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.

 

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 25
141
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

According to you, you say it's impossible.

You first said it was "easy" but that was when you thought it was 500 mph in straight and level flight. Hopefully you now know better?



At max power it doesn't take very long to accelerate, so I think we can assume they were not flying at 500 knots plus in aggressive maneuvers, but could put the aircraft on a straight in approach and then accelerated.
Since you are fighting this whole speed thing if the planes hit at let’s say 400 knots or 300 knots do you think the destruction from them would be different? 100,000 pounds of gas would still blast through the buildings.




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
At max power it doesn't take very long to accelerate, so I think we can assume they were not flying at 500 knots plus in aggressive maneuvers, but could put the aircraft on a straight in approach and then accelerated.


They could, but they didn't, at least, not according to the data provided by the NTSB.

Why would you assume anything when data is readily available?

Xtrozero, take an hour out of your day and please inform yourself. Be sure to listen to interviews with 757/767 Capts from American and United Airlines which are included in the below film.

password is: pbb4prevwtca

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Xtrozero, welcome to the "Whacky World" of Balsamo/"Tiffany"/and the "krazy krew" (well, let's be honest here...there IS only one person, actually....) of the website-that-shall-not-be-named, with their endless, ENDLESS circular "arguments"....

You won't get anywhere with "Tiffany", who will continue to post spam and troll around here, until there is enough interest back at "her" website, so that the deed is done. (Intent HERE is to generate $$$, hopefully. And, ATS is a gentle giant, and an honorable group, to allow it).

This tactic is so obvious. It is quite disgusting.


Here....an actual, factual video for everyone's enlightenment. None of the "Tiffany-speak"....the attempt to "dumb it down" for "her" general non-aviation-oriented audience..."her" bread-and-butter.


Google Video Link


~~~~~~~~~~~

In the above video, at its 10:23 mark, listen for this:

"Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet."

Words of Mohammed Atta.

This, when he thought the mic he had in his hand was connected to the PA in the cabin. It was not -- it was selected on COMM 1, which was still tuned to the last frequency the real pilots had it on, the center frequency. Hence, it is recorded on the ATC tapes.

Since we never recovered the CVR, we will never know if he realized his mistake, and repeated any of that to the cabin. later.

THIS is reality, folks.

"Tiffany" wishes to sell a load of BS --- and anyone who is actually a current, qualified pilot (as Balsamo claims) who STILL can't understand reality...well, either something is wrong with their head, or ELSE this is just a charade, an act. A particularly UNFUNNY, and deceitful act.

Dishonorable, too.


Sidebar: I've been noticing a really strange trend in terminology from poster "Tiffany" -- Generally, when pilots talk about airplanes, we say "airplane". Even Atta said "airplane". WE, pilots, rarely say "aircraft" when referring to our flying machines.

Flight Attendants, and others in the airline biz usually are taught to say "aircraft"...I think it's a corporate thing, not sure why else. ("aircraft", FYI, is more an over-all description of all man-made vehicles that fly. Includes helicopters, gliders AND balloons, etc...for example. "Airplane" is, of course, more specific, in that sense).



[edit on 28 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
13 pages of evasion for weedwhacker/Jeff Gannon. Is this a record for you?

Are you saying a V-G diagram cannot be plotted if the V-Speeds are known?

Are the speeds plotted in the below V-G diagram are not representative of the speeds set by the manufacturer for a 767?




Are you able to find one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained in control/stable and did not shed parts - prior to 9/11?


We have already heard from your obfuscation brigade running interference for you, -

Why do you refuse to answer these questions?

THIRTEEN PAGES weedwhacker!

Wow, too funny.


Words of Mohammed Atta.


Is that the same Mohammed Atta, the Muslim fanatic who supposedly kills "infidels" based on his interpretation of the Qur'an, supposedly highly religious but was out snorting coc aine and getting lap dances at strip clubs before 9/11?





Since we never recovered the CVR, we will never know if he realized his mistake, and repeated any of that to the cabin. later.


Nor will you ever know where the transmission came from. You assume it came from AA11, because that is what your govt told you, and you blindly swallow like a good boy.

Clearly you are not a pilot. You must be Jeff Gannon.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
13 pages of evasion for weedwhacker/Jeff Gannon. Is this a record for you?


No, it's typical. Any one of the "debunkers" here could take it to 50 or 100 pages if they had to and they would keep ignoring it and keep calling you delusional, and keep signing on every day to argue with your "delusional" posts.


Take whatever "debunker" is most capable of staying focused and on-topic, and just ask them what evidence the official reports were based on in the first place, and they'll instantly depart from that subject like you're Moses parting the waters. You can't get them to address something uncomfortable directly for anything, and they'll just project it right back onto you and say it's YOUR burden to prove everything and it was never their or the government's responsibility to prove anything, even though we've already went to war over these lies and continue to kill people for them to this day.


I've had basic physics classes, like millions of Americans and most other "truthers" on these forums, and I'm no pilot but I have no problem reading that diagram. I don't understand why they apparently have so much trouble interpreting it. I also don't understand why they argue with the dictionary when its definitions aren't to their liking. If you ever thought they were actually concerned with the truth then I guess we were both wrong.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


What does THIS mean?


13 pages of evasion for weedwhacker/Jeff Gannon. Is this a record for you?



Now...I see the ELEVENTH time you again post the same made-up "diagram"....even though you have been repeatedly called out on it, and failed to account for any of its validity....


Are you saying a V-G diagram cannot be plotted if the V-Speeds are known?



I (and many, many others) am/are saying that you took ANOTHER diagram (we ALL saw it, in another thread) that was specifically tailored for another airplane, the P-51.....(BTW, makes me wonder: As a "pilot", are you familiar with the term "P-51 time", when used to describe a pilot's logbook entries???) ***

IT was, therefore, drawn and scaled for THAT airplane.

____________~
Seems I have to add more, for the benefit of the non-pilots (lest they be further influenced by the MIS-information spewing from the keyboard of a certain other poster...):


Each airplane has its own V/g diagram which is valid at a certain weight and altitude.


www.faatest.com...

A quick Google search, found that -- didn't know that there is so much free info out there -- used to be the "mystique" of flying was, well...mysterious, and not available to "mere mortals"
--- but, nowadays, most people tend to be a little more more savvy, I suppose. ( The blush is LONG off the rose, BTW...in the airline business. No longer are pilots respected, it seems. NOW, everybody and his brother thinks they're 'experts'....
)

SO...for the non-pilots reading, who are interested, I suggest you avail yourselves of the free resources out there, and learn as if you were in Ground School, studying for you license. A lack of knowledge can be harmful.....
____________~

Now, back to our show:


Are the speeds plotted in the below V-G diagram are not representative of the speeds set by the manufacturer for a 767?


Totally irrelevant...and you know it. BUT, as I keep mentioning, your tactics are transparent. Must you play such games? You are only fooling people who aren't pilots....but, that seems to be the intent. Which, is dishonorable and deceitful, to the extreme.


But, in any case....even IF you found an actual, Boeing-published and derived-from-actual-flight-test-data "V-G Diagram" for the Boeing 767 it STILL DOESN'T MATTER, when the facts of the way the airplanes were flown are examined!!!

The G-loading was NOT a factor on those flights.

I dare say, it's too bad you, nor anyone else (it seems) on this Board have ever flown any of the airplanes we're discussing. IF you had, then you'd know why the "V-G Diagram" is worthless for your "argument"....however, again...see above, and MY opinion as to motives.....



***Answer for everyone else, RE: "P-51 time" reference... The 'P' in that is to suggest the 'Parker Pen'. As in, a pen used to fill in "flight time" in a person's logbook.

Another way to say, in another phrase, "pencil whipping".

('P' can also stand for "padding").

~~~~~~

Always, with the typos...Darn peripheral neuropathy...if only I had one of those Star Trek computers that typed as you spoke....









[edit on 28 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Finally! It only took you 13 pages weedwhacker. And now I can see why you evaded for so long, it's because you're totally and completely wrong.

First, the above diagram is not from a P-51, this is -




Secondly, all the speeds plotted in the above 767 V-G diagram are as defined by the manufacturer.

767 speeds -

Va/Vra - 290 - Maneuvering speed/Rough Air penetration speed, represented at the point where it says "Maneuvering speed" in the above V-G diagram.

Vmo - 360 - Max Structural Cruise/Max Operating, represented by the end of the "Normal Operating" Green zone and the start of the Caution zone in yellow.

Vd - 420 - Limit Dive speed, represented by the end of the flight envelope to the right and start of the "Structural Failure" red zone - for every aircraft on this planet.

As you can see weedwhacker, you CAN draw your own V-G diagram if the speeds are known.

Everyone from a student pilot to al lthe pilots on this planet to the pilots at pprune are aware of this -

www.pprune.org...

You seem to be the only one who claims to be a pilot and does not know this.

You also claim to be a 767 pilot, why are you unable to provide the V-G diagram for a 767 and prove my above plot wrong?

There are only 2 reasons -

1. You are not a pilot
2. You know the plot is correct

Either reason explains why you evaded these questions for 13 pages. Reason 1 explains why your answers are wrong.

You also still evade this question -

"Are you able to find one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained in control/stable and did not shed parts - prior to 9/11? "

You evade this question because you cannot find one. Every sample you have provided lost control at 20-30-40-60-70 knots over their Vmo. Many shed parts. Many needed 30,000 + feet to recover.

weedwhacker, if you do have a logbook, someone should inspect if for "P-51" time.

Thanks for playing. You fail again.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


weedwhacker, have you ever verified your claim of being a pilot here with anything other than your word?

After all pilots have to go through training and certification in the real world to be able to fly planes, and these things have to be documented legally.


More and more I'm refusing to take your claim for granted seeing as how Tiffany is telling you things that are simple enough for anyone to figure out in a few minutes. If you think making a claim about yourself on a forum is its own proof, then I'm William Wallace.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I've had basic physics classes, like millions of Americans and most other "truthers" on these forums, and I'm no pilot but I have no problem reading that diagram.


Exactly,

It's relatively easy to interpret for anyone who actually reads it and knows the V-Speeds, for ANY aircraft.

For those who would like more instruction, here is a short video course on the V-G diagram, from an aerobatic flight school.

www.apstraining.com...

weedwhacker should click it if he wants to salvage any type of credibility he has left. IMO, his credibility was gone long ago.

No wonder he never puts his name to his claims.

He doesn't know the basic fundamentals of a V-G.

He had no clue where the 510 knot speed claim came from.

He put his foot in his mouth when he claimed the 510 knot claim came from the "nuts at P4T" after I posted links to the NTSB.

He thinks his examples of a 747, 727, 737 correlate to a 767 exceeding Vmo by 150 knots, when he doesn't even realize all those aircraft lost control at only 50-70 knots over their Vmo, many needing 30,000+ feet to recover, many shed parts.

He ignores a better "apple to apple" comparison with EA990, a 767 which suffered in flight structural failure at 5 knots into the red "Structural Failure" zone above the Vd line.

The list goes on...

The guy has failed at every turn.

No wonder he blindly supports anything the govt tells him.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
weedwhacker, have you ever verified your claim of being a pilot here with anything other than your word?

After all pilots have to go through training and certification in the real world to be able to fly planes, and these things have to be documented legally.


The only thing weedwhacker got correct in his post is the description of "P-51" time.

This is when pilots who are not worth their salt, fudge their time in their log books to make it look like they have more experience than they do.

I'm not surprised weedwhacker is very familiar with the practice.


A good example was the guy who flew for an airline without ever being a documented pilot. His records were all fraudulent.


Thomas Salme .....

He practiced on a flight simulator until he thought he was ready to fly, and then printed a fake pilot's license at home. He got a job at European airline Air One, and spent 13 years flying passengers around Europe until being caught in March. The heavy hand of justice: a $2,500 fine and a one-year grounding.


Source


Hmmm, is weedwhacker Thomas Salme?

Since he claims I'm Rob Balsamo (of which I'm flattered, seems anyone who exposes weedwhacker is a variation of "Rob Balsamo"), I think I may start calling weedwhacker, Tommy.


Hey Tommy, how much P-51 time you have? Not surprised it's the only thing you got right in your entire post. You practice it much?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


A good example was the guy who flew for an airline without ever being a documented pilot. His records were all fraudulent.

Thomas Salme .....


Sounds like he had a more successful career than yours, Cap't Bob! Perhaps THAT is what you can do to get back in a cockpit!



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451


Sounds like he had a more successful career than yours, Cap't Bob! Perhaps THAT is what you can do to get back in a cockpit!


trebor,

Your arguments seem to be a lot like William "Pinch" Paisley.

A Navy washout who could never make it to the front seat let alone Top Gun.

I understand the FAA wouldn't even give him a pilot certificate.

Werem't you banned from ATS?

Again, I'm flattered you think I'm Rob Baksamo, but at least his certificates are current if you care to check faa.gov. Too bad you'll never know which cockpit he is flying nowadays as I understand you and your smear brigade want to harass employers just like the Nazi's did.

Why don't you start with Capt Latas at Jetblue? Perhaps Boeing to let them know Capt Rusty Aimer shouldn't be a consultant on the 787?

Let me guess Pinch, you also think it's impossible to draw a VG diagram when the airspeeds are known? No wonder you're a washout. Feel free to keep calling me Capt Bob, again, I'm flattered. I'll call you Washout Pinch.






[edit on 29-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
All I can say here is... If TiffanyinLA is capt Bob, then I think i`m gay
.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
All I can say here is... If TiffanyinLA is capt Bob, then I think i`m gay
.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Seventh]


Anyone who knows more than weedwacker/Tommy and Trebor/Washout Pinch, in aviation, is "Rob Balsamo", according to them.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Again, I'm flattered you think I'm Rob Baksamo, but at least his certificates are current if you care to check faa.gov. Too bad you'll never know which cockpit he is flying nowadays as I understand you and your smear brigade want to harass employers just like the Nazi's did.

Why don't you start with Capt Latas at Jetblue? Perhaps Boeing to let them know Capt Rusty Aimer shouldn't be a consultant on the 787?



What do you mean "washout", Bob? Do you have clue 1 about *anything* regarding the US Naval Aviation aircrew selection process? An organization it is quite clear you never had the honor nor ability to server with, much less fly for? Don't have 20/20? Sorry, no front seat for you. Corrected back to 20/20? Great! If you can pass the training, which included some psychological testing to ensure there weren't any grounded whack-job civilian pilots suffering from a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) and dealing with some significant gender issues and likes wearing a leather corset, welcome aboard!

As far as Latas or Aimer or anyone else in your bevy of bountiful barnstormers is concerned, we can pretty much guarantee their employers *do not* know of their proclivities. Buffy and Muffy, et al, keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves, it is obvious. You have the outliers, Bob, the few on the fringe who are escapees from the same BDS ward you fled. They make up that small statistical sample in any group who are intellectually challenged to the point that they will force the cognitive dissonance to a dark corner of their mind and sing your praises. Like all conspiracy theorists, they lack the mental capacities to grasp reality so they conjure up these great secret machinations of global subterfuge to counterbalance their small minds. Its funny, actually.

And I'm laughing at your Aimers comment. If one scintilla of what you claim is true, Boeing would be all over that. Since they are not, they must be in on the whole deal. How can Aimers live with himself? Working for an organization that is complicit in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands, counting the victims of war? He must have a character of cold steel and solid iron to ignore that and keep collecting a paycheck. Great bunch you have there, Cap't "Tiffany".

We still wonder...how come you are here on ATS, wearing that leather bustier and not out lobbying Congress or one of the dozens of Pilots associations and unions and groups if your speculation is true that a) the aircraft in NYC were non-stock platforms and not flown by terrorists and b) the Pentagon 757 flew over the building and c) the Shanksville jet was still airborne after it crashed?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Wow - looks like we hit a nerve.



Originally posted by trebor451
Do you have clue 1 about *anything* regarding the US Naval Aviation aircrew selection process? An organization it is quite clear you never had the honor nor ability to server with, much less fly for? Don't have 20/20? Sorry, no front seat for you. Corrected back to 20/20? Great! If you can pass the training, which included some psychological testing to ensure there weren't any grounded whack-job civilian pilots suffering from a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) and dealing with some significant gender issues and likes wearing a leather corset, welcome aboard!


Hello Washout Pinch - weren't you banned from ATS?

(Do you know what it feels like to splash 2 targets squarely, at a range of about 20-30 miles, in TWS mode? That's about how I'm feeling right now...
)

Why didn't you ever make it to Top Gun and yet Capt Ralph Kolstad made it there twice? Do you know what Kolstad is doing now?

No, you don't, as you're too busy attacking him personally on the 'interwebs', diminishing your own credibility day by day.


Why can you not be found in the FAA database at faa.gov while Rob Balsamo can and is current?

It is because you are a washout and now the only use you can be to the Pentagon is for you to troll the web -- blindly supporting the OS -- attempting to obfuscate and marginalize anyone who questions the OS.

Military Report: Secretly 'Recruit Or Hire Bloggers'

Not only were you not sharp enough to make it to the front seat let alone Top Gun, you are a washout on the blogs. The Pentagon should think about getting some new blood in your seat.

Remember Washout Pinch - "I was just following orders" will not be a defense when the time comes to put people on trial for obstruction of justice.




As far as Latas or Aimer or anyone else in your bevy of bountiful barnstormers is concerned, we can pretty much guarantee their employers *do not* know of their proclivities.


They don't? Ever heard of google?


[They] keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves, it is obvious.


And yet their interviews on the subject are all over the net and credited in many of the presentations offered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Again, ever heard of google?

Apparently you're another one who feels search on the web is useless for informing yourself.


And I'm laughing at your Aimers comment. If one scintilla of what you claim is true, Boeing would be all over that.




Captain Aimer retired from United Airlines in July of 2004 as an International Wide Body Captain. During his commercial airline service Ross served as Flight Engineer, First Officer and Captain. FAA mandatory retirement brought Ross to Boeing Training where he was chosen to be among the first cadre of Training Captains to teach the customer airline pilots around world on their new state of the art Boeing 787 Dreamliner.


Source -
www.aviationexperts.com...

Matter of fact - his userID is '787PIC' at the P4T Forum.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Also- his close friend who happens to be female just became the first female to be qualified on the 787.


Rusty Aimer and Capt Dan Hanley (both from United, both widebody Capt's, both Core Members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth), do many interviews on MSM, especially with the Whistle-Blowers Pilots Association.

You should check it out.

www.airline-whistleblowers.org...


We still wonder...how come you are here on ATS, wearing that leather bustier


Exposing people like you who claim to have aeronautical knowledge but claim a V-G diagram cannot be drawn if the V-Speeds are known. I figured I'd do it with some style.


Do pretty women offend you Washout Pinch?

The original picture was in lingerie, but I was told to remove it.


We already know why you are here. See above.

Let us know when you find an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained stable/controllable and survived, prior to 9/11, or after.

So far, you have failed, repeatedly.



[edit on 29-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Are you able to find one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained in control/stable and did not shed parts - prior to 9/11?


I guess the big question is at what point does the wings rip off. The Maximum Dive Mach Number for a 767 is .91 and is where the .86 cruise Mach number is calculated from and I see your chart caution range goes up to 430 KIAS. With that said, does another 100 KIAS rip the wings off or cause uncontrollable flight? Has Boeing come out and stated those numbers are impossible for the airplane to achieve under any conditions?

If Boeing engineers say it is so I then would believe them more than a pilot who really doesn’t know since he never would have flown close to the speed that the aircraft experiences structural failure. I can’t tell you what speeds the C-130 or C-141 wings will rip at 700’ AGL, but I can tell you we had about the same Vmo of 360 KIAS.

So once again, has Boeing come out and stated this is an impossibility?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Hi Xtrazero -


Originally posted by Xtrozero
I guess the big question is at what point does the wings rip off. The Maximum Dive Mach Number for a 767 is .91 and is where the .86 cruise Mach number is calculated from


Actually, .91 is above 23k, 420 KCAS below 17k. .86 is Mmo and is usually structured around Critical Mach.

.78-.80 are normal cruise for the 767.


and I see your chart caution range goes up to 430 KIAS.


Actually, it goes up to 420 KIAS. But that could just be a typo on your part.



With that said, does another 100 KIAS rip the wings off or cause uncontrollable flight?


Actually, we're looking at another 150 knots, not 100.

But to answer your question - according to EA990, the 767 suffers in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS.


Has Boeing come out and stated those numbers are impossible for the airplane to achieve under any conditions?


Pilots For 9/11 Truth have hit brick walls when attempting to get answers from Boeing, this goes for the people who have tried who actually work there. Keep in mind, the speeds set by Boeing are based on wind tunnel and flight testing when the aircraft goes through certification.

If it can achieve such speeds and be "easily" controlled --by a pilot who had less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots-- why would Boeing set airspeed limitations so low for their aircraft?

With that said, based on the closest publicly available data set when comparing apples to apples, Egypt Air 990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS. EA990 is a Boeing 767 (or was).

The aircraft which hit the south tower was reported at 510 knots, pulled more G's than EA990 on the way to the south tower, and is reported as N612UA, a 767.

It is interesting to note, N612UA is 7 years older than EA990.


If Boeing engineers say it is so I then would believe them more than a pilot who really doesn’t know since he never would have flown close to the speed that the aircraft experiences structural failure. I can’t tell you what speeds the C-130 or C-141 wings will rip at 700’ AGL, but I can tell you we had about the same Vmo of 360 KIAS.


Here are just some of the people who have come out and publicly stated the speeds as impossible, improbable, or "The Elephant in the room". (in other words, not one makes excuses for or hand-waives such excessive speeds as you see being done by trebor/Washout Pinch, and Weedwhacker Tommy).

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
Command 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

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

John Lear
Son of Bill Lear
(Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
More than 40 years of Flying
19,000+ TT
23 Type ratings
Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

You can find many more here -

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Again Xtrazero, it is highly recommended you view this presentation -

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack

Once you view the presentation, I'm sure many would like to hear your honest review.

So far, you have already given us your opinion based on what you "assume".

"If you suggest they were in some kind of tight turn to hit the towers at 500 plus knots then now we are talking structure integrity of the wings plus Gs forces and finally just aircraft/pilot capabilities. This would quickly go from not too difficult to impossible to accomplish.

"This would quickly go from not too difficult to impossible to accomplish."

And you're absolutely correct.

I think you'll have a more informed opinion once you view the presentation and review the data as did the other pilots above who also claim "impossible to accomplish".

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Hey - a couple of posts back you showed where you went on some pilots forum and asked about Vg diagrams.

Any chance you can go to that forum and pose your conspiracy ideas about flight 175? Love to see the reaction.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Tiffany sez "Are you able to find one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained in control/stable and did not shed parts - prior to 9/11?"

I say "Yes" , she ignores me.
Pretty colors on that graph.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join