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.

 

G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

page: 17
40
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Hi Weedwacker,

I am a real pilot. I am the founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Considering i was "snipped" for posting our roster, i suggest you google "Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core Member" list to view our qualifications (it will be your first hit), type ratings and experience. You may also want to google "Patriots Question 911 pilots" to see many of our pretty smiles in uniform.


All of the above you find who are certificated by the FAA can be cross referenced at faa.gov airman database.

With that said, weedwhacker.. you are completely lost in your replies and i have doubts you have a 75/76 type. You fail to address the OP numerous times and even the average layman can see it.

If you want to know more, feel free to email us personally. We included the email addy multiple times in this thread.


Regards,
Rob




posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Beachnut,

I stopped reading much of your reply as its clear that the last time you flew is analogous with your avatar.... and for that time frame... im sure you're correct. It is another reason why you refuse to debate younger, sharper pilots who are current.


Beachnut, your .23 DME error within 1.5 NM of the VOR is absurd. The fact you refuse to contact the NTSB with your claims that their data is litered with errors and instead spend your days and nights online trying to prove your case through convoluted, incoherent posts which even conflict with your cohorts, speaks volumes.

But hey, i'll buy you a beer anytime ol' timer..


Regards,
Rob



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Rob....I find it necessary to simply defend myself, which is difficult since you leveled no specific charge at me.

Innuendo and smear tactics will not wash here, at ATS.

EDIT...oh, OK....for the audience at large, I just looked up Mr. Balsamo's credentials, from his website.

He has Commercial/Instrument (distraction, since you cannot be a Commercial Pilot without the insturment Rating, nowadays). Multi-engine, CFI (that's Certified Flight Instructor) and MEI (same thing, means he can instruct students for their Multi)

Funny, I see no mention of having his ATP (That's Air Transport Pilot) certificate.

I earned that one back in 1979.

He has flown KingAirs, I assume as Part 135 left seat....and now says he flies the Dornier (jet) 328, as an FO.

And this man has the gall to question my experience???

Laughable.

[edit on 9/21/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Hi Weedwacker,

I cannot post links to our roster or type ratings. So, if you refuse to use my suggestion above, so be it.

Others will...

Regards,
Rob

(i also find it amusing that P4T is considered "competition" for ATS. Should i remember that next time someone posts a link to ATS on our forum? Are we in search for truth? Or sales....?)



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


johndoe (Rob) I have no idea what p4t is.

Perhaps, if the Mods allow it, you could explain??

Would be very welcomed.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by johndoex
 


johndoe (Rob) I have no idea what p4t is.




P4T = Pffft (debunker version) = Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

I'll keep it simple...

Click the banner in my signature. Look on the left margin and click "List Of Members".

Hope this helps you Weedwacker cause i really gotta go... (and not to the bathroom)



edit to add:

ok.. it looks like we're not even allowed to have a signature to our site..lol. So just google "Pilots For 9/11 Truth" as i suggested in the posts above.


wow

[edit on 21-9-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You see the topic in the OP has a specific problem, with specific formulas, using specific values from specific sources.

You are not addressing the information direct.

It doesn't matter what you say about your experience flying because it has nothing to do with the circumstance presented.

The NTSB data exists, it must be addressed in this context.

Cite actual values and and explain to me where the OP is wrong.

If you feel a different scenario is more accurate that DOES work with the values reported by the NTSB, explain yourself and show exactly what values match up with your equations and how it all matches the topography and physical damage.

Let us know because as it stands you have not refuted the information presented or even directly addressed it for that matter.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I'd like to point out, that in my experience being a CFI, MEI, CFII (that's an old, rather obsolete term to denote that I could teach applicants to earn their Instrument rating) I learned a heck of a lot....it's what happens, in my three-and-a-half years of Flight Instructing. Little pay, but often great satisfaction, when a 'student' gets it!

But, after suffering throught he 'commuter airline' initial concept, as the Major Airlines were not hiring....finally got to a Major, and those nearly 22 years were stellar.

I had to buy a B727 F/E ticket to get hired....but, Flight Engineers are outdated now.

So, I'll challenge Rob (johndoex) to a cockpit fly-off. I'll give you 30 minutes acclimation, in the simulator....just to familiarize yourself with the cockpit layout, and controls. Then, we'll go fly. You're probably more comfortable in the right seat, at the moment...but if you want the left seat, and can fly from either side.

If you want to taxi, then you'll have to be in the left...there is no steering tiller on the right (unlike the B747, for instance).

Oh, I do hope you'll be up for the challenge!!

We could, firstly, re-create the Pentagon flight profile. We won't feel the G forces, of course....but the computer will predict, and show us, after the event.

Then, if we have time, we could do the WTC profile. Implicaton being, it would be impossible, even for an 'experienced' pilot, to hit a target as narrow as the WTC, at a high speed. I beg to differ.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Cockpit flyoff?

Come on man!

What is this?

Will you please address the topic direct and cut it with all the posturing?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Oh....Craig, I see it's tag-team now?

No, I addressed, and others have addressed, the fallacy of the OP.

It is a non-starter, a VERY red herring that has been grasped upon, in desparation.

The actual track, over the ground, cannot be determinied EXACTLY....except at the impact point.

What led up to that, is subject to the interpretation that started this thread!!!

It happened! Disregard the Flight Recorder data all you want....or 'skew' it to your needs!

I'm guessing, you don't live here in the DC area? AND, you didn't live here in the DC area on that day?

Well, I do, and I was here...HERE!...on that day.

So, put that in your pipe.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Weedwacker,

You are once again off topic. But... since you brought it up...

Professional Pilots Rob Balsamo and FAA Authorized Flight Examiner/Check Airman Dan Govatos discuss the difficulty of the WTC attacks as well as attempts to duplicate the attack in an Airline Simulator.

google the above and you will see the interview (since i am not allowed to post the link)

As for ATP qualified, if you're a real pilot, you know the difference is a matter of 1000 bucks.

Ask yourself "Weedwacker" (ATP qualed 1979), how does a lonely ol' "Commercial pilot" such as myself attract so many military and airline pilots typed in the B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8?

How does a "Commercial pilot" like myself attract...

30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Has time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways


3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

23,000+ hours
CV580,DC9,MD80,B727,A320,DC10
NCA,REP,NWA
A4,F4,F16 USN,USMC, ND ANG


(note to mods, i typed out the above and stopped typing there)

There are many more if you want to use the suggestions noted above.

The lists grow.... (matter of fact, we have a major update coming).

Weedwacker, try to stick to OP.


Ok.. im out...



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT





If AA77 could not have withstood the G loading pulling out of a dive along the path in red, How could it have withstood the G load exerted on it by performing the banking turn shown in blue?

I find it absoultely hilarious that you are now proposing a flight path for the decoy aircraft that is almost a mirror image to the one I proposed long ago that would have allowed AA77 to pass N of the Citgo but still hit the poles in a left hand banking turn before hitting the Pentagon.

You remember don't you? Lear got involved, we argued over how many G's airliners can survive?


So Craig, what's up with that crazy path in blue?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Cockpit flyoff?


Shh... Craig... if he pays for the sim, hey, i'll teach him pattern A&B...



Bring on the "cockpit flyoff" Weedwhacker! At least i'll get to log it.. can you?

By the way. .you're buying...

I await your email...

When was the last time you blasted off 6,6,6 with a V1 Cut?

Woo hoo!



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Beachnut,

I stopped reading much of your reply as its clear that the last time you flew is analogous with your avatar.... and for that time frame... im sure you're correct. It is another reason why you refuse to debate younger, sharper pilots who are current.


Beachnut, your .23 DME error within 1.5 NM of the VOR is absurd. The fact you refuse to contact the NTSB with your claims that their data is litered with errors and instead spend your days and nights online trying to prove your case through convoluted, incoherent posts which even conflict with your cohorts, speaks volumes.

But hey, i'll buy you a beer anytime ol' timer..


Regards,
Rob


There are no errors in the NTSB data. What are you talking about? Please list all the errors you know of? The INS accuracy is not an error. Storing DME with 0.25 NM resolution is not an error. What is it? Thank you, for the list in advance.

0.23 NM is only 1380 feet, you do not use the DME to flare on the ILS! You are misleading people about flying. Aeronautical Information Manual "AIM" accuracy for 2000 supports 0.23 NM accuracy. DME is not used for precision, it is non-precision.

The reason we can land on centerline on a runway in the weather, is due to the systems we use. How can we find a runway to land with DME as far off as 1380 feet, or even a half mile? Because we do not use VOR/DME for precision landings. We use the VOR/DME to get us with in thousands of feet or ½ mile of the final, we intercept the course and fly the precision approach, an ILS (instrument lading system) to land exactly on center line, exactly 750 feet down the runway; essential hitting a target exactly at the threshold 35 feet above the runway, to the foot! The ILS is how we can land perfectly on the runway.

Airways are 8 miles wide due to the accuracy of the VOR/DME systems. You can't wander in the those 8 miles, ATC expects you to strive for centerline.

The VOR/DME are used for non-precision approaches we have to level off at a safe altitude, we can see the Runway and land save we proceed, visually land! The VOR/DME can have us over ½ mile off! The reason we do not flunk the check rides for being a ½ miles off we are graded on degree and distance off the readings in the cockpit!

Please do not mislead people about flying; you should understand the VOR/DME system better.

I look at my posts this way, if you don’t understand me, how can you understand 9/11. You only attack me, and offer no real substantive rebuttal, for things that I researched to help you understand flying better. I welcome your discussion.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

There are no errors in the NTSB data.


Thank you for telling us the above Beachnut. That there are "No Errors in the NTSB data".






Direct link for above photo
s47.photobucket.com...


Tell us Beachnut, what is your "impact time"?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
0.23 NM is only 1380 feet, you do not use the DME to flare on the ILS!


Since Beachy still refuses to post the full AIM reference.. we will...


b. Operating on the line-of-sight principle, DME furnishes distance information with a very high degree of accuracy. Reliable signals may be received at distances up to 199 NM at line-of-sight altitude with an accuracy of better than 1/2 mile or 3 percent of the distance, whichever is greater. Distance information received from DME equipment is SLANT RANGE distance and not actual horizontal distance.

snip...

f. VOR/DME, VORTAC, ILS/DME, and LOC/DME facilities are identified by synchronized identifications which are transmitted on a time share basis. The VOR or localizer portion of the facility is identified by a coded tone modulated at 1020 Hz or a combination of code and voice. The TACAN or DME is identified by a coded tone modulated at 1350 Hz. The DME or TACAN coded identification is transmitted one time for each three or four times that the VOR or localizer coded identification is transmitted. When either the VOR or the DME is inoperative, it is important to recognize which identifier is retained for the operative facility. A single coded identification with a repetition interval of approximately 30 seconds indicates that the DME is operative.
www.faa.gov...



bolding above mine for emphasis and to expose Beachnut for his continued intellectual dishonesty.


It is clear why Beachnut refuses to debate P4T.


Edit to add: as a side note, Many BOS based jetblue pilots are sitting here laughing at Beachy's .23 nm error claims within 1.5nm of the VOR. And we do know your name Beachy. Anytime you want to sit down with us over a beer, come on over to Boston.


noted above


[edit on 21-9-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


The actual track, over the ground, cannot be determinied EXACTLY....except at the impact point.


Incorrect.

The physical damage starts with the light poles , not the building.

And it is in a perfectly straight line starting from way before the last lat long coordinate all the way to the strange C-ring hole.






So yes....we most certainly CAN tell EXACTLY where the plane was supposed to have flown. The physical damage requires the plane to be on that exact heading as shown in the lat long coordinates reported by the NTSB and there is ZERO room error particularly due to the light poles.




What led up to that, is subject to the interpretation that started this thread!!!

It happened! Disregard the Flight Recorder data all you want....or 'skew' it to your needs!

I'm guessing, you don't live here in the DC area? AND, you didn't live here in the DC area on that day?

Well, I do, and I was here...HERE!...on that day.

So, put that in your pipe.


What does you living in the area have to do with the OP or the evidence?

NOTHING.

Did you see the plane? Nope. How many witnesses to the plane have you personally spoken with?

I have spoken with dozens.

I don't live there but I have spent many many hours there for the very purpose of forensically analyzing the situation. I know the streets of Arlington very well now after my 4 trips that were 100% dedicated to research and investigation with a major portion being surveying the topography and analyzing the witness points of view.

The fact is that you can not refute the information in the OP and it kills you so you are using basic denial with appeals to your own authority and emotion as a means to avoid the facts.

The NTSB data is irreconcilable with the physical damages and all the eyewitnesses prove the plane wasn't anywhere near where it needed to be anyway.

There is no way around the evidence proving their story false no matter how much you want to believe it's true.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


But according to you the lightpoles were planted!
Am I missing something here?
Are you now no longer claiming the lightpoles were planted?



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join