Let's find a Level D Simulator, and re-create the 9/11 flights.

Originally posted by GenRadek


But wait, I thought it was. Everyone was making such a big deal that its so impossible to crash into the Pentagon after making a large turn, and here we have a newbie do it three times. But you stick your fingers in your ear and shout and try to drown it out, because the person did not fly the exact same flightpath or impact in the exact same spot on the Pentagon. Sheesh, and what will happen if someone will manage to do it?
The newbie managed to fly very close to the actual flight path. But because it wasnt exact, it means nothing? jeeze

General... PHIXER is Roger.. AKA Ultima1.. You will be beating your head against the wall trying to have a discussion with him.

reply to post by ImAPepper


Hm i knew i felt something familiar behind those words. The all CApS should have been a giveaway!

Pentagon Simulation

The link that I posted pretty much made up my mind on the subject of if a 757 hit the Pentagon. The video of the guy in the simulator confirmed the rest.

Think about one thing where the PFT guys are concerned. Their training is based on operating their aircraft safely. They have spent years doing this and are probably very good at it. I'd say the same for weedwacker. After spending so much time doing it right, there might be a subconscious hinderence at doing it wrong. The hijackers had no such hinderence. As far as simulators go, they can only follow their programming. Air Canada had a plane (I think it was a 767) run out of gas inflight. The pilot glided it to a safe landing. When they tried to recreate it in a simulator, it couldn't be done.

No I'm not a pilot. I do have a mechanic's license.

Originally posted by GenRadek
But wait, I thought it was. Everyone was making such a big deal that its so impossible to crash into the Pentagon after making a large turn, and here we have a newbie do it three times.

No the actual debate is about how difficult it would be for someone with very few hours of flight time to do what was done according to the FDR from AA77 on 9/11.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
General... PHIXER is Roger.. AKA Ultima1.. You will be beating your head against the wall trying to have a discussion with him.

Thanks for showning that you have to attack me because you cannot debate with facts and evidence.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
[The link that I posted pretty much made up my mind on the subject of if a 757 hit the Pentagon. The video of the guy in the simulator confirmed the rest.

Its just too bad that you have no real facts and evidence since the FBI/NTSB crime reports have not been released.

Originally posted by PHIXER2


Thanks for showning that you have to attack me because you cannot debate with facts and evidence.

Hi Roger,

I wasn't attacking you, sir. I was forewarning the General so that he would not get baited into a 12 page discussion with you that will go no where. Any word on that FOIA file for the flight 93 Critic?

Thank you,

Dr. P

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Hi Roger,

I wasn't attacking you, sir. I was forewarning the General so that he would not get baited into a 12 page discussion with you that will go no where.

Yes you did attack me and yes i can post facts and evidnece. Why do you have to lie?

Its you and others that still believe the official story that have not actual facts and evidence only what you have been told.

By the way several pilots on Pilots for 9/11 truth have pretty much debunked the sim video.



[edit on 17-10-2009 by PHIXER2]

Originally posted by PHIXER2

Originally posted by JIMC5499
[The link that I posted pretty much made up my mind on the subject of if a 757 hit the Pentagon. The video of the guy in the simulator confirmed the rest.

Its just too bad that you have no real facts and evidence since the FBI/NTSB crime reports have not been released.

Yes it is too bad. That puts me in the same situation as you.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ImAPepper

 

I watched the vid. Three tries, three hits. Plain as day. Amazing how so called "experts" and "fighter pilots" couldn't hit the Twin Towers, but a newbie could, three times, on a target that was a fraction of the size of the WTCs.

I was just wondering how you all respond to this...

Dont know speed... (they claim 800 km/h, but they dont show it), dont know exact maneuver he performed... dont know type of configuration.. dont know weather conditions for the day.. dont know his experience level (can he control a 172?), no poles, no topography, no annex.

They admit the "inexperienced pilot" had "practice" as they claim "Hani probably did". The crash logic was also disabled on the aircraft (obviously, as the aircraft kept flying through the pentagon), disabling any factors due to excessive speed. Overspeed warning also disabled which is a huge distraction for any pilot, experienced or not.

It also looks like a Level B or C simulator.. in which you cannot get a rating in because it doesn't behave like the real thing. A Level D you can get a rating in.

Also...he hit the top northwest corner of the building which would have spread wreckage everywhere, unlike the alleged object that hit the pentagon which left very little wreckage. The second hit plowed into the front lawn and foundation. No such damage is observed at the pentagon. The third time looks like a more direct hit.


Bottom line.. it took him 3 tries on video to get it right. How many times did he practice prior as the video admits? The sim crash logic being disabled is a major factor as the sim would have crashed long before getting to the pentagon due to excessive speed. The overspeed warning also being disabled is another major factor as its a huge distraction to the pilot while flying. This video is for those deniers out there that will find any excuse to believe in the official story and hold onto it as gospel.

-Rob Balsamo

Do not waste my time attacking the source. Attack the statements in it. I do not know if they are all true but the crash logic obviously turned off.

I was hoping I could get a response to this
. . .

I just have to point out two things about the twin towers falling. The design has each floor as an inner box and an outer box. Bundles of vertical beams are part of the inner box and support the weight of the building. The beams are long, traversing a number of floors.

The heat caused the beams to collapse at the point of impact. The weight of the floors above the point of impact fell. That much weight, with the momentum of falling the distance of a whole floor, was devastating.

The illustration i thought of involves driving a nail into a board. You can drive a nail part way into a board with just a couple blows of a one pound hammer. Yet, if you put that board on the floor and then stood on the head of the nail, it doesn't budge. You can put several hundred pounds of force on it, and it doesn't budge. A one pound dynamic hammer can drive the nail when a couple hundred of static weight does not. Instead of a one pound hammer, picture a hammer that is the weight of the floors above the point of impact. That's a big frikkin hammer!

The other factor is the vertical bundles of beams. They were bolted together, but the strength of those bolts is a small fraction of the strength of the beams themselves. When the beams at the point of impact failed, it was like splitting a piece of kindling with a hatchet. The collapse of the upper levels split the beam bundles, destroying their weight bearing capacity.

The combination of the split beam bundles and the tremendous momentum of the falling upper floors made for a very rapid collapse.

Could it have been caused by explosives? I suppose. But it certainly didn't need to be.

Thanks in advance

[edit on 18-10-2009 by mxridr618]

reply to post by mxridr618


That's really off topic for this particular thread and I think it's worthy of its own thread if you can provide a link to the source of that summary. It's pretty much in line with the observations of many of us as to what happened but don't expect to get concensus on it

Originally posted by Lillydale


I was just wondering how you all respond to this...

Dont know speed... (they claim 800 km/h, but they dont show it),

Did Captain Bob write them and ask? Perhaps there was a "directors cut"?

dont know exact maneuver he performed... dont know type of configuration.. dont know weather conditions for the day.. dont know his experience level (can he control a 172?), no poles, no topography, no annex.

don't know, don't know , don't know. This is all Balsamo states. Has he followed up with the producers of this video? Probably not. Balsamo in another snake oil salesman.

They admit the "inexperienced pilot" had "practice" as they claim "Hani probably did".

He had some experience in small planes and in flight sims. Just like Hani did. I don't see a problem here.

The crash logic was also disabled on the aircraft (obviously, as the aircraft kept flying through the pentagon), disabling any factors due to excessive speed. Overspeed warning also disabled which is a huge distraction for any pilot, experienced or not.

Crash logic. I am guessing here, but he is probably right. It appears he goes right through it.

As far as excessive speed? I can't tell you. What I can tell you is that they received a warning that his roll angle was too great. (4:45 of the video)

It also looks like a Level B or C simulator.. in which you cannot get a rating in because it doesn't behave like the real thing. A Level D you can get a rating in.

"looks like"? Did Captain Bob verify this? Does he know that this operation took place at the National Aerospace Laboratory?

Also...he hit the top northwest corner of the building which would have spread wreckage everywhere, unlike the alleged object that hit the pentagon which left very little wreckage. The second hit plowed into the front lawn and foundation. No such damage is observed at the pentagon. The third time looks like a more direct hit.

So, Balsamo admits that he hit the Pentagon after making the maneuvers some of his pilots claim they could not do?

Bottom line.. it took him 3 tries on video to get it right.

No, bottom line, he hit the Pentagon three times. This test was too see if he could maneuver the plane and crash it into the Pentagon with limited flight experience.

How many times did he practice prior as the video admits?

The video admits he had practice in a flight sim and flying light weight planes. It did not say he practiced the flight path of flight 77.

The sim crash logic being disabled is a major factor as the sim would have crashed long before getting to the pentagon due to excessive speed. The overspeed warning also being disabled is another major factor as its a huge distraction to the pilot while flying.

I can't say perhaps one of the pilots here can comment further on what logic can and can't be disabled. Again, at 4:45 a roll angle warning went off, so I'm not sure what was and wasn't disabled. Neither does Balsamo.

Oh, and how distracted are you from alarms when you are trying to crash a plane?

This video is for those deniers out there that will find any excuse to believe in the official story and hold onto it as gospel.

-Rob Balsamo

Bob is a character.



[edit on 18-10-2009 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by Lillydale

I was just wondering how you all respond to this...

Dont know speed... (they claim 800 km/h, but they dont show it), dont know exact maneuver he performed... dont know type of configuration.. dont know weather conditions for the day.. dont know his experience level (can he control a 172?), no poles, no topography, no annex.

They admit the "inexperienced pilot" had "practice" as they claim "Hani probably did". The crash logic was also disabled on the aircraft (obviously, as the aircraft kept flying through the pentagon), disabling any factors due to excessive speed. Overspeed warning also disabled which is a huge distraction for any pilot, experienced or not.

It also looks like a Level B or C simulator.. in which you cannot get a rating in because it doesn't behave like the real thing. A Level D you can get a rating in.

Also...he hit the top northwest corner of the building which would have spread wreckage everywhere, unlike the alleged object that hit the pentagon which left very little wreckage. The second hit plowed into the front lawn and foundation. No such damage is observed at the pentagon. The third time looks like a more direct hit.


Bottom line.. it took him 3 tries on video to get it right. How many times did he practice prior as the video admits? The sim crash logic being disabled is a major factor as the sim would have crashed long before getting to the pentagon due to excessive speed. The overspeed warning also being disabled is another major factor as its a huge distraction to the pilot while flying. This video is for those deniers out there that will find any excuse to believe in the official story and hold onto it as gospel.

-Rob Balsamo

Do not waste my time attacking the source. Attack the statements in it. I do not know if they are all true but the crash logic obviously turned off.

Did you or someone else call this hogwash debunking? One could get the impression that Balsamo doesn't want this to be successful. Yet, on his Web Site he states that he has no theory and no conclusions.

He has Dutch speaking people in his little cult, so I wonder why he didn't clarify all of these questions he has? After all, he is in pursuit of the truth, isn't he?

The video outlined the maneuver at the beginning. It was the approximate 330 degree turn shown on Radar and then direct toward the Pentagon. Weather? What? Is he suggesting that it should not have been clear skies and light winds?

Poles, topography, annex????? The amateur hit the Pentagon in spite of these artistic enhancements, didn't he? Three times, no less.

Why is the experience level and prior practice even a question? Hani had an FAA Commercial Pilot's Certificate with some 700 hours of flight time in his log book and simulator time. Does Balsamo think this amateur should have had more practice, so he could do it better?

Why is he worried about the certification level of the simulator and enhancements when pffft experiments were an attempt to land on an aircraft carrier?

He commits the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" by assuming Hani hit where he intended to.

The comments on the amount of wreckage is ignorant speculation, a distortion, and irrelevant to this experiment.

The comments on speed are pure speculation as is the lack of distraction from an overspeed warning for someone who's intent is to crash. It is laughable comedy.

What was that about debunking again?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Reheat]

reply to post by Lillydale



I HAVE to chip in here....*sigh*

The crash logic was also disabled on the aircraft (obviously, as the aircraft kept flying through the pentagon)...

I am uncertain as to Rob Balsamo's extensive experince in Full Motion Simulators...

As I have repeatedly (and often ignored, it seems) stated...any simulator with the MOTION ON also includes what we can describe, per 'Balsamo', as "CRASH LOGIC"

Allow me to make this VERY clear---it is designed to PROTECT the simulator device from damage, should a "crash" occur during a simulated flight.

The simulator is a sophisticated machine....and it provides as many "BUMPS" as it can, and tries to anticipate and simulate (within reason) any 'G' forces....all to fool the inner ear of the pilots flying it...

(Military has WAY more advanced Sims....up to and to include WAY more advanced "INITIAL" G-force onset, which, by use of subtle cues (including the inherent NEED of the pilot to 'believe' while he's flying, based on past experience) keeps the "illusion" going...

OF COURSE, any occupant of a SIMULATOR who is not FULLY IMMERSED in the ezxperioence, will NOT "buy into" the scenario....

This is not a secret, except (or unless) it is explained to those who HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED what I'm describing.

ON that topic, let me ask a quick question:

Has anyone ever been to DisnyLand, DisneyWorld or any of the various Universal Theme Parks, and had one of those immersive "rides"???

You know...they bounce you around, and they project a visual for you to see SO THAT IT makes you feel like you're IN THE (spacehip/fighter jet) or whatever thay are simulating???

Been there? Done that???

OK...NOW REAL simulators ARE NOT a "game" (although, if you aren't there for training or checking purposes, you could consider them to be the ultimate video game...WITH MOTION!)

Still....IF you wish to re-create a "crash" of any sort, you turn off the motion....lest you damage the equipment.

OH, and the funniest part of a response up above???


I saw the video clip. THAT WAS A LEVEL 'D' SIMULATOR....

It wasn't shown IN the clip...but I could tell...DAYLIGHT VISUAL simulation.

The cockpit was NOT exactly representative of the 9/11 airplanes...it was MORE advanced!!!!

It was a more 'glass cockpit', with MFDs,,,,more like a B767-400 or similar...

OR, if some airlines opted for the more advanced configuration, in late B757 purchases.....





, disabling any factors due to excessive speed. Overspeed warning also disabled which is a huge distraction for any pilot, experienced or not.

It also looks like a Level B or C simulator.. in which you cannot get a rating in because it doesn't behave like the real thing. A Level D you can get a rating in.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I'm a little late to this thread. I am not sure if this video has been posted.
At 4:40, there is an amature pilot that flys the flight 77 path.

Watch the video to see if he is capable! (subtitles)

It is not based on data; The crash logic was disabled; The over-speed warnings were disabled; They did not include topographical obstacles; The light poles on Washington Blvd are non-existent, and, most importantly, the simulator is not a 757! All of these are major factors when attempting to recreate a real-life maneuver which Pilots For 9/11 Truth have shown, based on data, is impossible.

The Dutch simulation test was performed prior to the release of the Flight Data Recorder information, so clearly the Dutch researchers did not have any scientific data to examine the maneuver, nor implement the maneuver properly.

source

reply to post by Lillydale


What we have is what is called a "proof of concept"

Idea is to see if minimally trained individual could actually do such a
maneuver - was able to pull it off 3 times with bit of coaching

Hijackers held private pilot license (Hanjour had a commercial license)

All had familarity with 767/757 cocpits and controls

What WEEDWACKER is saying makes sense - get a D level simulator, have someone with similar skill set as hijackers see if can fly same profile

reply to post by Lillydale


"Lilly", just so I can clear up a few things.....

It is not based on data;

IF HE MEANS it wasn't based on the EXACT data from the American Airlines 77 SSFDR...WHO CARES???!!!???????

MY WHOLE POINT, of the OP, was to show how it is EASY to re-create the flights of 9/11...NOT EXACTLY!!!! Of course...!!!!

How stupid is it to assume that the EXACT flight tracks have to be re-created EXACTLY to prove a point?????

The crash logic was disabled

Of COURSE it was disabled!!! OTHERWISE the simulator would FREEZE!! Now, Mr. Rob Balsamo, IF he actually ever flew a real simulator, would know this....yet he tries to squirm away, and try to imply....whatever.....

The over-speed warnings were disabled

OBVIOUSLY they were!!!! SO WHAT????

Let's do it again, and not pull the circuit breakers to disable the O/S Warns....OK? Would that help? Would it make conversation, as we describe what's happening any easier????

They did not include topographical obstacles; The light poles on Washington Blvd are non-existent, and, most importantly, the simulator is not a 757!

OK...one point...the SIM is NOT a B757...I will grant him that. HOWEVER, the Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 are a COMMON TYPE RATING...they are designed to be very, very similar, so that the FAA will accept that they are "close enough" to be considered "ONE" airplane, for the purooses of qualifications.

And, yes..the Simulator did NOT depict the light poles...SO WHAT??????

At the speed f AAL 77, the light poles, because of momentum and trajectory, would have had minimal infuence....check your basic physics textbook, please!!!

All of these are major factors when attempting to recreate a real-life maneuver which Pilots For 9/11 Truth have shown, based on data, is impossible.

P4t KEEP CLINGING TO what is only "their" interpretation....of the SSFDR NTSB animated data...see? THAT is the problem!!!!

P4T keeps 'talking' about the 'CSV' files, but they HAVE NEVER PUT THEM PUT in a format that everyone can readily read....WHY????




[edit on 21 October 2009 by weedwhacker]