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.

 

UA 175 - Pilots Discuss WTC Attack

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
wow.
i've not laughed that hard since the first wayne's world.
wheedwhacker's no slouch tho.

Agreed. I have a lot of respect for old Tim. More so than just about any other official government story believer. He's ok, even if he does get a little emotional and melodramatic, at times.

In another, older thread, weedwhacker did state that he wanted to have a chat with Ralph, to ask him about the Pentagon flight path.

From one retired pilot to another, I bet they would have an interesting conversation.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Russ Wintenburg, another pilot on record, who flew the ACTUAL plane alleged to have hit the south tower, has indicated that he could not have controlled it at that speed and altitude. According to him, if I'm not mistaken by my memory of his testimony (I'm not a pilot) the controls actually stiffen and become unresponsive..


I think you may mean Rusty Aimer? I'm not sure if Russ flew that exact
aircraft, but it's possible.

As for the controls, it's not as though they would "stiffen" up; they would
reach their maximum travel and lose their effectiveness. That would
render the controls unresponsive as you mention.


No he means this commercial pilot with years and years of flight experience. He claims a novice pilot could not possibly make these complex manuevers in a 767 / 757.



Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Origin




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Originally posted by hooper



Does it bother you in the least that of the millions of pilots out there, just these handful THINK it is impossible. Just something to think about. If it really was as obvious as these folks say then I would think you would have heard from more than what - a half dozen self proclaimed "experts"?


Silence does not equal proof of anything, what is a good pointer here however is the amount of pilots that state how possible it would have been.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Originally posted by hooper



Does it bother you in the least that of the millions of pilots out there, just these handful THINK it is impossible. Just something to think about. If it really was as obvious as these folks say then I would think you would have heard from more than what - a half dozen self proclaimed "experts"?


Silence does not equal proof of anything, what is a good pointer here however is the amount of pilots that state how possible it would have been.


Sorry, but silence can be proof. If a new vaccined is introduced and Drs. administer it without comment does that mean nothing? Again the narrative of 911 is out there and no pilots association has gone on record to disagree with the findings, that has weight and meaning.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by HennyPen
 


Very cool, I didn't know he flew those very same planes as well.

So there are two core pilots at P4T that had time in each of the aircraft
we are discussing.

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
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)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com


[edit on 1-10-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

...the narrative of 911 is out there and no pilots association has gone on record to disagree with the findings, that has weight and meaning.

Well to me this says more about the politics of pilots associations rather than what individual members may or may not believe.

Anyway, the OP is an informative radio interview. Well worth a listen.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

posted by HennyPen

Perhaps you have large databases of pilots and architects and government officials and military officers and other professionals who publicly support the 911 officail storyline?


posted by _BoneZ_

It's just a cop-out that government loyalists and deniers use so they don't have to do any actual explaining or proofing. They think that just because all of the architects or pilots or scientists of the world haven't publicly stated an opinion one way or another, then that automatically means they believe the official story.

This is the sad and typical logic we get from the government loyalists and deniers. It's no wonder they can't see that 9/11 was an inside job.



So are any of these government loyalist expert pilots going to follow up on this and provide links to large databases of pilots and architects and government officials and military officers and other professionals who publicly support the 911 official storyline?

You guys like to brag that the deep silence emanating from hundreds of thousands, nay millions, of professionals worldwide means they approve of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY official storyline.

So prove it. Back up your illusions with fact. We have provided large groups who publicly reject the official fantasy tale. So you provide us with some large groups of professionals who publicly accept the official storyline.

NIST and FEMA and UnPopular Mechanics and Purdue U and Integrated Consultants with professional disinformation specialist Mike J Wilson do not count because they are all paid to support the official fairy tale.

Some experienced ATCs on their radars, thought Hani Hanjour was a skilled fighter pilot flying a military aircraft. Give us some large groups of pilots who agree that the official flight paths of Flights 11, 175, and 77 could have been easily flown by novices, rookies, Cessna rejects, idiots who couldn't even maintain professional covert team security standards.

Surely that would be an easy task for people devoted to the truth.




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, but silence can be proof. If a new vaccined is introduced and Drs. administer it without comment does that mean nothing?

Avoid, dodge, deflect...

Would you like to stick with the thread topic? It's not about doctors or vaccines, it's about pilots discussing the WTC attack.


Originally posted by hooper
Again the narrative of 911 is out there and no pilots association has gone on record to disagree with the findings, that has weight and meaning.

Wrong. P4T has gone on record disagreeing with the findings.

hooper, your illogical claims are about as silly as I have read.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

posted by turbofan

Official Trailer of latest Pilots for 911 Truth Presentation





Just watched the screening of the full version of 9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK, which the trailer above was made for, and it was really well done.

I am more convinced than ever that alleged hijacker pilots who could not even competently pilot Cessnas at 65 knots could not possibly have piloted the three aircraft into the WTC Towers and the Pentagon.

No way did novice pilots successfully fly those heavy commercial aircraft at high speeds into the 208 foot wide WTC Towers.

Here is a different video along the same subject. Just a taste of how difficult it would be for Boeing 767s to impact the WTC Towers in the hands of inexperienced pilots.



So were the WTC aircraft remote-piloted by highly experienced pilots?



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 on tnrlive.com.

source



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Wrong. P4T has gone on record disagreeing with the findings.


PfT is a pilot's association? Since when? Its a club! Anyone can join...you don't have to be a pilot - as long as you lack the intellectual acumen necessary for critical thinking skills, you TOO can be a PfT Sky King!

If you'd like to compare PfT with ...say....the Air Line Pilots Association (you know, that association of airline pilots that Cap't Bob has successfully lobbied to support their cockamamie claims - oh wait - he either hasn't had the cojones to do that or he's been shot down in flames), go right ahead. Comparing the two "organizations" ought to be interesting.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
PfT is a pilot's association? Since when?

P4T is an association of people that has a core group of pilots who support its charter - to discover the truth about 9/11.

That's about as simple as I can make it for you, trebor.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:



Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."
100777.com...




Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”
www.the7thfire.com...




Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”
www.willthomas.net...




Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”
www.whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
PfT is a pilot's association? Since when?

P4T is an association of people that has a core group of pilots who support its charter - to discover the truth about 9/11.

That's about as simple as I can make it for you, trebor.


a few posts back you deemed "Wrong" a statement that "no pilots association has gone on record to disagree with the findings". You further stated "P4T has gone on record disagreeing with the findings", which by direct implication shows you believe P4T a "pilots association.

Now you call it an "association of people"

What is P4T? People or pilots? Do you care about specificity in the words you write? Is it indeed an association? a club? a guild? A union? Do they have by-laws? Pay dues? Is there a social hiearchy? A governing board? How are decisions made regarding the direction the "association" or "club" ends up going? If it is only where Cap't Bob want sit to go, how can you call this an "association" of people OR pilots when only one or two people control the entire program?

Is it people or pilots?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Reply to SPreston


So were the WTC aircraft remote-piloted by highly experienced pilots?



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 on tnrlive.com.

source



I can't watch the video so no comment there.
But ---.and I know you never give Tom Flocco credence with his A 3 scenario which should get more air time here on ATS than it does.
If for no other reason than to discuss the missing Raytheon executives. The only attention it gets is a half witted un founded rebuttal from some wacky commercial pilot.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Star and Flag turbo.
On the radio thread I especially liked a comment I saw about flying high speed close to the ground.
Although 911 related it addresses the Pentagon flight debate quite well.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451Is it people or pilots?


Some are pilots which are people. Some are people that are pilots.

some are people that are aero engineers. Some are people that are
acc. investigators. Some are people that are techs. Some are people
that are aircraft mechanics. Some are people that just want to learn
more about 9/11 from core professionals that are registered at www.FAA.gov.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



I wonder if Trebor knows about the latest additions to the core list?

Gee, that list keeps getting bigger and more impressive. I wonder why
that is?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
There is a lot of support here.

From Veterans for 9/11 Truth
www.v911t.org...
www.boston911truth.org...
A founder of Veterans For 911Truth, Alfons Olszewski will briefly address the gathering
link to talk: www.v911t.org...

Sunday October, 11, 2009:
Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
in Boston at Harvard Square



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I wonder if Trebor knows about the latest additions to the core list?

Gee, that list keeps getting bigger and more impressive. I wonder why
that is?


"Impressive" is a relative word, TF. It means different things to people. You and Cap't Bob and the rest of the club members all think each other are "impressive". Most everyone else in the world are...shall we say less than impressed with your "impressiveness". Your (the collective "your") intellectual reach is limited, your aeronautical knowledge is suspect (to say the least with your inability to understand standard published departures, flight procedures around prohibited areas, NOTAMS, etc). Your claims of "expertise" (which is an offshoot of your self-professed claims of being "impressive") amount to nothing more than lots of flight hours. Ask John Lear if his bajillion flight hours makes his claims of Moon bases and aliens telling the Apollo astronauts not to return to the moon any more legit.

What *would* be impressive is if some mainstream aviation/aeronautical organization like ALPA or IFALPA or some other organization of professional aviators and aeronautical people would buy into your snake oil. The fact they aren't tells you WHAT? As was mentioned before, Cap't Bob has either been shot down in flames by these organizations or he hasn't the backbone to take his absurd concoction to them to ask for their support.

Impressive? In your own world. I'm certainly not impressed in any way.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by trebor451]



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join