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: 13
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz

Originally posted by trebor451
What...Kolstad? The fact that he is the laughing stock of the *entire* Navy F-14/fighter community?


If Kolstad is the "laughing stock of the entire Navy F-14 Fighter Community", what does that make you considering you couldn't make it to the front seat, nor Top Gun, nor fly 23 years as an International Captain for American Airlines...? (not to mention the fact you don't even have the credentials to fly a Cessna 172..... solo.)


For those of us who really don't give a flip that we're not pilots. what say you answer the question instead of dragging this discussion down into the gutter- what does Kolsted say about the hordes of eyewitnesses who specifically say his claims are wrong?




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Do you mean these witnesses?




If not, why don't you ask Kolstad yourself? Or perhaps you can ask Proudbird/weedwhacker... he claimed earlier in this thread that he wanted to contact Kolstad.
edit on 21-2-2012 by VinnieGoombatz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


WAIT a minute!!!!

EVERY link up above ^ ^ ^ goes back to your thread.....it is this one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What a shame....so pathetic......................................................................................


Wish I could add more,l but it would just be repetitive.......at this point.........


edit on Sun 19 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


Still waiting on that answer Proudbird.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You all like to make sweeping statements yet back off when the meat is put on the table.

And Snowcrash wonders why I'm not here 24/7 to join in the barndance here



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz
Again "trebor", why should the readers here listen to anything you have to say?


All the readers have to do is "read". All I do is repeat what you and your "experts" have posted here and other places. Specifically:

"A radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan."

"When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period."

"757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes.

"They are "pilots" that believe it is impossible to hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper while flying a 767 at 450 knots."

"...believe a remote-controlled aircraft could hit those 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide towers - while they, with the aircraft under their experienced hand, could not."

"...a cruise missile hit the Pentagon."

"...there are moon bases on the dark side of the moon where we interact with aliens."

"...it was high explosives and not AA 77 that caused the damage to the Pentagon".

"...frozen cadavers were shipped into the Pentagon the night before the event on Sept 11"

"...all it takes is a split second to switch a 767 transponder from its normal squawk over to the hijack code (7500)."

"...there was no jet fuel at the Pentagon crash site."

"Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel."

"...believe holograms slammed into the WTC."

"...believe it would take 11.2 g's to pull out of a dive at the Pentagon.

"...believe a "pod" was attached to UA 175"

"...many of the Officers of ALPA are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth."

Not to mention the affidavit submitted in support of a lawsuit that was epic in its dismissal and called "frivolous and based on “cynical delusion and fantasy." and without conceivable legal or factual basis. Judge Chin was being generous and polite.

Those intellectually weak individuals who have subscribed to your snake oil will continue to do so because it is in their nature to be lead by those intellectually weaker than themselves. You can keep selling your DVDs and your license plate frames and your coffee mugs and trucker hats and keep begging money through Pay Pal, but that doesn't change the fact that you and your "experts" are destined to spend your lives on fringe internet discussion boards, yelling into the vacuum of obscurity in a vain effort to "matter". Me? I'm only here for the entertainment value, and boy have you not let me down.

As far as front seats and Top Gun, I have it on good authority that the former Navy radar intercept officer you speak of was always destined to be a naval flight officer because he wore glasses from the age of 10 and earned his wings (naval flight officer wings of gold, of course, not the plastic set you have in the back of a drawer somewhere) at a time when perfect, uncorrected 20/20 vision was required for naval aviators (pilots), but like the rest of your "research" I wouldn't expect you to be interested in facts like that. I also know for a fact that he flew against *and* with the Navy aggressor squadrons of VF-43, VFC-12, VF-45, VF-126 as well as Top Gun aircraft on more than a dozen occasions on both coasts against A-4. TA-4, F-5, F-16N, F-23 Kfir and a half-dozen other types of aircraft from allied countries in their skies a half a world away

Speaking of tactical military flight experience, how much time do you have in Navy tactical jets? Any tactical military jets? Any jets? It doesn't have to be first pilot time....any time? At all? Ever? No? Didn't think so. The thought of Cap't Bob strapping into an ejection seat in a jet hooked up to a steam catapult on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier with 20,000 of JP-5 2 feet under his butt without ******* his pants is just too funny an image to pass up.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz

Perhaps not. But did Ralph Kolstad? The person this thread is about? Hmmm.. let's see.

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)


You are right, this thread is indeed about Kolstad rather than Balsamo. Therefore, allow me to ask, how does Kolstad explain why all the eyewitnesses around the Pentagon are specifically saying that what he's claiming is rubbish?


Another sweeping statement.

Withn "all" of the witnesses interviewed, I've still to see just one contradict the multiple witnessed NOC path.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz
 


Do you mean these witnesses?


This is a disingenuous reply and you know it. When I say "eyewitnesses who specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon", I don't mean people who were a mile away or across the river. I actually mean people who specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon, like USA Today journalist Joel Sucherman who saw the whole thing from a nearby office building, or Omar Campo, a groundskeeper who saw the whole thing while cutting the grass across the street, or Father Stephen McGraw, a priest who saw the whole thing while being stuck in traffic on his way to a service at Arlington cemetary. The Pentagon is in the middle of an industrial park with office buildings, three highways, and even a marina, so there were a heck of a lot more witnesses than these artfully selected four. You can't NOT know this.


If not, why don't you ask Kolstad yourself? Or perhaps you can ask Proudbird/weedwhacker... he claimed earlier in this thread that he wanted to contact Kolstad.


Do you have contact information for Kolstad? I cannot speak for others but if you read my posts you will know I have no qualms about calling out people who post absurd things.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Any jets? It doesn't have to be first pilot time....any time? At all? Ever? No? Didn't think so.


Pssst, Proudbird,

You may want to teach "trebor" how to read a Dispatch Release. Especially if he thinks I'm Rob Balsamo. Apparently he doesn't know how to read a tail number nor a dispatch release from the last page, or perhaps he also thinks this is a Turboprop....as you did.. .until i corrected you on the last page...



Here is the Release again... walk him through it will ya?






posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Another sweeping statement.

Withn "all" of the witnesses interviewed, I've still to see just one contradict the multiple witnessed NOC path.



By the same token, I've still to see just one contradict the multiple witnessed impact into the Pentagon. If you want to argue that the plane actually missed some particular light post and it was really knocked over by some distracted motorist, be my guest.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Rafe_
 


Sorry, but I never made this claim:


Proudbird already claimed that balsamo was not a real pilot and that he never flown anything other then a cessna and look how that claim of his turned out.


Show a quote, the page and location where I wrote that.

Or else, what you claim about me is a lie.



You claimed it in that lame PM that you send me in which you included a list of ATS moderators who you said you know and are your friends.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Another sweeping statement.

Withn "all" of the witnesses interviewed, I've still to see just one contradict the multiple witnessed NOC path.



By the same token, I've still to see just one contradict the multiple witnessed impact into the Pentagon. If you want to argue that the plane actually missed some particular light post and it was really knocked over by some distracted motorist, be my guest.


Hey Dave, do you still think the videos posted by "Proudbird/Weedwhacker" earlier in this thread demonstrate proof that the 9/11 aircraft could achieve the speeds reported?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don;t dodge the question now...


edit on 21-2-2012 by VinnieGoombatz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_
You claimed it in that lame PM that you send me in which you included a list of ATS moderators who you said you know and are your friends.



They can fool some of the people some of the time, but they cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Truth always.. ALWAYS, prevails.

It's a shame that people like Proudbird/Weedwhacker has diminished the credibility of this site. It once was a good place for alternative discussion.
edit on 21-2-2012 by VinnieGoombatz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz
 

Hey Dave, do you still think the videos posted by "Proudbird/Weedwhacker" earlier in this thread demonstrate proof that the 9/11 aircraft could achieve the speeds reported?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don;t dodge the question now...


What say you supply the contact information for Kolstad like I asked and then I'll answer your question. You told me to contact him with my question so I'm going to. I've already contacted Dr. Van Romero as well as William Rodriquez to get their take on things so I certainly have no qualms about contacting Kolstad.

Where I come from, this is what we refer to as "calling someone's bluff".



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What say you supply the contact information for Kolstad like I asked and then I'll answer your question. You told me to contact him with my question so I'm going to.


Oh, so you have conditions to answer the tough questions, while I answered you without hesitation. I see.

The contact link is on the left margin of the Pilots For 9/11 Truth home page. Kolstad is a Core member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Have you tried to contact him there?

I would post a link, but you might accuse me of selling mugs.

www.cafepress.com...

Hmmm.. irony...

Anytime you wish to answer my question, feel free. Here it is again in case you missed it...

Hey Dave, do you still think the videos posted by "Proudbird/Weedwhacker" earlier in this thread demonstrate proof that the 9/11 aircraft could achieve the speeds reported?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't dodge the question now... (for the second time)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz

Originally posted by Rafe_
You claimed it in that lame PM that you send me in which you included a list of ATS moderators who you said you know and are your friends.



They can fool some of the people some of the time, but they cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Truth always.. ALWAYS, prevails.

It's a shame that people like Proudbird/Weedwhacker has diminished the credibility of this site. It once was a good place for alternative discussion.
edit on 21-2-2012 by VinnieGoombatz because: (no reason given)


They are like a PR group.

They are the ones standing on the entrance of ATS's 9/11 forum constantly and at the ready with bullhorns shouting "THE OS IS THE ONLY TRUE STORY...!!!!" 24/7 .

..They are not suspicious at all



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   


This is a disingenuous reply and you know it. When I say "eyewitnesses who specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon", I don't mean people who were a mile away or across the river. I actually mean people who specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon, like USA Today journalist Joel Sucherman who saw the whole thing from a nearby office building,


Haha. Jeebus Dave, at least get the guy's POV right!

He was allegedly on Route 27 and even one of "your guys" Adam Larson deduced that the guy was describing an NOC approach.

The Frustrating Squad: Joel Sucherman NOC witness?

NOC = No impact.



or Omar Campo, a groundskeeper who saw the whole thing while cutting the grass across the street,


Omar Campo was quoted incorrectly by somebody trying to translate his Spanish account.




“yo lo via que me pasaba aqui por encima, tu sabes que venia muy bajo y movia hasta los arboles, hasta segun venia tan de bajo”

"I saw it go over the top of me, ya kow, it came in very low, and even moved the trees, it was that low"

(The above was translated as "I saw it go straight into the building"!)

“sabes que yo estaba trabjando en el edificio que tenemos aqui al costado"

"I was working at the building that's close by here"




Omar says he was working in (or at) the "building next to the Pentagon."

So where was he when the plane flew over his head moving the trees Dave?



Hmm?




or Father Stephen McGraw, a priest who saw the whole thing while being stuck in traffic on his way to a service at Arlington cemetary.


Yeah and he describes his POV as being "in front of the Pentagon", "beside the lawn" when it allegedly flew over his car.

z3.invisionfree.com...




The Pentagon is in the middle of an industrial park with office buildings, three highways, and even a marina, so there were a heck of a lot more witnesses than these artfully selected four. You can't NOT know this.


Conjecture. And of all of these imaginary witnesses and those interviewed can you name one SOC witness?
You can't NOT know this.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   


"757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes"






Those babies aren't "radio controlled models" Robert.

And you're still blabbing on about the height of the Twin Towers??

208ft width v 125ft wingspan v "450 knots" v alleged hijacker pilot...get the drift?
edit on 21-2-2012 by ThePostExaminer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz
The contact link is on the left margin of the Pilots For 9/11 Truth home page. Kolstad is a Core member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Have you tried to contact him there?


Nice try. I asked you to provide Kolstad's contact information, not some generic email account on Yahoo. I work in the IT field so I know full flipping well that email will be going to the web site administrator, not Kolstad...and there's no guarantee they even check on it once a month. Why do I need to beg the favor of some anonymous person who is under no obligation to even forward my questions to him? Heck, William Rodriguez was easy to find on Facebook.

I do have to thank you though for pointing out that the "Pilots" actually have a discussion board. I just registered for the place so you'll almost certainly see me there too.


Hey Dave, do you still think the videos posted by "Proudbird/Weedwhacker" earlier in this thread demonstrate proof that the 9/11 aircraft could achieve the speeds reported?


I'm not a pilot so I cannot say one way or the other. What I do know is that multitudes of people specifically saw the plane impact the Pentagon so all this bickering over plane speeds, paperwork scans, tail numbers, etc are but disingenuous red herrings meant to distract us from the fact.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Still waiting on that answer Proudbird.

(snip)

You all like to make sweeping statements yet back off when the meat is put on the table.



Keep trying to baffle with BS, and veiled innuendo. The "answer" was of course given.....so lying about you still "waiting" is rather humorous, in retrospect:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join