicated at high altitude than down lower...he's got it backwards. Airplane handles just fine at 330 knots IAS, down low...I've done it (above 10,000 feet, of course in the domestic US airspace).

10,000 feet, to sea level is hardly much difference, aerodynamically...what is he talking about?


I'll tell you something else (surprised he doesn't realize this, he should know better) I've flown at just below VMO (Velocity Max Operating) below 10,000 feet, too. In international airspace, over-water, it is legal to do so. Outside the (used to be three, now twelve-mile limit) from the shore, there is no speed limit. Operations out in the Pacific, like to Guam, and the Micronesian Islands, we do it all the time. Below 10,000 feet, going fast.

Of course, not exceeding VMO, but (as I have repeatedly pointed out) even in the case of American 11 and United 175, even at those excessive indicated airspeeds, they never came anywhere close to exceeding Mach 1. It calculates out to about M0.84 to M0.86...which are typical cruise Mach numbers at altitude. (M0.86 is the upper limit, MMO. So, not a sustained cruise velocity...but 0.84 is).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To clarify -- Kolstad talks a lot about something called "aileron reversal"...if I recall from that (old) interview.

I'll try to keep this brief: Ailerons are the flight surfaces, normally near the wingtips, that provide roll control (roll about the longitudinal axis, that is the axis running nose-to-tail). "Aileron roll reversal" is a concept, or a property that can occur, at very high speeds, on some wing designs (but not all). Basically, when the aileron deflects, the force of the airflow imparts a 'twist' into the entire wingtip structure, and the tips flex in the opposite direction...adding some angle-of-attack to the relative wind (oncoming air that the airplane "feels") and 'right' aileron input results (because the aileron on that side would deflect upward) causes the leading edge of the wing, at the tip, to twist slightly, and cause, by changing the AoA locally, (increasing AoA) the opposite effect as desired by the airleron.

However, this is not a problem in the Boeing 757/767 for two reasons. First, in the case of the both, the wing is sufficiently stiff as to not cause any 'twisting' problems...flutter would be more of a problem, and the speeds would have to be very close to a critical Mach.

Second (and the good Captain should know this...why does he not mention it?) in the case of the Boeing 767, the outboard ailerons do not operate when the flaps are retracted! The 767 has TWO sets of ailerons per wing -- inboard and outboard. The inboard ailerons are located in between flap segments, near where the wing shape changes at the trailing edge.

Also, much of the roll control for the B-757/767 (and most large jets) is accomplished by the flight spoilers...those panels on top of hte wings. The double as ground spoilers when, you guessed it! You are on the ground...they assist in killing lift for the landing, and increasing traction for maximum braking effectivemess.

Here, this picture explains it without all the words:



The 757 is almost the same, except it lacks the inboard ailerons.

Hope that wasn't to technical.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A 767 can only do 500 knots in two scenarios - at cruising altitude...


Well....yes. Because the aerodynamics of high altitude flight allow for a higher TAS, as compared to IAS.

But, wait a minute, here....for non-pilots, what kind of mental image does this phrase conjur up?:


... or in a straight nose dive.


Are you picturing an airplane with the nose straight down??


Hope not...so, how steep would it have to be, do you think? (We would call that a 'pitch angle', or angle of longitudinal pitch, relative to the horizon).

80 degrees nose down? 60? 45? Nope, none of the above. In a normal descent like you'd experience on an airliner flight, even 10 degrees nose down is about the maximum...more than that is decidedly uncomfortable.

Let's add a few degrees, make it 15 --- the airplane will accelerate, merely from gravity assist, very rapidly...now, add full thrust and the speed will easily exceed VMO. Yet, 15 degrees is NOT very steep, in comparison to the earlier mental picture you may have had.



And if you pulled the throttle at full speed at that altitude...


Thrust levers are pushed forward for more power, 'pulled' aft for less...



... you'd lose control of the plane and could not even steer it. That's true even if you're the best pilot in the world.


Huh?? That makes no sense....did Kolstad say that??? If he did, then I don't know where he's getting that idea.....

...and yet moe nonsense from him?!


Hitting a target he explains, especially a narrow one like the WTC, is very difficult and only achievable when you come in at LANDING SPEED, not at full throttle like the hijackers did.


This, from a guy who went to TOPGUN?!?!? ReallY?

Think about it...think about fighters, fighter pilots, and dog fighting. Just think about it.... (Hint: Fighters don't dog fight at "landing airspeeds").



In fact, he saw highly trained professional pilots in flight simulators try to hit the WTC and ALL of them failed.


Odd. WE had no problem, in our simulators. He (Kolstad) and John Lear (and a few others) have concocted this baloney -- again, I know not why.


Imagine that! That says A LOT.


Yes. Yes, it does. It makes one wonder about his agenda.....


To say that it was a military plane disguised as a 767 or a remote controlled jet, or whatever, would be speculating and he does not want to go there.


Well, hooray! for some clarity!!

I knows that he would step on his 'you-know-what' --- or, be stepping into a mine field, and get hoist on his own lies, IF he tried to suggest "remote controlled" airplanes...because then, you see....AFTER he had said how "impossible" it would be for a live human, at the controls in the cockpit, to steer into the WTC target....THEN he'd have to get you to believe that some dude, ON THE GROUND, without benefit of the sensory cues we use when flying, but merely by (essentially) 'flying' a video game, would be able to HIT the WTC, via "remote control"! :shk: Do you see the trap he almost set for himself? AND, why he didn't set it? It makes the rest of his claims seem contradictory....


Now, this is interesting....I have an idea:


He also gives us some insight into what other airline pilots he's talked to thinks about the whole thing, and how many would rather not even talk about it at all.


What they probably said to him was, "Are you >blank



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
It is a fact that planes cannot fly at 500mph while 6 feet off the ground. And it is a fact that amateur pilots cannot do a 270 degree spiral turn at 500mph in a 757 while descending 7000 feet in two minutes. Even expert pilots would have a hard time doing that. As Robin Gordon said in the Zero film, the most skilled pilot would have to take between 10 and 20 tries to pull off that maneuver.

Then how come this dutch TV presenter was able to do it?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Oh, I missed this load of nonsense:


Originally posted by WWu777
It is a fact that planes cannot fly at 500mph while 6 feet off the ground. And it is a fact that amateur pilots cannot do a 270 degree spiral turn at 500mph in a 757 while descending 7000 feet in two minutes. Even expert pilots would have a hard time doing that. As Robin Gordon said in the Zero film, the most skilled pilot would have to take between 10 and 20 tries to pull off that maneuver.


WWu77, you are not telling the "truth" here, but (in a typical "truther" exaggeration) making stuff up!

I just watched (again) the NTSB video depiction of American 77...at time 13:34:00 (mislabeled as "EDT"...should be "UTC") as the airplane approached it was heading ~100* at about 8,000 feet, speed 289 knots. (The turn is completed by 13:37:00, on a heading of ~060*. That is a total of 320 degrees, NOT "270 degrees". Another fail. Seems that facts aren't important to "truth" seekers?

That works out to about 100* of heading change per minute. Again, VERY normal. IN FACT, if you bother to study it, you will find that in aviation, especially as it relates to Instrument Flying Rules (IFR) a "standard turn" rate is the "two-minute" turn. This works out to the "standard turn" rate of three* per second heading change.

Divide the 100* by sixty seconds in a minute, and WHAT WAS HIS TURN RATE??

Yup! LESS than "standard". This is common on large jets, because of the speeds involved, and bank angle limits (commonly 30*). ATC knows this, and allows that jets at high speeds are usually at "half-standard" rate...unlike smaller airplanes that are expected to make "standard" rate turns.

Back to video....

Throttles were at flight idle, and the right turn commenced, and descent commenced...the angle of bank never exceeded ~35*; this is very easy, and well within the airplane's capabilities.

Airspeed, throughout the turn, varies, from ~265 to ~280 knots THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR "500 mph"!!

This is not a "270 degree spiral turn"! It is a normal bank, as I said, right turn, whilst descending...with power levers back at flight idle, this is a normal descent rate at that airspeed....he lost 5,600 feet in those three minutes....let's see, that is 1,888 fpm descent rate...perfectly normal. Look it up!

Once he rolled out of the turn, heading 060* he was aimed at the Pentagon again, and lined up with the Columbia Pike highway, which he used for guidance (along with his view of the Pentagon, dead ahead).

At this point he was at ~2,400 feet....and it was a slight forward pressure on the elevators, and he ran the thrust levers up to full, and just steered into the Pentagon to impact. (Throttles were shoved forward starting at 13:37:14). Once you had the combination of full thrust, and a low nose pitch attitude speed increased very rapidly...straight ahead (mostly) with constant, as can be seen, corrections being made on the controls, as he continued to keep his aim.....



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join