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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
What's going on is, that proudbird/Weedwacker some time ago ventured over to P4T trying to 'show off', to 'grandstand and to impress'.

After several post exchanges, (then) 'Weedwacker' found himself to be completely humiliated, and left the forum with his tail between the legs.

Since then, Weedwacker has left no opportunity go by to send venom and vomit toward members of P4T.

Weedwacker has simply been engaging himself in an infantile narrow-minded hate campaign ever since.

We all feel sorry for him, really.

Cheers



Yeah i heard about it.It is a sad sad case really.
It explains why he doesn't dare to go one on one with Kolstad.

I have yet to see anything he or anyone else for that matter posted that discredits the opinion of the real pilots.So far the thread has convinced people more and more of the fabricated 9/11 official reports.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


What I find interesting about that graph up there in your post is that apparently, 450 knots is the absolute last edge of structural failure. For a 767. For a 757, it's about 440 knots, or so I am told. Now what's so horribly wrong about that?

Well to me, if those structural limits are set from tests in a wind tunnel, where air is coming directly head on in a controlled environment, wouldn't the ACTUAL structural failure limits be lower in a case where we have the plane under severe lateral stress, in ADDITION to the already imposed 462 knots? And that's if we don't even count Warren Stuts last 4 second analysis, bringing that all the way up to 488 knots or so!

I fail to see how the VMO argument loses so much credibility under these circumstances, just because some people don't like Rob and crew. Rob has been very nice to me, replied very quickly to questions, never asked me for a stinking dime, and I have no idea why all the vitriol. I will not be dragged into that, from either side. I want no part of it. I want facts and figures and sane thinking.

Do you know how hard it is to control a car once a wheel goes over the road edge at high speeds? A race car driver is probably used to it, and knows exactly what to do to not lose it. But that's on a racetrack with smooth shoulders. In the real world, head on collisions happen all the time when this situation occurs and the driver over corrects, causing the car to come flying out into the middle of the road and BAM.

And my point is that I am not convinced that the control argument is moot, at all. I have serious doubts, as do they at P4T, that an inexperienced pilot could have pulled that off, crashing into light poles and generators, and even avoiding the overpass sign on approach. Not to mention pulling off that perfect 270 and descent, straight to target. Sounds a lot more like a homing device in the pentagon and a remote controlled plane to me. Convince me with argument, not with vitriol towards one another.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


What I find interesting about that graph up there in your post is that apparently, 450 knots is the absolute last edge of structural failure. For a 767. For a 757, it's about 440 knots, or so I am told. Now what's so horribly wrong about that?

Well to me, if those structural limits are set from tests in a wind tunnel, where air is coming directly head on in a controlled environment, wouldn't the ACTUAL structural failure limits be lower in a case where we have the plane under severe lateral stress, in ADDITION to the already imposed 462 knots? And that's if we don't even count Warren Stuts last 4 second analysis, bringing that all the way up to 488 knots or so!

I fail to see how the VMO argument loses so much credibility under these circumstances, just because some people don't like Rob and crew. Rob has been very nice to me, replied very quickly to questions, never asked me for a stinking dime, and I have no idea why all the vitriol. I will not be dragged into that, from either side. I want no part of it. I want facts and figures and sane thinking.

Do you know how hard it is to control a car once a wheel goes over the road edge at high speeds? A race car driver is probably used to it, and knows exactly what to do to not lose it. But that's on a racetrack with smooth shoulders. In the real world, head on collisions happen all the time when this situation occurs and the driver over corrects, causing the car to come flying out into the middle of the road and BAM.

And my point is that I am not convinced that the control argument is moot, at all. I have serious doubts, as do they at P4T, that an inexperienced pilot could have pulled that off, crashing into light poles and generators, and even avoiding the overpass sign on approach. Not to mention pulling off that perfect 270 and descent, straight to target. Sounds a lot more like a homing device in the pentagon and a remote controlled plane to me. Convince me with argument, not with vitriol towards one another.


im not 100% sure but if i designed the aircraft im sure to factor in some sort of safety margin. it may say 450knots at max velocity before structural damage but maybe actually upwards of 550knots is the true number.

like i said im not sure about aircrafts, but most other objects have safety margins engineered into them.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by snowcrash911
The fact that some of these people at P4T still work in aviation worries me greatly; I fear for the safety of the passengers who entrust their lives to these people.


It actually confirms their credibility.
...You can stop spinning it now


You show me your posts at the real pilot forums, such as airliners.net or pprune.org (Where Balsamo is banned by the way, wow, what a surprise), where you argue your Pentagon BS, and then show me you got any respect from your peers for it.

Good luck 'confirming' your credibility with widespread acceptance of your conspiracy claims at forums with pilots who aren't forced to conform to Balsamo's tyrannical whim.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
im not 100% sure but if i designed the aircraft im sure to factor in some sort of safety margin. it may say 450knots at max velocity before structural damage but maybe actually upwards of 550knots is the true number.

like i said im not sure about aircrafts, but most other objects have safety margins engineered into them.


Well, if I am surmising the dispute correctly here, OS loyalists are arguing that 77 could have easily achieved those speeds at all altitudes involved without enough structural failure to make it all the way in. Rob and company however are arguing that there is some precedent from other airframe structural failures that shows that in this chart:



The yellow zone, not even the red zone on far right, IS the very safety margin that is built in. I am of the opinion at this point that if the aircraft exceeded even the far right red margin, chances are it could not have maintained that long enough to make it that far. Cause it would have at the very LEAST had some degree of structural failure.

If I was moderator of this debate, I would suggest OS loyalists show, through proof, that a stock 757 has endured these extreme stresses in the past. Not just a little over. But the same as the conditions here. If someone can show that, I would be more inclined to believe them. Otherwise, sorry. That was not a stock 757. Would have had to be structurally reinforced, and that implies a military connection.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


There's just one problem: the diagram is fake.

You were saying something about demands?

I demand you apologize for peddling a blatant hoax from a pack of unscrupulous liars.

How's that?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Rafe_
It actually confirms their credibility.
...You can stop spinning it now


You show me your posts at the real pilot forums, such as airliners.net or pprune.org (Where Balsamo is banned by the way, wow, what a surprise), where you argue your Pentagon BS, and then show me you got any respect from your peers for it.

Good luck 'confirming' your credibility with widespread acceptance of your conspiracy claims at forums with pilots who aren't forced to conform to Balsamo's tyrannical whim.


Bump for Rafe_... how's that 'credibility confirmation' assignment I gave you coming along?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
The post right below that says that it was not a fake, that you can make your own if you know the flight envelope numbers for the aircraft.

Are most readers even aware that:


At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured.


www.biggles-software.com...

So this thing is like WAY over, and not only are we expected to believe and accept that an inexperienced pilot is supposed be able to achieve what he did, but did it in EXTREME conditions, with plane about to break apart, fluttering wildly, virtually out of control, and clearly unmanageable. Yeah right. That's one hell of training school that guy ran down there, I'll say that much.

Or is it more simply what is likely: That was no inexperienced pilot, if there was any pilot at all. And that plane could NOT have been a stock 757.
edit on Tue Feb 14th 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
The post right below that says that it was not a fake, that you can make your own if you know the flight envelope numbers for the aircraft.


The post right below that is Rob Balsamo! What, you expected him to admit it?




Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Are most readers even aware that:


At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured.


www.biggles-software.com...


Since you're quote mining the very link I gave you, I'll repost it here, so you can't perform another contextomy:


It was faked to fool people. It is not a 767 Vg diagram. What weight and altitude is the Vg diagram for? Right, it is a fake diargram made up to fool people, done by a conspracy theoriests on 911. He took a generic Vg diagram and place a new axis on, the scale is off.

A generic Vg diagram was plagiarized and photo-shopped to support some conspiracy theory a plane can't go faster than Vmo, or Vd.

The generic Vg diagram was from this web site - www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com...

The link you supplied confirms the Vg diagram is fake.
www.biggles-software.com...



Boeing airplanes are certified to this rule. Therefore, intentional exceeding of Vmo/Mmo is not permitted in normal operations. Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured.

The fake Vg diagram has "structural failure" to the right, not exactly the Boeing official words, "normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured". Don't be fooled by the conspiracy theorists trying to make up false claims.


Source

Balsamo then tried, weakly, to defend his blatant fraud, but was met with an equally powerful response:


That is the same fake Vg diagram. Balsamo, the leader of pilots for truth, a silly conspiracy theorist group, faked the diagram (or you did). He took a generic Vg diagram and photoshopped in the legend. No matter how many times you show a fake Vg diagram, it will not be believed. The diagram has no weight. You confirm it is fake by saying it is for all weights and good up to 18,000 feet.

The other clue it is fake; not sourced from Boeing. Balsamo or you photoshopped it. The aircraft does not structurally fail at 420 knots 1 g flight at 18,000 feet. The legend does not line up properly.

Next time get the speed legend to line up with the grid on your fake diagrams. Please.

As explained in posts above, the diagram was faked using generic Vg diagrams. The fake 767 Vg diagram is not from Boeing Engineering. No legitimate source for the Vg diagram. RalphTheMouth was not a good source; was it sourced from him, or is A320 Balsamo?

Boeing 757 Boeing :: Vmo/Mmo Limitations Review


Source

...With no further response from Balsamo, who was later banned for repeated trolling, this time peddling his ACARS hoax.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So this thing is like WAY over,


However much it was, it wasn't enough to achieve the "instant mythical structural failure" promoted by Balsamo's fake diagram.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
and not only are we expected to believe and accept that an inexperienced pilot is supposed be able to achieve what he did, but did it in EXTREME conditions, with plane about to break apart, fluttering wildly, virtually out of control, and clearly unmanageable. Yeah right. That's one hell of training school that guy ran down there, I'll say that much.


And you're not saying much. Throughout the hijacking phase of AA 77's final moments, piloting was poor, as evidenced by the jerky, erratic handling in the DFDR data, and the ridiculous obstacle course knocked over before even crashing into the Pentagon, fluttering indeed:



Ending in severe longitudinal deceleration. What was the plane doing, surfing the fireball?


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Or is it more simply what is likely: That was no inexperienced pilot, if there was any pilot at all. And that plane could NOT have been a stock 757.


Nonsense. The DFDR was found on the scene, and so were DNA and 757 plane parts:




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
You were clearly not aware of the history of the diagram you were posting. You were posting a fraud peddled by Balsamo and you bought it hook line and sinker.

Why? And will you apologize for it?

There is no instant structural failure. Your beliefs are based upon vicious lies, disinformation, half-truths and sciolist technobabble.

A plane crashed into the Pentagon, the witnesses know this, they were there, and what's more, phone calls from AA 77 (which aren't 'fake' except in the deluded world of no plane theory) confirm it was hijacked.

Pentagon Witnesses: They Saw The Plane Hit!



Jesse Ventura's Voice Morphing Claims Debunked



And, last but not least, click the link:

Critique of David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Fake Calls Theory

All done. Next!

edit on 14-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


Or is it more simply what is likely: That was no inexperienced pilot, if there was any pilot at all. And that plane could NOT have been a stock 757.
edit on Tue Feb 14th 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


How can that possibly be more simple ? You have to account for the miraculous disappearance of the real AA 77. Body parts of passengers and crew and personal effects recovered at the Pentagon. Flight data recorder from AA 77 recovered at the Pentagon. Phone calls from AA 77 reporting hi-jacking. Where did your non stock Boeing come from ? Who flew it ? If modified who did it ? Far from being simple you are opening up a can of worms of staggering complexity.

I think the question of how did an inexperienced pilot cope with striking light poles and generator etc is really moot when you consider the time frame. The first lightpole hit was about 1000 ft from the impact point but the plane was then travelling over 800 ft per sec. So the whole thing from first pole to impact was just over a second. There was no time for fighting controls, the plane was an aimed missile at that point.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by snowcrash911
The fact that some of these people at P4T still work in aviation worries me greatly; I fear for the safety of the passengers who entrust their lives to these people.


It actually confirms their credibility.
...You can stop spinning it now


Credibility? WHAT credibility? The credibility established when Balsamo doesn't understand a standard published departure like Camp Springs 1 from a field like KADW?

The credibility established when Balsamo claims the aforementioned Camp Springs 1 departure out of Andrews would not be used in the morning because of "rush hour traffic" into DCA - forget the fact that when a departing ADW aircraft crosses DCA on a CS1 departure it is at or above 3,000 feet and climbing with any landing traffic over 2,500 feet below? (check the approach pubs)

The credibility established when Balsamo claims the cockpit door on N644AA was *never* opened on any transcontinental flight in the weeks prior to 9/11?

The credibility established when Balsamo has to pull his posts/discussion regarding ACARS because he is more screwed up than a rocket surgeon, a football bat and a soup sandwich combined?

The credibility established when Balsamo claims a 767 will break apart 1 knot over its "design limits"?

The credibility established when Balsamo's affidavit in that absolutely ludicrous April Gallop lawsuit supports the claim that "surface-to-air-missiles" at the Pentagon were "stood-down" when there have not been any "surface-to-air-missiles" at the Pentagon since the mid-60s??

The credibility established with Balsamo's support of that same lawsuit by a plaintiff claiming no plane hit the Pentagon which was filed AFTER she accepted monetary damaged from a lawsuit claiming a plane hit the Pentagon?

The credibility established when Balsamo can't get *one single* of the multiple dozens and dozens and dozens of worldwide aircraft, pilot, flight crew or maintenance unions, organizations or associations to back their ridiculous cause?

The credibility established when Balsamo and his "experienced" pilots say they couldn't hit a 1,300 foot tall/208 foot wide building, one of the tallest in the world, with an state-of-the-art airliner?

The credibility established by Balsamo when he claims AA77 should have "cartwheeled" into the Pentagon because that is what his remote controlled model aircraft does when its wing hits an obstacle?

Yeah....a whole truck load (clown car, actually) of credibility there. Balsamo oozes credibility. He is the very epitome of credibility. What was that? 11.2 gs?

Its no wonder every professional pilot organization discussion board has banned him and most of his coterie of Junior Flying Birdmen. I just hang around to see what he'll come up with next...cockpit footage of Elvis flying the plane, perhaps, with breathless announcements that "Our numbers are growing!!!!@@@!11"

Credibility. Please. Kolstad is an absolute laughing stock in the F-14/Navy fighter community.

Edited to add: Credibility....when Balsamo partners up with his fellow CIT clowns who claim frozen cadavers were trucked in the night before the Pentagon attack and were stashed throughout the damaged part of the building so when the "explosives" went off the bodies would be in place.

What was that you were saying about "credibility"?
edit on 14-2-2012 by trebor451 because: add CIT buffoonery



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


There's just one problem: the diagram is fake.

You were saying something about demands?

I demand you apologize for peddling a blatant hoax from a pack of unscrupulous liars.

How's that?


You are a joke.

From the link you posted


You cannot even get your links to agree with you



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Excellent summary of Cap'n Bob's career. I can just imagine Rafe's brain heating up as he tries to cope with rationalising every single one of those embarrassments.

You left out one though - when Balsamo claimed that several officers of the Airline Pilots' Association (or whatever it's called) were members of Pffft. Oddly enough it turned out that the actual number was zero.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by trebor451
 


Excellent summary of Cap'n Bob's career. I can just imagine Rafe's brain heating up as he tries to cope with rationalising every single one of those embarrassments.

You left out one though - when Balsamo claimed that several officers of the Airline Pilots' Association (or whatever it's called) were members of Pffft. Oddly enough it turned out that the actual number was zero.


Good catch. I remember that. The items we could post to document the absolute dearth of "credibility" with Balsamo and his PfT crew are legion. My bullet about not one of the gobs and gobs of air-related unions or organizations anywhere in the world....even those nations who *despise* the United States...having not endorsed PfT's clownish claims is good evidence of that. Balsamo and his PfT minions will claim these organizations are under the jack-booted heel and control of the CIA or the FBI or tbe FDA or the SPCA or the Pentagon or the Disney conglomerate or WalMart, but that is what we have come to expect. After all, ATS is a cover for the Pentagon Bloggers Division!

I learned a long time ago that any group, doesn't matter if they are professional or amateur or unskilled or what, will have their share of absolute lunatics that make a mockery of their claimed profession/organization. Call it a variation of the Peter Principle...the Trebor Tenet!



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join