Official story believers seen these videos?

Can anyone watch the following videos and still believe the official story?

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

[edit on 28-11-2009 by conar]

reply to post by conar

---

Sorry, youtube is blocked here. Which videos did you post?

reply to post by conar

---

I can only speak to the last video, since that is more close to what I know.

First, since it comes from 'Pilots for Truth' is is suspect, in my view. My opinions are colored by that perception. What I mean is, that group is a very, very small minority with a particular opinion, and a somewhat (in my view) skewed sense of "truthfulness"....

Now...the short segments from the UTube clip don't tell us who is on the phone, the instructor pilot from Phoenix. Since he mentions Phoenix, and a Boeing 737 simulator, then he either works for Southwest Airlines, or America West Airlines (now, USAirways, after their merger. The merged company changed name, but retained Phoenix, AZ, as Corp HQ.)

Most of what the bloke says sounds right, up to some points. It's obvious by the terms he uses that he IS a pilot, seems to know the lingo.

I just find it hard to believe that the guys had to slow down to 'near approach airspeeds' to hit the WTC Towers...also, don't know the level of the device they were using, and the quality of the visuals...could have been a factor.

Part 2 next....

I think there is more verifiable proof that the Bush administration dropped the ball on this threat than there is proof that it was a contrived event. They/we can't get anyone on the ropes for gross negligence how could we ever prove the act of committing one of the greatest conspiracy's in the World's history? Someone other than a scapegoat should be punished for this.

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

...response to a video, Part Deux:

The discussion, as I mentioned, of the two pilots not being able to hit the WTC troubles me, because it is NOT that difficult to do. And, FWIW, it is ALWAYS easier to fly the real airplane, than the simulator. Also, IF it was not a modern, sophisticated device, but one of the older ones with the less-than-realistic methods of providing the visual in the 'windshields' then that is a drawback, and possible reason for their 'failure'.

To compare, with a more modern and realistic Level D quality, with a 'daylight' visual system, to possibly include 'wraparound' visuals (peripheral vision is extremely important and subtly inhibiting if missing), then I think the success rate would improve dramatically, as evidenced in other videos available on UTube. That show very inexperienced pilots, even laypeople, "hitting" their targets at high speed.

The discussion also devolves into a 'red herring', talking about Dutch Roll...complete distraction, as A) "They" attempted their 'experiment' in a B-737 Sim, and the B-737 is not really a problem when it comes to tendency to Dutch roll, and B) The B-757/767 models are even LESS likely to Dutch roll...

In large Transport Category jets, it's the angle of wing sweep-back that determines the tendency to Dutch roll --- and it is the function of the yaw damper as a full-time monitor to inhibit and 'damp out' any yaw-induced roll that tends to form. For instance, older Boeings (B-707, 727) had airspeed restrictions when the Yaw Damper was INOP. There are no such restrictions on the B-737, B-757/767. So, in smooth air, like the morning of 11 September, Dutch roll is simply a non-issue.

They talked about aileron flutter, and 'roll reversal' too...related phenomenons, but, again, not pertinent to those Boeings....not unless they were at very, very extreme speeds, beyond those seen....AND, it has a lot to do with Mach flow, as the air flows over the lifting and control surfaces.

'roll reversing' is, simply, the wingtips flexing as the ailerons are deflected into the high-speed airflow. i.e., if the right aileron moves 'DN', which normally would tend to raise the wing it is attached to, the high forces might flex the wingtip the other way, thus negating the aileron's effect, or 'reversing' what is intended by the pilot. Boeing wings are much too stiff to flex, like that, at the speeds we assume from Radar data, and the SSFDR data from AAL 77. More on that -- in the case of B-767s, there are FOUR ailerons total, two each wing. An outboard, near the tip, and one INBOARD, between trailing edge flap segments. When the TE flaps are completely retracted, ONLY the inboard ailerons function, the outboards are locked in place. SO. no 'roll reversing' is even possible. Also, as in most modern Transport Category jets, the actual roll control is accomplished by a combination of not only the ailerons, but also the flight spoilers. In fact, the spoiler panels begin to rise, on the wing meant to descend for turn initiation, almost immediately with control wjheel deflection...only needs to turn the wheel more than about 5 degrees or so...might be 7, forget the exact number.

'Flutter', also...function of Mach number (airspeed as a percentage of the Speed of Sound). Any flutter tendency is due to the localized areas of high-speed flow on the surfaces. BUT, near sea level, even at the airspeeds mentioned, you aren't anywhere near a high Mach number. IOW, the airplanes typically cruise as fast as M.80, or even M.83 comfortably (although that's not as fuel efficient, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion). A speed of 460 knots, at seal level, is about M.70 Not an issue there, despite the distracting disinfo presented by some pilots.

Finally, at about the 8:00 minute point in the video, discussing the turn before lining up on the Pentagon...really??? The guy (who I already said sounds like a pilot, to me) thinks that it was a 'professional' turn??? His standards are very low, then -- which, of course, I find hard to believe, since he promotes himself as an IP and Check Airman. The other vid, showing the NTSB re-creation of that turn and descent, show an what would be sloppy, in terms of airspeed and bank angle control, IF it was, as he alleges, performed by a 'very professional, experienced' pilot.

Instead, I see a guy who knows how to fly, at the very least the basics anyway, who didn't care a wit about being precise, nor smooth...but he got the "job" done.

AND, here's where it jumps the shark again...the last bit, the straight-in aiming at the Pentagon??? Easiest part of the whole deal. I do NOT know who this guy, on the phone, thinks he's trying to fool. He embarasses me, frankly.

Here is more video from 757/767 Captains from American and United Airlines who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used.

Scene From: "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" - Control

If I recall correctly in a post I read somewhere, weedwhacker wanted to speak with one of the pilots in the above video personally. weedwhacker, have you contacted Pilots For Truth yet to get contact information for Capt Ralph Kolstad?

reply to post by R_Mackey

---

A direct question?

Why didn't you use the private message system?

Well, anyway. No, I do not care to 'grace' that website you mention with my presence. I don't wish to be responsible for giving them any "hits" in their traffic stats.

But, since you brought it up, why not invite the good Capt Konstad to ATS??? I'm sure he'd get a warm reception. He is welcomed to point out all of my factual errors, too. As long as the information provided is not a deflection, disinfo or otherwise incorrect and meant to muddy the waters.

For the OP's sake, though...my point here was simply to address one of the videos brought forth for discussion. I would like to see the others that were posted discussed, when time allows, by those with particualr expertise in the related areas.

There is a lot to cover, it would seem....and I've had my say on the video that interested me the most.

I'm sure Ralph would love to take time out of his day to join ATS and chat it up with you weedwhacker, because certainly he has nothing better to do with his time. But, you are the one who wanted to talk to him. You don't have to visit their site. Email them.

pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

Why are you no longer interested to speak with these pilots and instead libel them on ATS? Anonymously no less.

Not very good form on your part. Especially since you consider yourself to be a 'professional' pilot. Although I see many question the validity of such a claim.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

In reply to the OP, alot of the deniers will refuse to watch those videos because they don't want to believe it. Because to do so would mean that they would have to step out side their comfort zone.

Ill post on the torture video

Whilst torture is abhorrent to many people - it has and will be used

The IRA published techniques to defuse its effectiveness

The SAS uses it as part of its selection process

It does exist and will be used - as far back as WW2 female operatives of the SOE were warned that gang rape would be used as a form of torture.

Before the founding of the USA - in England the rack was a common form of extracting information - the phrase "between ad rock and a hard place" comes from this.

If it doesn't work - as the pundit claims - then why is it used ?

well thats because it does - the interrogation of Guy Fawlkes for one

Im not defending the practice merely highlighting the fact that governments have and always will use torture.

reply to post by R_Mackey

---

Why the direct venom to me? Is that who was on the video the OP posted from UTube?? If so, since his name is not mentioned, I don't think I'm "libeling" anyone...puzzling that you would make such a claim against me. Truly, truly disturbing too.

So, is it Ron Konstad again? That was the IP who mentions coming out of the sim for a break between sessions on the morning of 9/11? So, this Capt. Konstad, who is (apparently) a member of some tiny group known as 'Pilots for Truth' was instructing in a Boeing 737 simulator, in Phoenix, AZ, on 11 September, 2001? Let's see...well, now. I used to live in Phoenix, and happen to know the time zone there...it's normally MST (for our non-US readers, that's 'Mountain Standard Time'...).

Four U.S. timezones; PST, MST, CST and EST (West to East). The state of Arizona (where the city of Phoenix is located) does not observe 'Daylight Saving Time' ('Summer Time', for UK and Europe residents) so essentially the local time in Phoenix is the 'same' as 'P Daylight T' during the summer months...and we know that 'Daylight Time' was still in effect in the U.S. on 11 September, 2001.

Most Pilots' Union contracts have specific hour ranges for training events scheduling. Since, as I mentioned, we're talking about Phoenix, then I assume this Instructor Pilot/Check Airman Capt Knostad works either for America West (mnow USAirways) or Southwest Airlines. Both operate the B-737, so that makes sense. I have no way to know their contract specifics, but from MY experience the earlist briefing "show time" for an 'o'-dark-thirty' training event was 0600 hours. The briefing is typically scheduled for 1 1/2 to 2 hours. THEN, there are two sim sessions, each of about 2 hours' length, with a break of about 15 minutes in the middle, followed by a de-brief session of approx. 1 hour (unless it's the day before your break, and you have a flight to catch to commute home for days off...then the 'de-brief' can be even 'briefer'...)

So, where was I?? Oh, yes...assume, just for grins, a show time of 0600, then 'in the box' at ~ 0730-0800? Fair? OK, now 2 hours, out on break @ 1000. That would be 1300 (one o'clock PM) on the East Coast. The attacks of 9/11 are long over. So, back in, and to heck with the training syllabus (which is usually very jam-packed, crowded and they need every minute to get through it so they don't run late and hold up the guys scheduled for the sim next) to 'practice' hitting the WTC? Plausible -- I suppose -- under the circumstances. I mean, even with the nation-wide grounding of all flights, the training will continue. Those who lived out of their crewbase would have trouble getting there, of course.

Well...I have flown many different simulators, for many hours over the decades. When it was new and novel (first time, just got hired, etc.) I'd be lying if I said I didn't want, just once, to see what it was like to 'hit' a building or fly under a 'bridge'...all things you could never do in real life because A) You would die, or B) Lose your license. But, the novelty soon wears off. Also, some sims will 'crash'...although they usually don't know where 'buildings' are, when they 'crash' it's generally related to where it thinks the ground is...a particularly 'hard' landing, for example, might make the software think it 'crashed'... I mean, really, really bad. And, if the motion is on, the Instructor can 'freeze' before that, if he sees it coming...just in case the sim might be damaged. Can happen.

SO, for re-enacting the 9/11 flights, best to have motion 'off', just in case.

And, as to the fairly primitive older visual displays...I was giving a friend a tour, one late night, in our sim building...long ago, maybe 1995 or so...and our B-727 sim was little-used, as the airplanes were being phased out of the fleet. This was very basic, old...circa late 1970s I would think. The visuals where nothing more than a bunch of dotted lights, designed to represent as much as possible a night image. Basically, to provide a horizon (for those maneuvers when you did some visual flying, and approaches and take-offs) because most simulator 'flying' is done on the insturments anyway, and to familiarize pilots with the equipment, controls, etc, or to 'check' them annually or semi-annually, etc.

Anyway, I fired the old girl up (the simulator) and flew under the GG bridge, in a demo for my friend. At about 250 knots (even then, I still followed the 'rules'!! Max 250 below 10,000. Coulda gone faster, just didn't occur to me. Now, if I could 'fly' a very basic simulator, with motion off, at 'night', under the Golden Gate bridge...I just can't see how someone couldn't 'hit' the WTC! Puzzles me......

weedwhacker,

The video you watched is not of Capt Kolstad. It is Capt Dan Govatos. It says it in the very beginning of the video. Please pay attention.

The second video I posted interviews Capt Kolstad and Capt Rusty Aimer. (Kolstad on the full length video).







Source

weedwhacker, in the future, you may want to pay a bit more attention to detail before wasting your time posting walls of text with mostly off topic convoluted rhetoric attempting to prove to others that you may know what you're talking about. I never seen a 'professional pilot' spending so much time trying to prove to others he is one, and then be so wrong with his assumptions.

But hey, I'm sure it made you feel better to make such a post. So knock yourself out.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply to post by conar

---

too long, didn't watch them all, since I didn' tsee a whole lot of compelling evidence. operative word here, evidence. What I did see is a lot of people who can't let go and seem to fritter their time away dreaming up 50 alternative scenarios.

basically, its mostly just anti bush propaganda and crap.

I think we have bigger issues right now, like the current administration raping our country and people just a little more every day.

These videos are nothing new. They are just propaganda hit pieces trying to go after Bush and Cheney. In reality, both the Bush and Clinton Administrations dropped the ball when it came to Al Qaeda.

Also, my father and 3 brothers are all pilots for major airlines and they all say that the video of the pilots talking about flying into the WTC is a bunch of crap. Each made the same point that an pilot with multi-engine time could have flown the planes in the WTC

So your brothers and dad all agree then that these people who were NOT PILOTS could not have done it. DER!

Building 7 is enough for me. There is no way that came down by anything other than planned demolition.

aside all the bickering on this thread about who is and isnt a pilot its a good compilation of videos.

im with you.

Since this is a conspiracy site lets play every conspiracy theorists favorite game of "What If...?".

WHAT IF...

Its not just the Bush and Clinton administration that is to blame here? I imagine that we are only party to what info they want us to be. So there is a better then average chance that other POTUS had dealings with these 'monsters' that we have made it our duty to hunt down over seas.

WHAT IF...

We did have intelligence (I use that term loosely) warning of an attack? Considering we may have been dealing with a person or persons over there that could potentially blow the lid off of the underhanded dealings of our past POTUS or people under his command, plus the media still clamoring over the possibility of a rigged election, why not LET the event happen? What would happen if we let this horrible event occur? Exactly what DID happen. The medias attention was redirected, the people of the United States bonded together in a way that we have not seen since Pearl Harbor, the majority of the people were in favor of going after the ones accused of being responsible for the attacks, and all the news prior to 9/11 was put on the back burner or forgotten about altogether.

Before anyone spouts off "CRAZY!!!" just remember this: Whatever the most vile and cruel thing you can think to do to another human being is, its already happened somewhere in the world at one time or another.

reply to post by conar

---

Sorry but I didn't watch anything here, when I see Chris Matthews playing a role in this thread I have no choice but to deem the motives behind the thread suspect. As of late I've seen too many Lefties promoting their agenda on ABS.