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: 14
19
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Your videos aside (irrelevant)....I am amused by this uncited quotation:


"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"


Care to guess who originally said that?

(Hint....not trebor451).


But, someone with the first name of 'Robert', or 'Rob'....



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Your videos aside (irrelevant)....I am amused by this uncited quotation:


"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"


Care to guess who originally said that?

(Hint....not trebor451).


But, someone with the first name of 'Robert', or 'Rob'....



Proudbird,

Do you feel that the videos posted by "weedwhacker" in this thread are a relevant comparison to the speeds reported on 9/11?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer


"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)


Let's see...you are comparing AA77, with pilots at the controls bent on killing as many people as they can with throttles bent probably full forward traveling at 780 feet per second hitting a concrete/granite reinforced office building with an aircraft that ran out of gas, was gliding with pilots at the controls who were trying for a successful water landing at *the slowest speed possible* to save as many lives as possible?

You are comparing AA77, with pilots at the controls bent on killing as many people as they can with throttles bent probably full forward traveling at 780 feet per second hitting a concrete/granite reinforced office building with a controlled-wheels-up belly landing test in a *desert*?

And you say one should resemble the other? This just gets better and better! Experts! Are you serious?

As far as the height of the towers are concerned, since you have hitched your intellectual wagon (such as it is) to the PfT clown car there is no sense in explaining to you how easy it is to line up an aircraft with a "200'* target. PfT would have you believe (and you would believe) that even their 10,000 flight hour/200-different-aircraft-type pilots could not hit a 208' wide target with a 767 aircraft flying at 384 knots (AA11). If you really believe that, you need to find another hobby. Seriously.

Ever done a high speed pass at an airshow? Ever wonder how these pilots, with significantly less total time than these PfT idiots, can line up their aircraft with a runway for a show-center pass? You tell me why it would be more diffic...no, *impossible* for a hijacker to aim at the tallest thing on the entire horizon (indeed.....one of the 3 or 4 tallest buildings on earth) at three-hundred-and-eighty-four-freaking knots and hit the thing?

All those vidoes of airliners doing high-speed passes at airshows or in the desert...do you think the pilots were *aiming* for that flight path? Or do you think the airplane just ended up where it was because the pilots had no chance controlling it? This claim that it was "impossible" speeds ranks right up there with Balsamo's claim that "when an aircraft hits its "design limit", it breaks. Period."

Seriously. Marwan al-Shehhi with UA 175 was traveling significantly faster at 470 knots and his hit was a tad off center, but still easily accomplished.

And speaking of "radio controlled", if any of the PfT lunatic "EXPERT!!!" pilots couldn't hit the towers with their own experienced hands on the controls, why do some at PfT speculate that these aircraft were remote controlled airplanes? Explain why it would be "easier" for an aircraft being controlled by data link and the associated latencies and delays in data transfer than it would for a PfT clown pilot to hit the tower. Please
edit on 22-2-2012 by trebor451 because: typo



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz
Do you feel that the videos posted by "weedwhacker" in this thread are a relevant comparison to the speeds reported on 9/11?


Do YOU feel that discussion about plane speed videos is a relevent answer to the multitudes of eyewitnesses who specifically say they saw a plane hitting the Pentagon? When the people who were physically there at the time say it actually happened, it means it actually happened, regardless of how many book reports Balsamo and his sock puppets on ATS write that say it didn't.

I've addressed this a number of times, and every single time, you've consistantly run away the same way three card monty players do whenever the cops show up. How about a response?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Your videos aside (irrelevant)....I am amused by this uncited quotation:


"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"


Care to guess who originally said that?

(Hint....not trebor451).


But, someone with the first name of 'Robert', or 'Rob'....



Proudbird,

Do you feel that the videos posted by "weedwhacker" in this thread are a relevant comparison to the speeds reported on 9/11?


Still no answer from bird?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz


Then why does the dispatch release say 2004?


Perhaps it's forged? I don't know. But that airline definitely went out of business in 2002. And it only ever flew little planes on little routes - nothing like the big jets on 9/11.



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


Hang on. I was responding to the notion that Balsamo's credentials are impressive. Someone - probably you, probably Balsamo in yet another sock - took the trouble to post them as though they carry some weight. I was just disabusing Rafe of that notion.


Disinfo Tactic 18


I just love how you quote your own work as corroboration, as though you're some kind of authority. And not a laughing stock.



Bigfoot Fallacy.


I have no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that this is something to do with 'absence of evidence/evidence of absence'? As usual you seem confused. All I said was that uncritically accepting the sort of obvious nonsense that Balsamo retails just because of his (threadbare) credentials is a foolish thing to do. This remains axiomatically true.


edit on 22-2-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinnieGoombatz


Truth always.. ALWAYS, prevails.



If you believe that then why are your ideas so singularly failing in their attempt to break the mainstream? Either it's because you're not trying hard enough, or it's that they aren't, um, true.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
So where was he when the plane flew over his head moving the trees Dave?

Hmm?


Are you really trying to bring this photo up again? This picture has been ripped apart more times than a losing ticket at a horse track.

For one thing, this thing came from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites so it's their disingenuous interpretation of what the witnesses saw, not what they actually saw. For another, it has seven separate flight paths, one of them not only improbable, but it's also a violation of physics, and they can't all be correct. For yet another, the event happened all within a matter of seconds so all you're really doing is grasping at straws by claiming there's something "suspicious" about eyewitnesses confusing an object being 100 yards away when it was really 110 yards away.


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


Ah yes, the "everyone is really a secret agent" crutch again. Why am I not surprised. I notice that it's only the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon who are the actual secret agents. The ones you conspiracy people quote out of context to bolster your claims are always the credible eyewitnesses, I notice. Mind explaining the logic behind that?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Rafe_
 


That airline went out of business in 2002. All Reheat said was that Robby had flown "mostly Cessna's" and that he appeared not to have rating now. The latter appears to be true, the former an exaggeration. But not by much - I doubt Balsamo has ever flown a large passenger jet of the kind used on 9/11.


I just want to point out a couple things.

First is Atlantic Coast Airlines did NOT go out of business in 2002. It flew until 2004 at which time it's name changed to Independence Air. Independence Air finally went out of business in 2006.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.law.utk.edu...

Second thing is the aircraft that is listed on the dispatch release in this thread has a tail number of N428FJ which is a jet, not a turboprop. It's no where near the size of a 757/767 but it is indeed a jet.





So, a copy of one dispatch release that lists him as a crew member? Big whoop......if you notice, his name location (bracketed between to blacked-out names above and below) indicate that he was a First Officer, at the time. Captain's name on top, F/O in the middle, and the one lone Flight Attendant on the bottom. That is standard crew listing order, most companies. Each company's Dispatch Release is differently formatted, though.


What does it matter if he was a Captain or FO? They are both pilots. In fact, sometimes the FO is actually more experienced than the Captain. I'm not saying this is the case here but to hint that just because he is a FO and not a Captain he is somehow less qualified is not right.



The "J328" is probably the 'short hand' code for the Dornier 328. Although, I have other references showing the proper coding for that airplane type is "D328"....but, I don't know much about those smaller turbo props....never bothered to learn them.


Again, the aircraft listed on the dispatch release is a jet. I'm just pointing this out because as I read your post I felt as if you were trying to hint that RB flew turboprops only.

In the end it doesn't really matter what kind of plane he flew. But what does matter is that you guys are so adamant that your version of the events is the one and only true version, not everything you post is correct.

BTW I am NOT RB. I do not know him, I do not belong to his website.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 

Too bad this pilot did not state why he could not have done these maneuvers. I suppose he would say the G forces would have been too great for the aircraft. I doubt he is would say the g forces were too great for the pilot. I guess it is all in how you interpret the data.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Beldy
 


Thanks for your clarifications on Balsamo's career. I must say that they don't hugely improve his standing as an authority but nonetheless it's interesting to see that he's occasionally been allowed in a jet.

I'm less sure that your admonitions about being "sure your version of events are correct" are so on the money. I doubt you know what I think happened. But if you mean I think that Balsamo's claims are ludicrous, and that anyone who believes them, or those of his cohorts, on the strength of them once being pilots are foolish, then yes. You're correct.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 



I suppose he would say the G forces would have been too great for the aircraft.


If Ralph Kolstad had said that, then his credibility would be equally in doubt.

But, bad enough, he indicated, in his comments, that is was beyond his "ability"....just as ridiculous, as I have posted about countless times in this, and other, threads.

No, there were no excessive G forces on American 77....up until the moment of impact, that is. The G-load tracing from the Flight Data Recorder (so-called "Black Box") has been posted already in this thread. There was one moment just a few seconds before impact where it briefly registered just over 2 Gs....well within the limits of a Boeing 757.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Beldy
 


Thanks for clearing up the airplane type......my version of the Dispatch Release, on my screen, was a bit hard to decipher, reading the poor resolution teletype letters...... but apparently the research into the fleet history of Atlantic Coast Airlines is more up your alley.....I know virtually nothing about their history (although I DID know about their switch to the, also now defunct, "Independence Air" name.....and the fleet change then, to the CRJ.....that was big news, at the time, so I could follow it better. Because I was living in the D.C. area, then).

The type designation makes sense now.......and, I really know nothing much about that particular mini-jet. Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, that is more my speed......really, it looks like a Dornier Turbo-prop airframe, with tiny jet engines....

Problem is with N428FJ is, that N-Number DID used to belong to a Dorner Turbo-prop:

FlightAware from March, 2007

Up there, you see N428FJ is listed, in 2007 as

Fairchild Dornier 328 (twin-turboprop) (D328/Q)


(Of course...FlightAware may also have mis-identified the airplane, because of the "328" designation confusion)....

Now here, another source for the N-Number:

N428FJ, and here it is assigned (but de-registered) to a Dornier 328-310 "JET"....so, hence the confusion, when tracking a particular N-Number. Surely you know that N-Numbers get re-assigned, yes?

So basically, Fairchild/Dornier originally produced the model "328" as a turbo-prop, then later updated that basic version by changing the propulsion to a small turbofan jet engine...but, they kept the"328" designation.

No wonder it's so confusing for big airplane pilots unfamiliar with all the iterations of the "Barbie Jets" out there in the commuter airline industry.......

edit on Thu 23 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Rafe_
 



Still no answer from bird?


The question was confusing.....because I posted videos showing high-speed, low altitude jets....the link to the thread point that was referenced by the "former" questioner linked to a post by GoodOldDave, and not to any videos by "weedwhacker".


So, here is my post link, again:

Post from Page 3

Satisfied??



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Proud bird... you rock!!!!

Any doubts that people have should have been cleared up with your evidence

and for those quote pilots (the non real ones) go play your copy of Modern Warfare 3 for a bit and realize that the C (or AC-130 for those "pilots) the C1-30 makes 25 degree banks....

andddd guess what it doesn't have... No i'll let you guess...

anyways great post.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkm1864
There is something wrong with people that don't question the official account of 9/11. Maybe these people watch to much Television and need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. I don't know what it is but if You really look into it its hard not to think something is really fishy.


Politicians know that the general public will almost always by any "official story" that they are told, especially when they see it happen live, on the news.

The people screaming to Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11 that "don't tell me it didn't happen like they said, I saw the planes fly into the towers on the news" are exactly the sort of people that Governments just LOVE.

"People will believe anything so long as you repeat it often enough" - Herman Goering.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beldy

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Rafe_
 


That airline went out of business in 2002. All Reheat said was that Robby had flown "mostly Cessna's" and that he appeared not to have rating now. The latter appears to be true, the former an exaggeration. But not by much - I doubt Balsamo has ever flown a large passenger jet of the kind used on 9/11.


I just want to point out a couple things.

First is Atlantic Coast Airlines did NOT go out of business in 2002. It flew until 2004 at which time it's name changed to Independence Air. Independence Air finally went out of business in 2006.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.law.utk.edu...

Second thing is the aircraft that is listed on the dispatch release in this thread has a tail number of N428FJ which is a jet, not a turboprop. It's no where near the size of a 757/767 but it is indeed a jet.





So, a copy of one dispatch release that lists him as a crew member? Big whoop......if you notice, his name location (bracketed between to blacked-out names above and below) indicate that he was a First Officer, at the time. Captain's name on top, F/O in the middle, and the one lone Flight Attendant on the bottom. That is standard crew listing order, most companies. Each company's Dispatch Release is differently formatted, though.


What does it matter if he was a Captain or FO? They are both pilots. In fact, sometimes the FO is actually more experienced than the Captain. I'm not saying this is the case here but to hint that just because he is a FO and not a Captain he is somehow less qualified is not right.



The "J328" is probably the 'short hand' code for the Dornier 328. Although, I have other references showing the proper coding for that airplane type is "D328"....but, I don't know much about those smaller turbo props....never bothered to learn them.


Again, the aircraft listed on the dispatch release is a jet. I'm just pointing this out because as I read your post I felt as if you were trying to hint that RB flew turboprops only.

In the end it doesn't really matter what kind of plane he flew. But what does matter is that you guys are so adamant that your version of the events is the one and only true version, not everything you post is correct.

BTW I am NOT RB. I do not know him, I do not belong to his website.





This posts certainly makes the " believers" look quite ridiculous now (more then usual). "believers" like Proudbird,goo'olldave and the rest of the crew of course.

You have just shown in one post how much they have lied about these points you just made on these boards , they do not even have a rebutal.

KUDO'S


And thus so far we still have only 1 confirmed REAL pilot on here and that is Rob balsamo, interesting fact.





edit on 23-2-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join