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.

 

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

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I think the point was to see if someone could do it on any particular day, not necessarily that particular day. There was nothing special about the weather that day anyway; there was no storm, no severe wind gusts, etc. They could set the pressure to whatever they wanted to, and as long as the alt is set accordingly it would not make any significant difference. Now if they had done it in a thunderstorm, I would agree with you, but that was not the case.

BTW I was defending his stance on the topic because you specifically asked me about it. You were trying to discredit me by discrediting him. Not working out the way you thought though, so I guess now we have to flip to another tactic.


No...I was not trying to discredit anyone. He does it just fine himself. You jumping to his aid did it for you. I need not try anything. If I were to try, trust me I will discredit you through you. What is it you wanted credit for anyway? Not proving there is any reason I should believe you the he is a pilot?

Thanks for helping me add to my list of things that did not matter on September 11, 2001. We have aerodynamics, law of conservation, gravity, resistance, air pressure...etc. It is getting long.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



This test has already been done by several commercial airline pilots, and check airmen. One of which was an ex USAF pilot.



Once again....the P4T prople....in your very words "several"...that means, to me....LESS THAN TEN!!!!

SO WHAT if there were some Check Airmen...(and, YES, I know what they are...do you???)

I know quite a few OTHER Check Airmen who can fly very well, and given the proper set-up, could ALSO easily accomplish the same flying we saw on 9/11....EASILY!

So, your "several" pilots, including a few Check Airmen and an ex-USAF pilot could not fly the Sim into and hit the buildings??? Doesn't speak well for THEIR flying abilities, to me.

HOW was this situation set up??? WHERE were they, in the simulation???

Were they, as "Capt. John Lear" once famously proposed, simply 'frozen' at several miles out, at 1,000 feet, and told to "find the WTC Towers and hit them..."

Do any of you understand or comprehend the concept of how WRONG all that is???

The hijackers, the REAL hijackers that morning didn't have a 'freeze' button, they didn't have a 'slew' control....they were flying, KNEW where they were, judged from their vantage and THEN aimed.

Putting someone in a simulator, in a 'freeze' position, then "setting them loose' is NOT THE SAME!!!!

ALSO....I should have been more clear in describing a "Level D" simulator....this denotes NOT ONLY a landing certified device (which is, of course, not relevant to this event) but ALSO a fully 'daylight' simulation.

This is cutting-edge for civilian simulators...(I assume that the Military has had better, meaning more expensive, for years before it gets to us).....but some of that eventually trickles down...and the best visuals and best simulators toady incorporate a lot of that tech...hey! Wanna buy one for yourself?? Just need about $15-20 million....AND the support facility, the building and technicians to keep it running....hope you have a lot of money!

SO....these "several" Check-Airmen and ex-USAF pilots??? Just EXACTLY what simulator did THEY use, in this incredibly detailed and scientific "TEST" that they conducted???????


NOW....this bit makes me laugh, and throw up a little in my mouth....




The only time they could accomplish the 'mission' was to slow down to landing speeds and even then it was difficult.


....hold on....these very experienced pilots, to include "Check Airmen" and "ex-USAF" pilots....found it "difficult" to hit TOWERS wider than a RUNWAY??????? EVEN when they were at "landing speeds"....??????

Am I the only one who sees this as a load of....dump?


Keep in mind, these pilots have tens of thousands of hours in a 757/767!



Once again....I have THOUSANDS OF HOURS, and I guess I'm better than them.

Learned to fly in a Cessna...the 150. time in the 172, 182, 210, 206, 207. Oh, and the 'Cardinal'...its designation is '177'...and the '177RG'. Oh! And, the 182 ALSO has a retractible version, the '182RG'.

Never got to fly the Skymaster (336 or 337)

Back to the old days...aerobatics in a Decathlon (Bellanca). AND in the Cessna 150 'Aerobat'...this in the early 1980s. (Parachutes are 'required' to be worn...although TRAINING on them isn't...go figure!)

Beechs...(Beechcraft, no 'Raytheon' - owned....still some of the best-built General Aviation airplanes out there...)

The V models, and there are many, depending on year built. The F-33, A-36....my family owned a B-55 (a 'Baron'---it's a twin). The Beech B-58 is essentionally the twin version of the A-36. I flew, actually instructed a guy wealthy enough to have purchased, back then, a pressurized Baron...looking back on it, it was cool....but now, I sorta laugh. Point of that was just to be able to operate above 10,000 feet WITHOUT supplemental O2 for over 30 minutes....but the aairplane STILL used the same turbo-charged engines as a regular Baron....and the fuel savings weren't that great, UNLESS you found great tailwinds....

I flew (first job after flight instructing for 'several' years) twin Cessnas, Grand Canyon tours....(I was still prety young, back then....but old enough.

Various stints at what are NOW called 'commuter' airlines...until getting to the "Major' airline, in 1984....

ANYONE who knows about aviation will read, and understand.....



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Weedwacker,

If you don't mind, I'd like to answer. Although I admit I didn't bother to read your whole post as it appears once again you're drifting into a tangent in a poor attempt trying to impress others with your alleged knowledge/experience. Sorry, it's just a bit hard to follow with all the 'colorful' caps, punctuation etc.... I also never seen a seasoned 75/76 Capt as you claim to be, trying so hard to brag about his experience on an internet forum...


It's clear you have not listened to the interviews with P4T pilots who have actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

Secondly, it is also clear you haven't viewed their latest presentation.

3rd,

It's clear you haven't bothered to get your own data from the NTSB. Turbofan has asked you SIX times if you downloaded the CSV file, a file which you think only offers binary coding. You're wrong once again WW.

Continuing, if you had viewed the presentation from P4T, they show to scale, that the WTC is the roughly same size as an Aircraft Carrier, while interviewing Capt Rusty Aimer, 75/76 Capt for United. Rusty describes how hard it was to land on a Carrier, at landing speeds, in a 757 United Airlines sim, in perfect conditions. Matter of fact, Capt Aimer describes "almost too perfect". He sheared the gear on the side of the carrier.

Weedwacker, do you think it's easy or hard to land on an aircraft carrier at landing speeds? If you are not sure, P4T have several who have landed on carrier. Have you ever landed on a carrier Weedwacker? Ever tried it in a sim? Ever tried it at 150 knots over Vmo?

Weedwacker, why have you refused to email P4T, Ralph Kolstad (75/76 Capt, Topgun Twice), Rusty Aimer, or Rob Balsamo?

Why have you refused to discuss these topics anywhere but among those who are mostly laymen? You refuse to discuss these topics at P4T forum! You won't get banned at P4T if you do not personally attack P4T as you do here and as trebor, reheat and others have done. Can you debate civilly?

I think the laymen know why you refuse to sign up at P4T. After all, even the laymen here doubt your credentials. Certainly the real pilots reading your posts know why.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by ValkyrieWings]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


(Cont'd)

So....I neglected to mention the airplanes I flew at the 'commuters'.

SA-226 AND -227

(you can look it up)

look up ALSO the 'Merlin'...but the strectched version of the basic Merlin is what was a favorite, back then....

ANYWAY....one of those would have killed us, if the cockpit fire that started onboard had occured while we were airborne. Fortunately, we had just started to taxi for departure, when the fire started.

IF you know anything about the engine/propellor on those airplanes, you will know about the 'prop-locks'...the Garret engines did not feather the prop blades, when shut down, as seen on Allison Turbo-props....

IF you have no idea what I'm talking about, the GOOD!!! Because I'm ONLY talking to other pilots, with knowledge and experience.

I was just a very young, already experienced Captain on the airplane (from another company that had gone BK) but due to seniority was right-seat...the fire started, the Captain yelled "Get out!" as he was shutting down the engines.

Now....force of habit, we ALWAYS put the props on the 'locks' as a shut-down procedure...and in hindsight, he realized that was dumb...BUT IT WAS HABIT!

Anyway....during the evacuation, because the props were still spinning rapidly, and the entry door was VERY CLOSE to the left engine, in FRONT of the spinning prop.....I opened the airstair door anyways....and stood IN FRONT of the spinning prop to make sure that everyone went FORWARD, away from danger.

Point is, IF the Captain had just pushed the 'STOP' buttons (as they're called on that airplane) to shut down the engines, the props would have feathered, and stopped spinning quickly. But, as I've mentioned, force of habit for him was to pull the thrust levers well back, which was the normal shut-down procedure, to engage the 'locks'....

But, I knew we had to get out, and I KNEW I had a few feet between me, and the airstairs, and the prop blades.

(Turns out, a lot of people took the overwing exits....even though we hadn't time to position the flaps, nor to command that...just happened, people reacted..)


Any questions???

OH...almost forgot....I got hired, flew the Boeing 727, then the DC-10, then the B727 again (right seat), then the Airbus A300, then the DC-10 (again, now right seat) then Captain on the B737 (we had the -300 and -500 at that time), then switched to the DC-9, then the MD80 (same type rating, just differences training...short course) then back to the B737, THEN to the B757....eventually we got the B767 (-200s at first, followed by the -400...more training, because of cockpit differences on the -400-----the MFD, all 'glass' displays....but I could go on for hours.....)

ANY questions??????



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


ANY questions??????



Yes, two as a matter of fact....

1. Why do you feel the need to 'flex' your alleged certificates and experience, drifting off topic mostly, among laymen on ATS?

2. Why do you refuse to directly debate members of P4T?

I think most here know the answers to both....




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ValkyrieWings
 



Although I admit I didn't bother to read your whole post...


Uh huh....sure. Makes sense. Please continue.


I also never seen a seasoned 75/76 Capt as you claim to be, trying so hard to brag about his experience on an internet forum...


Oh, really???

Well, I guess ALL of the so-called P4T 'experts' who post THEIR credentials do it....um....no, they're not 'bragging'....no, 'nuthin' like that.....


It's clear you have not listened to the interviews with P4T pilots who have actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.


Oh, but I have. It is funny, kinda like watching a lot of Hollywood movies that try to convince us they know something about flying.....


Secondly, it is also clear you haven't viewed their latest presentation.


OH. Well, I will get right on that....should be 'fun'......


The rest of you post isn't worth parsing....but, "Welcome Back" 'valkrie'!!!!

(or whatever your current windsock is this time...)


You seem top be able to personally read 'CSV'...well good for you!


Oh wait, this is precious....(and makes my ENTIRE point, so it must be repeated....


....while interviewing Capt Rusty Aimer, 75/76 Capt for United. Rusty describes how hard it was to land on a Carrier, at landing speeds, in a 757 United Airlines sim, in perfect conditions. Matter of fact, Capt Aimer describes "almost too perfect". He sheared the gear on the side of the carrier.


Please, DO tell us how a sim experience of trying to land on a flattop, in a UA 757 sim has ANY relevance.

THIS was my point!

Somebody set up a scenario....that has no relation whatsoever to the actual situation...and because pilot extraordiare "Rusty Aimer" couldn't land the B757 simulator on an AIRCRAFT CARRIER...he snagged the gear, as you said...(why were the gear down??? Did ANY of the 9/11 airplanes have the gear down? Oh, you said he was at 'landing speeds'. So, fully configured for a normal landing? HOW is this a 'simulation' of 9/11, again??? We'd really like to know).

Oh, and BTW....how many B757s do you know of with arresting hooks???

WHY use the flattop???

(shaking head).....maybe someone will get my point, here.....



Weedwacker, why have you refused to email P4T, Ralph Kolstad (75/76 Capt, Topgun Twice), Rusty Aimer, or Rob Balsamo?



OH hoh? I WILL, now. (Except for Balsamo....what, does he still fly King Aires??? ---1900s)


You won't get banned at P4T if you do not personally attack P4T as you do here and as trebor, reheat and others have done. Can you debate civilly?


I could care less than a fig about a "banning" at P4T!!!

I am, for the record, a 'lurker there....I am "767Captain"


I think the laymen know why you refuse to sign up at P4T. After all, even the laymen here doubt your credentials.


Hah!!! LOL!



Certainly the real pilots reading your posts know why.


Hah, again!! To take a page from "turbofan"s FOM



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ValkyrieWings
 



2. Why do you refuse to directly debate members of P4T?


I have seen the tactics employed at a site such as P4T. There is no "debate" there....

It is a club....of "believers"...and ANY dissent is dealt with by ridicule, and a "piling on" attitude.

I find this to be a much fairer forum...and anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight!!!



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You seem top be able to personally read 'CSV'...well good for you!



Wow. Is there enough laughing smilies for this?

Reheat? Boone? Want to inform Weedwacker that the csv file is nothing but an excel spreadsheet with labeled columns and time stamps?

Clearly weedwacker, you cannot read a csv file denoting pressure altitude, airspeed, radar altitude, engine data, AP data, DME data...... the list goes on.... Thanks for clearing that up.

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read as I'm almost falling off my chair laughing at the fact you think it takes some special knowledge to read a csv file.

Edit to add: For those with the "special gift" weedwacker claims you need to read a csv, here is the download.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

For those who think P4T may have manipulated the above csv file, you can get yours directly from the NTSB here for cross check.

www.ntsb.gov...

[edit on 14-10-2009 by ValkyrieWings]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ValkyrieWings
 


Nice.

great attempt to deflect.

what is the title of this thread again???

Oh, never mind.

I don't have "MicroSoft Excel" on this computer.

Please link ALL the CSV data for everyone to see, so we aren't talking about arcane things, and everyone can be on the same page.

OH...and I STILL don't have "excel"...why not 'dumb it down' for me, 'cause you already have that opinion...it is evident in your attitude.

Love you....mean it!
___________________________________________________________
edit...oh, goodie! You edit, I edit....and I get a "download' gift!! Swell!!!

edit again....um, which part of I DON'T HAVE EXCEL did you not understand???

nevermind.....still, you have cajones for trying to be insulting and patronizing at the same time...i hope everyone sees what I'm seeing, here...

[edit on 14 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
EVERYONE.



We will keep this civil. You may discuss the issue, not each other. I seem to recall that the issue in the opening post was:

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

Let's all have a little calm down, and act like civil adults. Hmmmm?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OH...and I STILL don't have "excel"...why not 'dumb it down' for me, 'cause you already have that opinion...it is evident in your attitude.



Google "Open Office", its free, even for the people you claim are "Goobers".

[edit on 14-10-2009 by ValkyrieWings]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
and I get a "download' gift!! Swell!!!




Weedwacker,

P4T has offered the download since 2006 (note the date of the original post on the download). Are you telling us you are attempting to argue data you haven't even attempted to view in over 3 years?

Not to mention the fact turbofan offered the download for you multiple times.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by ValkyrieWings]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ValkyrieWings
 


Look....you silly link goes to a P4T posting, and I guess I'm supposed to click the "link" in there, and it comes up something called "WinRAR zip"

THEN it says that WinRAR is "NOT free software", and offers an option to purchase for a "40-day free trial"

Are you done playing games???

Wait....let me see if someone ELSE has also looked at the SAME info from the CSV...and interpreted it properly....oh, yeah....JREF!!!!!


AA77 FDR Data, Explained


(OH...it's from 2006!!! Imagine that???)

www.forums.randi.org...



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Look....you silly link goes to a P4T posting, and I guess I'm supposed to click the "link" in there, and it comes up something called "WinRAR zip"


first,

Google WinRar. it's also free.

But more specifically, its a zip file download. Google winzip and you can unzip it. If you have WinXp or later, you should already have an unzip utility. I apologize if P4T isn't more clear to open the file. You are the first to complain. Thousands have been able to open it, even those who argue against the NTSB plotted data.


THEN it says that WinRAR is "NOT free software", and offers an option to purchase for a "40-day free trial"


Wrong again WW. I have had WinRar for many years... free. But, again, you don't need WinRar to open the file. Google Winzip.

Again, P4T has had this information since 2006. The NTSB contacts have been listed. Why do you argue information you have not reviewed?




Wait....let me see if someone ELSE has also looked at the SAME info from the CSV...and interpreted it properly....oh, yeah....JREF!!!!!


AA77 FDR Data, Explained


(OH...it's from 2006!!! Imagine that???)

www.forums.randi.org...



The person who started that thread no longer debates the information. This is why....

www.abovetopsecret.com...
(Be sure to note "Anti-Sophist" source and links regarding his claims of "up to 2 seconds missing")


Weedwacker, I'm sure many here know why you refuse to review the information you claim to argue, I know why you will never email P4T for debate. It is not because of their "style" as you claim. You would know this if you listened to the Capt Kolstad interview as he already predicts the style of you, trebor, reheat and others. You remember Kolstad, right? The person you said you wanted to talk with, but refused to follow through? WW, you refuse to debate P4T because you do not have the knowledge and cannot debate without ad hom and personal attacks. The laymen here see it well.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by ValkyrieWings]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
The posts and theories are great

What you people ignore is that - IT DID HAPPEN

as for their so called 10g turns, all the rest - a plane hit that building and all the obfuscation and nay saying wont change that -

You are all running scared - a simple idiot can actually pilot a plane - yes I said it - during the 1980s a programme called the "Kyrpton Factor" proved in simulators mere mortals (and I use that advisedly) can fly planes in the most extreme manoeuvres.

A friend who is the Senior BA training captain once told me a story - forgive the long story -

BA have a cadre of temp pilots - those who failed the tests but who are kept on reserve

On test one landed a 747 on one engine - not in the simulator - but in RL at Knock airport in Ireland

This guy had very very few flying hours - in light engined planes and only sim hours on the 747

Now how does that equate to the terrorists flight ?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
It's been brought to my attention that "weedwhacker's" credentials have been questioned. While it's certainly GOOD COMMON SENSE to question anyone who claims to have credentials online, I can assure everyone that "weedwhacker" is absolutely a licensed, extremely experienced, and professional Commercial Airline Pilot.

I've seen his FAA documentation and vetted him in other ways also, he is exactly what he says he is.

Springer...



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ValkyrieWings
 


An excerpt from that ATS thread tells it quite clearly...


I guess the reason I keep saying that P4T refuses to debate is that P4T refuses to debate. That wasn't so hard, was it?

I dislike being accused of telling lies, especially when the accusers are conspiracy liars. In six years of deranged screaming, this gaggle of frauds and fools have produced bogus science, distorted quotes, and a blizzard of outright falsehoods, but not a shred of real evidence to support their pernicious myths.

My phone conversations with Rob Balsamo were taped without my permission....


Originally posted by pomeroo

But, of course, memories fade, and YOU guys keep coming back.

Still....dragging out poor old "Kolstad" over and over and over again??? What about Lear??? Thought he was on your side?
(oh....the holograms, and space weapons...that is a bit hard to swallow, huh?)



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
My phone conversations with Rob Balsamo were taped without my permission....

Originally posted by pomeroo




I just received another call from Rob Balsamo. He was quite civil and impressed me with his sincerity in wanting a substantive debate on the FDR and related matters. I agreed to apologize for lumping him in with Ranke and Marquis and promised I would continue my effort to find opponents for tomorrow's CLOUT.

What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience.


Source: pomeroo

Let it be known, not one self proclaimed "aviation professional" from JREF stepped up to the plate to debate on "Clout" that night. They instead spent their night in the JREF cave posting a play-by-play again littered with ad homs and personal attacks. Feel free to click above link. But I'm sure many here already know the deal as it is displayed here by JREFers regulars and ignored by mods.

WW, have you been able to download the CSV data yet? It's been 3 years.

Springer, thanks for your "verification". Can you explain why such a man with such credentials prefers to debate laymen on ATS regarding P4T, never willing to debate P4T directly?

[edit on 14-10-2009 by ValkyrieWings]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ValkyrieWings
 



Can you explain why such a man ... (is).... never willing to debate P4T directly?


Who said I'm a man? (Joking...but your obvious sexism didn't go unnoticed. Nah, I have the usual dangly bits between my legs...and a deep voice and hairy chest...and YES, happen to be male, not that that makes any difference).

What's the point? The folks over there are (A) not all pilots...come on, admit it....we've seen that here. Don't make me name names...

...and, (B)....there IS NO "DEBATE" at P4T!!!! Or, haven't you figured that out, yet?
____________________________________________________________

adding, before I forget....has ANYONE yet taken up my offer to go out and canvas REAL airline pilots that you can meet at airports...you can tell, they're the ones in the uniforms, often with Flight Attendants along in a gaggle...either waiting for the Hotel van, or being dropped off FROM a hotel van....or sitting there eating....there ARE restaurants and coffee places outside of the secure areas, so you don't need a Boarding Pass to get through Security....

....maybe I'll do it....if I find a couple of hours to kill soon...

Just a simple, informal poll....would love to see the results...instead of hearing from a number that you can count on one hand, from P4T....





[edit on 14 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join