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.

 

Expert Top Gun/Airline Pilots say Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
While you're all tapdancing around "answers" to my questions, here's a reminder on the alleged sim recreation carried out in Holland.

Read it.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


Wait...this is from the web site who's owner claimed "when an aircraft hits its "design limits", it breaks. Period"? and who claimed that AA77 should have cartwheeled into the Pentagon because that is what his radio controlled aircraft does when its wing hits an obstacle and who had to "remove" his ACARS "analysis" because it was more screwed up than Hogan's goat and he simply did not have the intellectual acumen nor attention to technical detail necessary to talk with any sort of credibility on the issue and who claimed a 757, routinely flown on transcontinental flights back and forth across the US, had a cockpit door that was *never* *ever* opened on any of those flights in the weeks prior to 9/11, when cockpit security was not an issue?

And you want us - or anyone, for that matter - to believe whatever he/they post there? You are obviously gullible and naive enough to swallow Cap't Bob's buffoonery, but nobody else is.
edit on 16-2-2012 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Psst, OneSliceShort, I just want you to know I'm not ignoring you, it's just that when I discover something really entertaining after studying one of your claims, I always have to decide whether I sit on it or lay it out.

I think P4T bit off way more than they could chew with the NLR.

BTW, why is it that Balsamo always whines about people putting names to their claims, but he runs around sock puppeting on every single forum on the web and you use a different alias on this forum than you normally do, and you won't even identify yourself, while constantly smearing the reputations of others?

Is that appropriate behavior for 'experts' and 'airline pilots'? I think not. Once again, this calls their expertise into question.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to walk through Warren Stutt's source code with me line-by-line, to prove you have the slightest clue who and what you're talking about. You know, expertise and all.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Psst, OneSliceShort, I just want you to know I'm not ignoring you, it's just that when I discover something really entertaining after studying one of your claims, I always have to decide whether I sit on it or lay it out.


It's probably just best to sit it out and ignore. He is way out of his league with this stuff.... All of that garbage regarding "Dutch Roll" and "Mach Tuck" indicates two things to me. 1 - The poster has no clue.... and 2 - The originator has no clue either and is merely quoting old outdated issues that did apply to the older series of Boeing aircraft, but DO NOT apply to the current 7X7 series.... Unless Ballsucker's experts are all senile they know that the newer series of Boeing aircraft DO NOT exhibit problems in those areas primarily due to Yaw Dampers, which mostly eliminates the problems encountered in the older generation of Boeing aircraft... Some of them may be senile, but I doubt all of them are...

That likely tells us another thing... That is that Ballsucker is not consulting anyone when he espouses this garbage, he's just inventing crap hoping that it sticks with the ignorant and gullible... He's done this repeatedly beginning with his early statements that Ground Effect would have prevented AA 77 from flying low into the Pentagon... One wonders if he really believes the crap he promotes or if he's just ignorant. Either way, he's wrong and it will go nowhere except among the gullible on Internet Forums along with enticing contributions to his "Chip in" fund perhaps to buy another computer to host his multiple sock accounts...

As a result it's best ignored as Ballsucker and that site have no credibility except for a few who will support anything as long as it's fits into their delusional thought regarding their version of the twoof...



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Let's just say I investigated NLR a bit more closely... after all NLR is from the Netherlands and so am I, and what I found well... I had a really, really big laugh realizing what P4T were up against. NATO comes to them for advice. When a NATO member doesn't understand its own simulator, they go to NLR.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer



1. Have you ever tried those manouevres at said speeds? Do you know of anybody who has tried those manouevres at those speeds?

2. You don't believe that controllability is a factor when trying to fly a 767 into a 208ft mark? At the OCT speed?

3. You believe that the 100% success rate on both towers and that on the Pentagon is possible given the issue of controllability? Especially by people who had never flown a commercial aircraft?

I don't want opinions. I want precedence and facts.

Cheers.


This is just trolling, pure and simple. You know the answers to those questions, you just refuse to believe them and ask for a different standard of proof each time.

A while ago you were convinced that the plane broke apart the instant it hit the edge of some arbitrary line that Balsamo invented. Next this was merely suspicious and you moved onto "controllability". Now you're reduced to asking rhetorical questions and demanding yet another ream of information based on your respondents' personal experience. Why?

Don't bother responding. I know the answer.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
And I see you all ignored the controllability aspect of my earlier post.

1. Have you ever tried those manouevres at said speeds? Do you know of anybody who has tried those manouevres at those speeds?

2. You don't believe that controllability is a factor when trying to fly a 767 into a 208ft mark? At the OCT speed?

3. You believe that the 100% success rate on both towers and that on the Pentagon is possible given the issue of controllability? Especially by people who had never flown a commercial aircraft?

I don't want opinions. I want precedence and facts.


Pretty much typical PfT questions - devoid of any intellectual value or rigor.

1) No, I don't know of any pilots who have tried those maneuvers at said speeds, but I don't know any pilots who are suicidal hijackers bent on the destruction of the aircraft by flying it into the side of a building as fast as they possibly could to maximize the kinetic energy involved and who could not give any less of a damn about operating limits or "danger zones" or structural failure regions. Are you saying that just because you or me or Balsamo or Kolstad or whomever don't know any suicidal hijackers bent on the destruction of the aircraft by flying it into the side of a building as fast as they possibly could to maximize the kinetic energy involved and who could not give any less of a damn about operating limits or "danger zones" or structural failure regions that it can't happen? Based on....what? Balsamo's "opinion"? Go back and ask him how a 767 flying the transcontinental route from Newark to SanFran or wherever and back a half dozen times a week *never* had the cockpit door opened, as he claims. On any flight? At all? Ever? Ask ol' Rotten or Rusty or any of those other "experts" if they or any other pilot/aircrew could do that for a week and *never* open the cockpit door once the engines started.

2) I don't know what kind of teen-age junior high puberty excitement you PfT people get over your claims of how "difficult" it would be to point a state-of-the-art airliner at one of the tallest buildings in the world and hit it. AA11 hit the north tower *dead on*, pretty much exactly in the center. Estimated speed? 443 mph or 384 knots (NIST NCSTAR 1-2B). You aren't going to go down that road and tell me that a 767 at 384 knots at 1,000 ft is going to a) be uncontrollable and wobble all around the sky or b) as Balsamo claims, it will break apart from the *incredible* aerodynamic overstress of flying at 384 knots?

You need to look up "Cult De-programmers" on the intertubes and see if you can get either a group rate and bring some of your PfT friends over with you or see if they have a President's Day sale on, because you people need some serious help.
edit on 16-2-2012 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


You are spamming with the same discredited crap that is posted again and again at "PffffT".....and there is NO balanced discussion there, as any attempt to shut down the nonsense claims that have been refuted countless times is met with censorship by the owner and Administrator, there.

This, just as example:


Dutch roll



There is NO....I repeat NO problem with Dutch Roll tendencies inherent in either the B-757 or B-767! Period! The Yaw Dampers take care of any Dutch Roll onset that may occur in turbulence encounters.

Don't just take my word for it though....there is plenty of documentation, and reports by other experienced pilots on the airplanes....who don't make fools of themselves with nonsense claims. Just so there's no claim that I am "arguing" from my own "authority", here:


Swept wing aircraft such as the B767 are prone to a yawing/rolling combination when they encounter turbulence. This is called ‘Dutch Roll’. To counter this tendency the B767 rudder incorporates two separately powered hydraulic ‘Series Yaw Dampers’. These also assist in turn co-ordination, such that no rudder inputs are required by the pilot to provide a balanced (skid ball in the centre) turn. Unlike the ‘Parallel Yaw Dampers” fitted to some aircraft, the rudder pedals of the series system do NOT move in association with yaw damper inputs.

The amount of deflection of the rudder panel by the yaw damper is reduced at high speed to avoid potential over-stressing of the airframe. The speed input from the CADC is blended with information from the yaw rate provided by the ‘Ring Laser Gyro’ (RLG) that is part of the Inertial Reference Navigation Unit (IRU).


Source

(How about posting that over at "PfffT"? Bet it will get deleted....).


Another thing......Dutch Roll "dangers" are only prevalent at high altitudes, and combined with high airspeeds. Something the "pilots" at "PffffT" should already know......but repeatedly fail to mention? Is this a bit of being disingenuous, on their part?? (IOW....it's called "lying".....).



Dutch roll—the combined yawing and rolling motion that all airplanes exhibit to some extent—is almost a thing of the past due to better aerodynamic designs, and more importantly, the almost universal use of yaw dampers. But Dutch roll can be serious, especially in swept wing airplanes flying in the thin air of high altitude.

[snip].....

In more recently designed jets the Dutch roll damping is at least a little positive and most are controllable without the yaw damper functioning. However, passengers would rebel against any intentional flight without the yaw damper operating because nothing stirs the stomach quite as quickly as Dutch roll.


THAT is from a REAL expert pilot .... unlike the frauds associated with "Pfffft":

J. Mac McClellan -- "How to Halt Dutch Roll"

Well, well....hmmmmm....


OK, that Dutch Roll nonsense is put to bed...next:


Mach tuck

Aileron roll



Mach Tuck is NOT a problem with the B-757 and B-767 in most cases....and especially not on 9/11!!

None of the airplanes, at the high velocities at low altitudes above Sea Level, got anywhere near the regime of Mach 1. No Mach Tuck, unless you are in the vicinity of exceeding the speed of sound.

THIS has been explained countless times....do some think repeating the lie and red herring of "Tuck" will convince the newbies? Guess that's the tactic in use, here......

Now, the final bit.....well, you linked to the full Wiki article on ailerons.....but called it "Aileron roll"...which is a specific type of aerobatic maneuver.

What you likely meant instead was perhaps, Control Reversal from Wing Twist??

That problem has not been seen in modern jet airliners. Another red herring. OH< and finally....on the B-767, there are TWO set of ailerons. The ones near the wingtips ("Outboard")do not operate in high-speed flight. EVER! But, only those near the wingtips are culprits in cases of Control Reversal problems, due to aerodynamic forces on the ailerons, as they move into the airflow.

Wanna post THAT over at "PfffT", too?

SO, three glaring mistakes......shall I continue on the rest? (I will continue to dissect Ralph Kolstad's claims, from the video in the OP, and shall return......)....

More on "Tuck":

Read PPRuNe

(First post at top, the question ... and the wrong answer in second post, but correct answer further down the page)...

And:

Aerospaceweb

I would think that "Capt" Ralph Kolstad would know more about the airplanes he is type-rated in than he seems to exhibit, in the videos......especially about the mach speed trim on the B-767....and the differences between the 757and the 767......







edit on Thu 16 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 



Proudbird/Weedhacker is still trying to flex his aeronautical knowledge, but as usual, falling flat on his face as he did when he posted videos of aircraft flying "fast" within their flight envelope as a comparison to aircraft flying Vmo+150 (hilarious) and then claiming Vne is the same as Vmo. The list of comedy gold spouted by Proudbird/Weedy continues... but it's good to see they now realize the V-G diagram is accurate....

I'll skip most of the rhetoric and poor attempts at character assassination as that is really all they have left.... .... this won't take long...

Dutch roll -

They are correct that Dutch Roll is not a problem within the flight envelope. This is yet another reason manufacturers set a Vmo/Mmo.

What happens as aircraft speed increases? It's in his own source...

[indent]The amount of deflection of the rudder panel by the yaw damper is reduced at high speed to avoid potential over-stressing of the airframe. [/indent]

In other words, the deflection of the rudder panel(s) is increasingly limited the faster you go so you don't rip the thing off the airframe. Again, just another one of the many reasons manufacturers set a Vmo. Exceeding Vmo by such a wide margin, how exactly is it going to dampen dutch roll with an already limited rudder? Perhaps the rudder panels are no longer limited above Vmo? Then they will have this problem (which happened at Departure speeds).

This is why Dan Govatos, an FAA Check Airman, along with his line pilots, were experiencing Dutch Roll tendencies in the simulator at High speeds, but were able to hit the buildings at near landing speeds. The high speeds were too fast with a limited rudder that was no longer effective in reducing dutch roll.

Once again, Proudbird/Weedy screws the pooch. The very reason he will NEVER put his name to his claims.

Mach Tuck -

Again, ProudBird/Weedwhacker is attempting to argue conditions of an aircraft flying within their flight envelope as compared to an aircraft reportedly operating way outside it's limitations.

From his own source -
..... usually starting at about Mach 0.6 or 0.7. As the Cp moves aft, the moment arm between it and the elevator decreases making the elevator less effective in providing pitch control. The difference in location between the Cp and the center of gravity (located in front of the Cp) causes the aircraft nose to pitch down....


We won't get too technical here as it will only confuse people like Proudbird/Weedy, but 0.7 Mach at say 22,000 feet, is the equivalent of 301 knots at Sea Level. Well within the envelope and the range for Mach speed trim.

510 knots at Sea Level (the speed reported for the South Tower Airplane) is the equivalent of Mach 1.19 at 22,000 feet.

People can calculate it themselves here.

Source

Put 22,000 into pressure altitude

Put -29 into the C window (22,000 feet based on standard adiabatic rate)

Put 510 in Equivalent Airspeed window.

Click Eval on True Airspeed window

Read Mach number on shaded windows below...


..I guess ProudBird/Weedy should inform Boeing to change their 767-200 model number to the Boeing 767-200SST since apparently it can operate in conditions equivalent to Mach 1.19, according to people like Proudbird/Weedwhacker.

I also noticed Proudbird/Weedwhacker is claiming he came here for debate. Well, we do not have a "Proudbird" registered here, but we do have a "weedwhacker" who registered here, but the weedwhacker from ATS claims that wasn't him (but it really was).

Proudbird/Weedy caught in more lies......

.....

Anytime you wish to come on over and have a real debate, feel free to do so Proudbird/Weedy. Then I'll teach you how transonic ranges have equivalent airspeed's at sea level and why the IAS Vmo pointer slides to lower airspeed's during climb. It must feel pretty lonely being stuck in such a small clown car of a thread over there at ATS, especially with a belligerent drunk bigot like Retreat...

.. if this post is posted at ATS, it WILL get deleted as "Off-topic". Funny how they accuse us of deleting posts, when ATS is the mecca of deleted posts.


Source

Ouch!



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 





TextSo, one of the world's best pilots says he CANNOT duplicate the maneuvers of Flight 77, and that it's not possible. What does that tell you?


Hopefully when the pilot or pilots actually do the maneuver, then there testimony will hold good clean water, but until then...it is nothing to even listen to ,its basically a hoax, and a lie, and100% inconclusive on what they perceive could happen or could not happen.




Texthe CANNOT duplicate the maneuvers of Flight 77

edit on 17-2-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
BTW, why is it that Balsamo always whines about people putting names to their claims, but he runs around sock puppeting on every single forum on the web and you use a different alias on this forum than you normally do, and you won't even identify yourself, while constantly smearing the reputations of others?



I also ran across this tonight as well...


BTW, why is it that Balsamo always whines about people putting names to their claims, but he runs around sock puppeting[sic] on every single forum on the web and you use a different alias on this forum than you normally do, and you won't even identify yourself, while constantly smearing the reputations of others?


My answer -

If "other forums" will let me use my real name, I will. For example, JREF denied my registration under my real name before I could ever make a post. When I registered a "sock" there, they suspended me after I backed their regulars into a corner.... and then asked me to fax them 3 forms of ID to confirm my identity.

Unlike you "snowcrash", not only do I put my name to my claims, but also my face.

The real question is...

When will you or your cohorts EVER use their real name or face.... anywhere?

The answer is, never.

By the way, the true definition of "sock puppeting"[sic] is having more than one active account on a forum. You may want to speak to Proudbird/Weedwhacker about that. Then ask him when he will ever use his real name. Hey, why not ask him to endorse the Legge/Stutt "paper"? When will Legge or Stutt get a pilot to endorse their work? It's been what, 3 years and not one real pilot will endorse their crap?

Apparently, the same person who clearly has an unhealthy daily obsession with me... also has an admitted neurological problem.



"Sorry, but the debate/discussion is off. Tomorrow a scan will reveal whether or not I have a brain tumor or some other neurological problem. Regardless of the outcome, I have been plagued by terrible headaches and other weird neurological symptoms that indicate something serious. Right now, I am in survival mode, and I can't be active in 9/11 truth at all anymore." - Michiel de Boer, aka "snowcrash"



One thing is clear, "snowcrash" is not interested in the Truth about 9/11 anymore. All my best to you "snowcrash". I hope your health improves.


Source



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dfreeman
reply to post by ProudBird
 



It must feel pretty lonely being stuck in such a small clown car of a thread over there at ATS, especially with a belligerent drunk bigot like Retreat...


Here are some quotes of statements made by Ballsucker (aka Rob Balsamo)


“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”–"Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo

"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....

I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.
If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." –"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo, panicking after Mark Roberts challenged him to a debate.


These quotes can be easily found in several different places on the 'net. Ballsucker's excuse is that this occurred at a party when everyone was drunk Now, who's the belligerent drunk?

Ouch!



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dfreeman
 


Yet another sock response from the mentally challenged Balsamo. Please, someone tell me if he actually is still allowed inside the cockpit of ANY aircraft. If so, please tell me when and when he does. This is scary.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dfreeman
 


To all......this entire diatribe is more of the same tripe that is served up at a particular website "That I Don't Wish To Name" (
) and is part of an orchestrated dis-information campaign by just ONE individual, by this point. (Well, that one and a few misguided minions....oh, and a slew of Internet sock-puppet screen names...LOL).

The response was devoid of any aerodynamic validity.....and the reference to "Check Airman" Dan encountering Dutch Roll in the simulator that he "experimented" with is utter nonsense. (There are other cited sources in this thread, page or so back,with account from other pilots who experienced no such difficulties when they experimented with re-creating those excessive speeds in a simulator....along with no problems flying at high speeds close to the "ground" -- in simulation, of course). What we saw in the post be replied to was more of the same, already discredited, nonsense being repeated ad infinitum.....

Why this person is so deluded, and insistent on displaying such to the World is beyond my understanding.

We have a situation where hundreds of thousands of known professional airline pilots all over the World know far, far more than this one poor, desperately wrong lone individual....it is a bit tragic, actually.

A psychological evaluation may be required to determine what motives would drive such behaviour......



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


It's amusing that he tries via techno babble to confuse issues related to Critical Mach with Dynamic Pressure while pretending they are the same and have the save effect. It's not surprising that he does this since he doesn't have an Airline Transport Rating, hasn't ever flown a large transport aircraft, nor has he even ever flown a fast enough aircraft to even be concerned with Equivalent Airspeed. He pretends to be an expert regarding these issues, but in reality mostly has experience with small Cessna's (or so he says).


He's not really worth wasting much time on as his credibility and reputation are at rock bottom even among "truthers". It's best to let the "truthers" deal with him and not waste a lot time on his nonsense...



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Are you guys going to endorse Legge's paper or not??

Snowcrash. Ask them? Ask them if the Legge/Stutt paper is valid. And if so, give the guy a hand. If not for Legge because of his alleged "twoofiness", ask them to do it for Stutt. They've been sucking off of that poor guy's teat for years and now that he asks for a little favour, suddenly the blinkers are on.

What's up with that, huh?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
@Proudbird

"It IS ALPA. I am a member in good standing."

See above.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Rob is wrong. Specifically to American 77, its airspeed excursion beyond Vmo was very brief in duration. Up until the throttles were shoved forward, and the straight-in run up Columbia Pike was begun, at NO TIME did AAL 77 exceed any flight envelope parameters. .


"at no time" Proudbird?

540mph - 580mph (according to Stutt/Legge), a 124fps descent after it had passed the Navy Annex and "pull up" 0.7 seconds before the lightpoles (according to Legge/Stutt)

Yeah. Piece of cake.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   


I know what the experts at Aeospaceweb dot org endorse, and it isn't your delusions:


But do you know what the "experts" here say? Have you asked them to endorse Legge/Stutt's paper??

From your quote..



they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain.


At what speed did these people fly at? "between 350 and 550mph" is rather vague.

And does the "smooth terrain" describe the drop from above the Navy Annex to Route 27??

Even if you illogically deny that the aircraft didn't pass over the Annex (which it most certainly did), it was what, allegedly (according to the chemist and the debugger 120ft above the height of this structure and had to descend and level out to line up with the directional damage.



Is that "smooth terrain"? Did these people attempt this manouevre or not?

Oh, and that image is for Proudbird too. Proudbird, put yourself in the cockpit with that view (+120ft ASL) at cruise speed at low altitude...


And Proudbird, what say you to the points raised here

This point at least on Mach tuck?




www.luizmonteiro.com...

Put 22,000 into pressure altitude

Put -29 into the C window (22,000 feet based on standard adiabatic rate)

Put 510 in Equivalent Airspeed window.

Click Eval on True Airspeed window

Read Mach number on shaded windows below...



Or this one on Dutch roll?




They are correct that Dutch Roll is not a problem within the flight envelope. This is yet another reason manufacturers set a Vmo/Mmo. What happens as aircraft speed increases? It's in his (Proudbird's) own source...


The amount of deflection of the rudder panel by the yaw damper is reduced at high speed to avoid potential over-stressing of the airframe.


In other words, the deflection of the rudder panel(s) is increasingly limited the faster you go so you don't rip the thing off the airframe. Again, just another one of the many reasons manufacturers set a Vmo. Exceeding Vmo by such a wide margin, how exactly is it going to dampen dutch roll with an already limited rudder? Perhaps the rudder panels are no longer limited above Vmo? Then they will have this problem (which happened at Departure speeds).

This is why Dan Govatos, an FAA Check Airman, along with his line pilots, were experiencing Dutch Roll tendencies in the simulator at High speeds, but were able to hit the buildings at near landing speeds. The high speeds were too fast with a limited rudder that was no longer effective in reducing dutch roll.


Can you all please hold off on the unfounded attcks on every single proven pilot who has had the cojones to step out of the shadows to say what they know from experience as opposed to keyboard commandos who haven't the stones to debate Rob Balsamo to his face (on a forum for Christ's sake!) and claim that VMO and the law of physics are irrelevant..



edit on 18-2-2012 by ThePostExaminer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Except.....this is perfectly representative of the misrepresentations of facts used to confuse the issue.... (not your fault, perhaps....maybe you are just too much of a "fan" of a delusion) .....:


......line up with the directional damage.



American Airlines 77 DID NOT not fly "over" the Navy Annex in the sight picture displayed, there (^ ^ ^)...

I just did not happen.

Anyone, at all, who has actually been to the area can clearly see the path, and with his or her own eyes survey the terrain. Take a ride up the elevators in many buildings, and gander even more (I have)....the Residence Inn Arlington Pentagon City, a Marriott property, gives a good vantage point.....the elevators empty to a PERFECT view for the vantage. Check out each floor's view....

But, it's best to just WALK the area.......I suggest starting at the Sheraton National Hotel and walking down the street....down past the Navy Annex, on Columbia Pike....it's a slight down-hill walk, from the Sheraton.

Really, just go there, and walk around.....it is illuminating..........



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
While you're all tapdancing around "answers" to my questions, here's a reminder on the alleged sim recreation carried out in Holland.

Read it.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


Wait...this is from the web site who's owner claimed "when an aircraft hits its "design limits", it breaks. Period"? and who claimed that AA77 should have cartwheeled into the Pentagon because....


Umm...as I said. "Tapdancing".



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join