9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

double post,sorry!

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Weed,
Cessna still had that program in the early 80's. My first flight was in a 172 and it cost me 50 bucks for a full hour of introduction. I then purchased block time at a rate of 65 bucks an hour. Now that same amount of instruction I took would buy a new car. I started in a 172 and flew three other types finishing with an old 1944 DC 3 before I ran out of money and time! Flying is easy. It's the navigation and the proper protocols of cross country that's the hard part to learn.

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone




Man, I forgot about that conversation! DC-3! You old dog! Making me jealous, huh??

Back when my airline found and restored one of the old original DC-3s (well, "Trans Texas Airways" actually....but, minor detail, after so many airlines merged...), repainted it in vintage colors, and used to tootle around the country doing PR, there only a few "management" pilots allowed to operate it. One of them ( a nice guy, all around .... even though he was ex-"TTA"...ha ha!) also had other connections, and ( I guess, plenty of money from other sources, besides normal airline salary ) made it his "hobby" to acquire as many type ratings as he could --- especially in the WWII vintage bombers that the U.S. flew; and that required access to the few that are still around...fortunately for him, he lived in Texas, where the "Confederate Air Force" is home based. And I'm guessing he had a network of "good ole' boys" and connections....

Hey!! Looky what I found! (See? If you hadn't mentioned the DC-3, I might not even have thought to look for this...thanks!!):



I didn't see (Charlie, I think his name was) except that one shot at 0:49, rest time he seemed to be hiding, in the photos!! Camera shy....don't know the right seater....one of the F/As I recognize by face.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I got a kick outta this! Only "round engines" I've ever flown all use Jet-A!!

Still...fuel pressure, flow and ignition....then it's all down to technique, and knowing the machine's quirks....



Ah, heck! NOW I've discovered this guy's series of videos....looks like he bought this rather plushly modified (and modernized) DC-3, in the Northeast U.S., and ferried it back to his home in Vancouver, B.C.!

Just one more vid, I promise....I got a kick out of his Dad, starting about 4:00. "We better climb a little, 'cause we're pretty low..."

It's a great example of the casual way, and friendly FUN controllers can be, too.
(I am assuming this guy's an airline pilot..."Positive rate, gear up" gives him away, after takeoff...)

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by elnine

 

. . .which ignores the adamant clarity of his statement. . .

So, what do you think he meant, I mean W?
He said "sitting outside" waiting to go in. Where he was sitting was in his limo in the parking lot at the school. After he watched it on some sort of TV, obviously in the limo, then they moved him out of the car and into the building. That would have been the first crash, into the north tower. He very well may have seen the plane crash if they had a camera person videoing it like they did with the second crash (which apparently only I know about). I don't know what type of special communications technology would have been in that limo. If they had some sort of ability to have live TV streamed into his car, then my explanation for what I saw would not make a lot of sense. For all I know, it could have been aired on local TV, too,

Its a fact that Bush stated he watched the first plane hit the tower when its a known fact there was no footage from the first impact until the day after 9/11.

So why do you dismiss such a basic fact and look for excuses for his slip-up like so many other perp defenders protecting the murderers?

Originally posted by lord9

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by elnine

 

. . .which ignores the adamant clarity of his statement. . .

So, what do you think he meant, I mean W?
He said "sitting outside" waiting to go in. Where he was sitting was in his limo in the parking lot at the school. After he watched it on some sort of TV, obviously in the limo, then they moved him out of the car and into the building. That would have been the first crash, into the north tower. He very well may have seen the plane crash if they had a camera person videoing it like they did with the second crash (which apparently only I know about). I don't know what type of special communications technology would have been in that limo. If they had some sort of ability to have live TV streamed into his car, then my explanation for what I saw would not make a lot of sense. For all I know, it could have been aired on local TV, too,

Its a fact that Bush stated he watched the first plane hit the tower when its a known fact there was no footage from the first impact until the day after 9/11.

So why do you dismiss such a basic fact and look for excuses for his slip-up like so many other perp defenders protecting the murderers?

Because politicians in general are stupid and just talk not really knowing what the hell they are saying half the time..... maybe...

Or he did see the first plane hit as he sat reading to an elementary class...

reply to post by Xtrozero


Ooooohhhh! [raises hand] Can I play?! I think I know the correct answer!

Or he did see the first plane hit as he sat reading to an elementary class...

It's a trick question! (We learned about those in social studies class the other day)...he saw the "first" airplane hit on TV....but it... (and this is where the trick comes in...) ....it was on tape replay!!!

....oh, almost missed this part....about covers it, in his case:

Because politicians in general are stupid ....

Yup!! And, Bush NEVER once, ever in his career, ever misspoke when under pressure to remember something from his swiss-cheese-holed brain.....

("You're working hard to put food on your family" -- 'Bushism', from the candidate Bush, January 27, 2000).

People really misunderestimated him....."Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

Ah, good times.........

TiffanyInLA update:

... Balsamo has had an obsession with her since 2007!

Here is a post made from Captain Bob Jan 7 2007, 08:18 PM in his own forum:

Looks like a good film painter... any chance this gorgeous lady is in it?

(IMG:pics1.edeal.com...)

First one is Mindy Vega.. .do a google search for her.. (IMG:pilotsfor911truth.org...)

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Mindy Vega is a porn star. (aka TiffanyinLA aka Rob Balsamo)

Oh no! I was hitting on a guy! Even worse, it was a guy who refused to admit airplanes go much faster than they are designed to.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Mindy Vega is a porn star. (aka TiffanyinLA aka Rob Balsamo)

edit on 28-12-2010 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

This is proof that Tiff was Rob Balsamo?



Anyone reading this thread will find you guys spend more time on character assassination than discussing the evidence. Go visit flightinfo.com. You'll see many pilots with porn star avatars. Pilots/mechanics hide porn in the cockpits for the next crew. It's a tradition.

Now back to the topic. Looks like you guys have less that 3 pages left.

It is now page NINETY-SEVEN (72 past the initial prediction, and only 3 more to go for the final prediction) -

The score remains -

Evidence for Tiff's argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

Data -
NTSB
Boeing
Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
NASA Research


Precedent -
EA990
China Air 747SP
TWA 727
737
Modified DC-8

All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS ("It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150") -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = N/A
Precedent = N/A
Verified Experts = N/A


Again - To those who blindly support whatever their govt tells them -


Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so...". You have been failing for more than NINE years

Originally posted by MrHerbert

This is proof that Tiff was Rob Balsamo?

Anyone reading this thread will find you guys spend more time on character assassination than discussing the evidence. Go visit flightinfo.com. You'll see many pilots with porn star avatars. Pilots/mechanics hide porn in the cockpits for the next crew. It's a tradition.

Well, Bob once again reappears as a sock puppet using a JREF name. Seems he's is reading the thread where he is being laughed at (as usual)

Hey Bob, instead of reading porn in the cockpit, you should have been reading pilot instruction journals.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
[snipped off topic rant].

Click here.... www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then let us know when you will find evidence for your argument of the topic.

reply to post by MrHerbert

Anyone reading this thread will find you guys spend more time on character assassination than discussing the evidence.

Thats because there are a lot of "charcters" here and absolutely nothing to evidence any specific theory. Present something to discuss then maybe the discussion will ensue. Otherwise its just a repition of "because I said so" and spam for a conspiracy website.

Think the planes won't go that fast? Fine, get someone at Boeing to write that up for you. Since, according to the truth movement there is a plethora of avaition experts who disagree with the OS then it should be rather easy.

Originally posted by hooper
Think the planes won't go that fast? Fine, get someone at Boeing to write that up for you.

Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

(scroll forward to 2:57)


This was posted back on page 40.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by MrHerbert


In writing please, with a full technical explanation on Boeing letterhead.

Not a youtubbbe vid.

Don't forget you are accusing people of mass murder, the standards are pretty high.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by MrHerbert

 

In writing please, with a full technical explanation on Boeing letterhead.

What, calling Boeing isn't enough? Ok,... I'll do one better.

Not only are these speeds derived and written by Boeing based on flight and wind tunnel testing, but it is also approved by the FAA and defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.



You really should click the links of evidence provided.

reply to post by MrHerbert

What, calling Boeing isn't enough? Ok,... I'll do one better.

Nope, not good enough. We're talking mass murder here, not a parking violation. From Boeing, on Boeing letterhead, preferably published on their website, signed and with a full technical explanation.

Mass murder.

Not only are these speeds derived and written by Boeing based on flight and wind tunnel testing, but it is also approved by the FAA and defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics

Sorry, from Boeing, not the same post with the word "Boeing" cut and pasted in.

Mass murder. High standard.

Opinions are fun, but useless.

Originally posted by hooper
Nope, not good enough. We're talking mass murder here, not a parking violation. From Boeing, on Boeing letterhead, preferably published on their website, signed and with a full technical explanation.

Mass murder.

I agree hooper. We ARE talking mass murder here. What evidence has been provided to justify this?

Iraq Children Killed

Sorry, from Boeing,

I've read this thread. You have been provided this document several times. Each time you refused to acknowledge it exists. Here it is again.

Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet

What does the above document say for Vd? What does the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics say outside Vd? Why do you avoid this as if it doesn't exist? Why do you avoid and evade a simple phone call to Boeing when you asked for a statement from Boeing?

Move the goal posts much?

Mass murder. High standard.

Agreed, and the Burden of proof is on those who invade others. Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument, as you have been failing for more than NINE years, while also claiming those you argue with daily, are crazy.

reply to post by MrHerbert

What does the above document say for Vd? What does the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics say outside Vd? Why do you avoid this as if it doesn't exist? Why do you avoid and evade a simple phone call to Boeing when you asked for a statement from Boeing?

Don't care. Letter from Boeing stating, with full technical explanation. Boeing letterhead. Preferably published on their website. And please no more cut and paste "Boeing" onto things you googled on the internet. Thats overly dishonest. And no more of your opinions. They really don't count for anything.

Agreed, and the Burden of proof is on those who invade others. Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument, as you have been failing for more than NINE years, while also claiming those you argue with daily, are crazy.

Never said crazy. Not that that is not a possibility, but never said crazy.

Originally posted by MrHerbert
Agreed, and the Burden of proof is on those who invade others. Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument, as you have been failing for more than NINE years, while also claiming those you argue with daily, are crazy.

edit on 30-12-2010 by MrHerbert because: (no reason given)

The latest Balsamo sock. We'll just add this to the ever increasing list.