9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

9/11 was a coup. Whether it was terrorists or an inside job is immaterial - the result is the same.
The neocons and their Israeli handlers benefited most from the event.
The offshore banking cartels and the global corporations got everything they wanted; they looted our economy as well as those countries we now occupy.
The neocons got their panopticon, surveillance police state, an effective end to the Peoples Constitutional Republic, and a stream of obedient, mindless followers.
9/11 will not be resolved until every last neocon/Zionist criminal is expelled or brought to justice, and our Republic restored.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Hold on one cotton picking moment here! Where did someone fly for 1-2ft?
OH! Wait you mean the 1-2ft above the ground .05 seconds prior to impact right? Of the Pentagon? Gee you know, you were making it sound as if the plane was roaring along for miles at 1-2ft off the ground. Good thing we figured it was approximately less than a second when the nose plowed into the side.

Have you seen this video?



or this



or this



or this vid



Well how about that. Four videos of four different aircraft all managing to fly very low and very fast without much difficulty. Including a 757! But you know, everyone keeps making it look like the 757 was "burning the sagebrush" for miles prior to arrival at the Pentagon. But it wasnt. Four miles out it was at 2,000ft. The terrorist throttled up the engines to max, and began the final descent into the Pentagon. And these videos show how the planes can fly very low and fast without difficulty, and for longer distances.

[edit on 8/20/2010 by GenRadek]

Looks like those pilots paid attention in class and learned how to take off and land.

On the other hand, the supposed hijackers didn't.

But you have the 'evidence' that they were only at the 1-2 foot altitude for .05 seconds before impact, so that explains this enigma:



Check out 3:29 of the video for the riddle.

It doesn't explain this video:



How did they manage to level out so smoothly at ground level?
Capt. Sully has nothing on these guys.

reply to post by Dogdish


So apparently its very hard to pull out of dive to just a few feet off the ground prior to impact? The terrorist managed to do it. It doesnt look that hard to me. And again, for how long was the aircraft coasting along the ground a few feet off the it? A few seconds at best? People the terrorist was aiming for the Pentagon and was on a full power glide right into it.

Oh by the way, the hijackers werent really interested in take off or landing, so why would they bother learning that part?

PS I was being very general about the .05 seconds, as obviously we dont know how long it was exactly.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Fair enough.

What I was trying to point out is that to 'pull out of the dive to just a few feet off the ground' seems like a 'landing' maneuver; one that even a crazed terrorist may want to practice a bit so that his last act on Earth is not completely in vain.

He got lucky, I guess.

Originally posted by GenRadek
So apparently its very hard to pull out of dive to just a few feet off the ground prior to impact? The terrorist managed to do it.

There's nothing I could add to this kind of "reasoning."

I think our work here is done guys.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Well....GenRadek covered it well, in about the same examples I used. 'He' found even better ones, though.

Now...GenRadek seems to understand VERY well...and I don't know whether 'ke' is or is not a pilot...but if 'he'can understand, then those who still say:

There's nothing I could add to this kind of "reasoning."

I think our work here is done guys.

...seem to playing the "See No Evil, "Hear No Evil..." game of just ignoring the facts that are presented, when they show a long-held (and mistaken) belief for what it truly is. A misunderstanding.


You specific points have been addressed --- no deflection, no dodging.

But, again...possibly due to my tendency to over-write sometimes, may have been missed with a casual scan of the post's contents.



So, a recap:

A claim of "One to two inches" above the ground in sustained flight?

Well, truly there is NO relevance. That sort of rhetoric is a prime example of the folly of the so-called "truth movement"...by using such exagerrated hyperbole, it is a tactic to invoke ridiculous imagesin people's minds, in order to bolster the "argument" of the "TM" side. It is intellectually dishonest, and lazy too --- in terms of a form of debate and discussion.

AAl 11 and UAL 175 both impacted the Twin Towers, respectively, at altitudes between 500 and 800 feet AGL. UAL 93 was a dive from altitude, nearly inverted, and down at a very steep angle to the ground.

AAL 77 is shown in the NTSB recreation from the Flight Recorder data**...it descended from an altitude, in mostly steady and NOT very fast rate of descent until impact...NOT flying "level with the ground for one or two miles". Since all indications show (including multiple eyewitnesses, keeping in mind that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unleliable, these are uspported by the data) the airplane was in a slight one-wing-low attitude on impact. So, this puts it (since it didn't scrape the ground immediately prior) at least a few feet above the ground.

(**Note on the NTSB evaluation of data: The last portions, before the Recorder stopped functioning -- on impact -- were "missing" because they were not fully resolved, by NTSB, for that video they produced. We are talking about a fraction of a second's worth, here...possibly corrupted BY the impact, and damage to the Recorder unit. This data has been ferreted out by an independent researcher, and filled in. There are threads about it on ATS...)

The NTSB data "stopped" at a fraction of a second before impact, and the approximate MSL altitude was ~180 feet. The path prior to that point, and the airplane's trending can be easily seen in the video, and the "missing" part is easy to interpolate from there.

OK...AAL 77 has been done to death...

Next, this insistence on the so-called "wargames". ???

I don't have the link readily avaliable, it's been sourced here on ATS countless times already...First, those who MAY have been initially slated to participate in an exercise are very well-trained professionals...and as SOON as the question "Exercise, or Real World?" was asked, they were able to immediately switch from 'training" to "real" mode in their minds and actions.

Furthermore, I have already posted (I think in this thread?) a video interview with the civilian ATC personnel involved. Please take the time to watch it, for it provides a perspective on the REALITY of events, and how they came to pass.


The alternative to seeking the real facts? That would be to continue to feast on the lies and misconceptions conveyed by the various "9/11 conspiracy" websites that infest the Internet on this topic......and to gobble down their BS blindly and without question.

reply to post by Dogdish


Hey everyone can get lucky, even doing something crazy and suicidal!

I think the best examples would be the kamikaze pilots of WWII. Many of these guys were given little to no formal training of the planes and bombers they were to use in their suicide dives. Granted they flew slower than planes of today, but they also used the Ohka piloted rocket "plane" and were just told, find ship and hit it. Ok. You try piloting a plane at 250+mph with flak and enemy fighters shooting at you, then trying to hit a zigzagging ship or a full steam ahead maneuvering ship the size of a postage stamp in the ocean. Many failed, but also many made it! Many missed by inches, while some got direct hits.

The hijackers definitely had better training but were only interested in the flying part and diving. Thats what they wanted to learn! As for Flight77 like weedwhacker said, it wasnt skimming along the ground for miles, but instead for the last few seconds prior to impact!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well....GenRadek covered it well, in about the same examples I used. 'He' found even better ones, though.

Now...GenRadek seems to understand VERY well...and I don't know whether 'ke' is or is not a pilot...but if 'he'can understand...

Before you make this too hard on yourself let me explain what was wrong with what "GenRadek" posted.

Originally posted by GenRadek
So apparently its very hard to pull out of dive to just a few feet off the ground prior to impact? The terrorist managed to do it.

Here is the reasoning being presented (remember the word "reasoning"?):

"It's hard to do that?"

"Well the terrorist did it."


And then applause. Applause. Deafeningly silent. Except for whichever other resident "debunker" comes along to spare a star because they're sympathizing with how desperate you'd have to be to start "thinking" this short-sightedly. Did you get the fallacy yet or should I just give up?

We might as well be arguing religion.

"There is no proof that the Bible is the word of God?"

"Well the Bible says it is."

Congratulations, congratulations. "GenRadek," and "weedwhacker," you're my heros for today.




And no, all of this doesn't make it any easier to fly a foot off the ground. Or do a backwards sumersault spiral into a car garage in a 747 either. Especially for someone who's never flown one before and sucked at what he did fly.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Gently pointing out....I believe you mis-read the "General's" intent, in the words about 'pulling out of a dive". When I read it, I cold detect the sarcasm.

That is a basic problem with this type of communication...the tones and inflection, body language, facial expressions...are are missing to convey what people realy intend. It is difficult to come accross corectly, sometimes.


Back to AAL 77...it wasn'tin a "dive"!!! Please re-watch the video...I will direct you to pay particular attention to the attitude indicator, which shows pitch and roll amounts. (I know, it's a poor quality video, in resolution. I keep trying to find a betterone).

The AI is the round dial with a representative "sky" and "ground", with the horizontal line dividing them to represent the 'horizon'. NTSB has colored it "purple" (??) for the "sky"..and a sickly ocher for the "ground". The airplane (it's "nose") is represented by the symbol in the center,that doesn't move.

The roll angles are graduated on the scale along the top...every hash is 10 degrees. The 30- and 60-degree marks are denoted with slightly longer hash lines. The Pitch marks are graduated in FIVE degree ---[edit-correction --- on the real instruments, IN the airplanes, I am used to the 5 degree indices...the NTSB re-creation has them at TEN degrees, labeld every 20...]---increments, Nose Up, Nose Down...above/below the "horizon". ~5 degrees nose Down is NOT extreme at all, and is NOT a "dive" attitude. If you have flown in an airliner, you've likely experienced it in every descent they make...it is NOT a 'violent' maneuver to level from that attitude.

It is a fact that pilots can interpret these instruments --- even the ones that are graphically presented, and not EXACTLY what was in the real airplane...they are depicting for reference purposes. We, with the experience behind us, see this and are used to 'reading' the instruments, in a scanning fashion...it's what we do in real life, too.






[edit on 21 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by MrSpad


The planes were used to hide the fact explosives were used and to put forth the whole 19 Arabs with box cutters pulled off 9/11 plan.

If they just used explosives then it would be a security issue and there would be a more thorough investigation to how and who...and we all know George Bush's brother and cousin were high up in the security for the world trade center up till a few months before 9/11.He could have easily had people put in place while he was there and his brother was president at the time..no coincidence there folks.

This way people go "well,planes hit them,that must be why they fell"...understand?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Gently pointing out....I believe you mis-read the "General's" intent, in the words about 'pulling out of a dive". When I read it, I cold detect the sarcasm.

So he was being sarcastic when he said the "terrorist" did it? So you're saying he really doesn't believe it was a terrorist, that part was just sarcasm. Ohhh okay.

I think I need to get away from this website because you people are making me lose all remaining hope in humanity.

Circular reasoning is not a change in tone. It's a logical fallacy. And then on top of that, you have such a hard time comprehending this, that you somehow think sarcasm has something to do with it. If he was being sarcastic then you would be saying he doesn't actually believe Flight 77 was piloted by a terrorist.


We've all seen Gen's thought process now: "All these pilots say that maneuver would be difficult for the terrorist? Well the terrorist did it."

"There's a problem? Oh, well everything still happened the way I was told."

"Oh that's actually impossible? Well they still did it anyway."

Suddenly it makes perfect sense to me why you can't reason with him. Now I'm just confused as to why you personally took up his cause and with such a nonsense explanation. I'd say let him speak for himself but he's already done enough of that.

Back to AAL 77...it wasn'tin a "dive"!!! Please re-watch the video...I will direct you to pay particular attention to the attitude indicator, which shows pitch and roll amounts. (I know, it's a poor quality video, in resolution. I keep trying to find a betterone).

The actual maneuvers in those videos don't mean anything to me. I can't look at it and tell how difficult it would be to execute. You know why? Because I've never flown a 747 or any plane. But lots of people have. And not only have I seen more claimed pilots (how do I know YOU'RE really a pilot anyway?) say they have a problem with what the "terrorists" allegedly did, but I've seen enough of your "reasoning" on other subjects that are more comprehensible to me to realize that following you to a conclusion is like following a blind man in the dark.

Back to the OP.... Read it. Understand it. Accept it. You are by far not the only person claiming to be a pilot, on this planet. You're human just like anybody else and your personal 2 cents only gets you so far.

I'd love to experiment with this in real life. Put you in a simulator, turn off all transponders, etc., and then tell you to find a city and hit a particular building. The only clue you get is the general direction the city is in. Oh yeah, it has to be a simulation of a massive and unwieldy plane you've never flown before. And you have to be a terrible pilot to start with. Child's play, right?

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


I posted this on the previous page for you .

Do you have me on ignore or are you just ignoring what the guy says in the link ?

Do you really want to look at this from all angles , or are you only willing to consider those angles that support your opinions and theories ?

That is a serious question , by the way , as you apparently don't wish to discuss what is contained in this link .

www.aerospaceweb.org...

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Well you make it sound as if it is so hard to do. But was he really diving?
(Thanks for noticing the bit weedwhacker! )

But as it is seen it wasnt doing a nosedive, but a nice long glide right into it with the throttle way up to max. Now that is something easy I'll be even you and I can do with just the bare minimal of training. The kamikaze pilots did it in their planes. The Ohka (Baka) pilots did it! In fact, the Ohka's max speed was (with all three rocket engines engaged and in a dive) was 650 mph. Now think about that for a second. You have a small stubby rocket plane, with a rudimentary flight control, and three rocket engines strapped to the back, just being aimed at a moving ship which is also throwing up flak ad zigzagging and trying to evade. The "mothership" Betty bomber releases it, and it glides towards it target, until the engines are ignited and there is no throttle or anything to stop the engine burn, until impact, either with the ship or the water. The targets were generally between 300ft and 900ft. Its much harder to hit a moving target that is smaller, throwing up flak, with three rocket engines pushing you to 650mph in the glide/dive with nearly zero maneuverability, and barely basic training. But they did it. Seven ships were hit and damaged or sunk. These terrorists had enough training for their turns and their glide at full throttle into the Pentagon wall. A wall that is about 921ft wide and STATIONARY. And they would have had much better maneuverability than the Baka pilots of WWII. So no, it does not seem as if it is some crazy wild maneuver that a "stunt pilot" can only do, when in reality all it was was nice long full throttle glide right smack dab into the Pentagon.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Are you being intentionally obtuse? Let's review...you even QUOTED me, then took what I SAID completely wrong, based on your (attempted mocking) reply. (This is very vexing, and confusing):

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Gently pointing out....I believe you mis-read the "General's" intent, in the words about 'pulling out of a dive". When I read it, I cold detect the sarcasm.

GenRadek seemed, in MY reading, to be sarcastic about the "DIVE" comment!! I think that's quite clear, in my quote above. So why did you then turn around and write?:

Originally psoted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
So he was being sarcastic when he said the "terrorist" did it? So you're saying he really doesn't believe it was a terrorist, that part was just sarcasm.

I want EVERYONE reading this to see, exactly, this tactic.

I consider it deceitful (if done intentionally) and insulting. I fail to grasp how one can claim it was an "honest mistake", due to a misinterpretation. So, I feel it is intentional, be default.

It also shows a trait of many, many in the so-called "truth movement" --- to spin everything that goes against their "story" plot, and attempt to ridicule and demean, rather than address the subject.

TO WIT, this example that followed:

I think I need to get away from this website because you people are making me lose all remaining hope in humanity.

Some more of your rants followed, going on about the "misunderstanding", with attempts to deflect and disguise the real subject.


Now...here is another prime example of WHY the so-called "truthers" are merely running around, bobbling their heads in agreement with anyone who utters the same inane fantasies regarding the events of 9/11, and puts their fingers in their years, and covers their eyes with their hands when shown VALID evidence that deflates their pre-conceived biases:

The actual maneuvers in those videos don't mean anything to me.

....and....BANG! Goes the dynamite! I find it very, very hard to belileve that a person in today's world has not, at the very least, seen a movie or a TV show or a documentary...or had access to a home Flight Sim program on their computer, or a Game...something that is similar, to give them a clue.

I see this as an intellectually dishonest comment to write, and I am not falling for that level of naivete' as presented by this ATS member. (IF the person I was communicating with had JUST fallen off a turnip truck, then I'd be more prone to believe it...but not coming from someone who is posting on an Internet discussion Forum).

now...I DID read the OP. Why is it (since you claim to "know so little") that you accept everything said by that ONE man, in his blog, that formed this OP??? Understand this question?

WHY do the so-called "truthers" tend to believe a handful --- and that's what we're tallking about, here...a mere handful --- of people and IGNORE the thousands upon thousands of others, in the same field of expertise, who say that those claims are BOGUS?

Is it because "truthers" WANT to have their fantasies validated, at any cost? No matter how slim, and weak...they will cling to any shred?

(So much for "seeking truth", eh?)

I'd love to experiment with this in real life. Put you in a simulator, turn off all transponders, etc., and then tell you to find a city and hit a particular building. The only clue you get is the general direction the city is in. Oh yeah, it has to be a simulation of a massive and unwieldy plane you've never flown before. And you have to be a terrible pilot to start with. Child's play, right?

Actually....if I had the funds, I'd host just such an event. I even contacted some ATS honchos to suggest it...they saw it as pointless, since it is a FRINGE of people who can't understand the reality of 9/11.

My thought was to have three groups, of two. One group, experienced professional pilots, one group some low-time pilots, and the third pair two people who do NOT know how to fly.

But, let's look at your non-comprehension in the quote above, to start:

---You don't know what the transponder really does, that seems obvious. SO, ignore that, it's not relevant.

---Find a city? I have a tutorial up-thread...did you read it? Allthe volunteers in my proposal would get some of the same basics, the 'training', to use the resources onboard the airplane; Jut as the hijackers did.

---Your part about the "only clue" as to direction is irrelevant, as noted above.

---Again, "massive and unwieldy" airplane?? Where does THAT impression come from The Boeing 757/767 are very sweet-flying machines, and handle very nicely. They are not "unwieldy" at all.


Actually, ALL modern airliners are pretty much the same, in handling and control "feel". Flying is flying, really. Just like driving is driving.

Now...here's a video (a bit of a promotion for the company in England...one that I thought of for my experiment)...

Do you think that the singer Ricky Martin is a "professional pilot" ???

Watch and learn:



He can even land, by himself --- with a little coaching by the instructor sitting next to him. Hijackers didn't need to be able to land......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Somehow, Rob Balsamo conned a few actual pilots (OK...a bit harsh. Balsamo DOES have an Airman's Certificate, but word is he has a medical condition that precludes him from qualifying for a Medical Certificate. You need BOTH to fly).

You should do your research at faa.gov before making such absurd statements which are borderline libel as Rob Balsamo's Medical certificate is very current. So are all his certificates.

OS Supporters love character assassination because they can't debate the facts.


Here are just some facts if they haven't already been posted here. Many of these pilots interviewed have actual flight time in all four of the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

Capt Dan Govatos


Capt Russ Wittenberg


Capt Ralph Kolstad Interview (mp3)

Capt Rusty Aimer and Capt Ralph Kolstad Interviewed (vimeo video)


NASA Flight Director Confirms Aircraft Speed As" Elephant In The Room"


Credentials of the above -

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)


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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Let's review...you even QUOTED me, then took what I SAID completely wrong, based on your (attempted mocking) reply. (This is very vexing, and confusing):

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Gently pointing out....I believe you mis-read the "General's" intent, in the words about 'pulling out of a dive". When I read it, I cold detect the sarcasm.

GenRadek seemed, in MY reading, to be sarcastic about the "DIVE" comment!! I think that's quite clear, in my quote above. So why did you then turn around and write?:

Originally psoted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
So he was being sarcastic when he said the "terrorist" did it? So you're saying he really doesn't believe it was a terrorist, that part was just sarcasm.

I want EVERYONE reading this to see, exactly, this tactic.

I consider it deceitful (if done intentionally) and insulting. I fail to grasp how one can claim it was an "honest mistake", due to a misinterpretation. So, I feel it is intentional, be default.

I still don't see what it is that I'm being deceitful about.

I was talking about 2 sentences "GenRadek" posted. What you are calling sarcasm, is not sarcasm at all, but circular reasoning. Which is a logical fallacy and completely ignorant. Seriously, look up "circular reasoning" and re-read his post. A logical fallacy is not a joke, or a smart-aleck reply, like "ha ha, I make no sense"; it's stupidity. It's obvious to me that you are very confused. That's your fault, for either not understanding what I'm pointing out, or not understanding what sarcasm really is.

If Gen was being "sarcastic" when he said "The terrorist did it" then -- you know what "sarcasm" is, right? -- he wouldn't have actually meant that "The terrorist did it." Got that yet? If not then stop and pause -- remember what sarcasm means, and look at the sentence I am referring to. He says, basically, "The maneuver would be difficult? Well the terrorist was able to do it." Come on, man. I KNOW you're not too dumb to see the circular reasoning in that. Whether or not the terrorists would be able to do these things is exactly what we're discussing! You cannot reason any more ignorantly than the equivalent of saying "I may be wrong? Oh well I'm right anyway."

Really, it wasn't sarcasm, it was circular reasoning, aka one of the most obtuse logical fallacies, if you want to talk about obtuse. And if you really want to talk about obtuse, try explaining to me why you repeatedly fail to grasp the obvious to feign confusion and act like I'm running a smear campaign. You two are doing a fine job smearing yourselves.


The rest of your post, or basically the entire thing, is a rant of as epic magnitude as what you took all that time to accuse me of. Get back on some topic that is remotely relevant to the OP. I'm done arguing with you about whether or not one of these other "debunkers" was being sarcastic or not when he made a very asinine statement. All you're doing now is talking about how confused you are anyway. I see it every day. Move on to whatever the next asinine thing is you all have to say already.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Ah...the Prodigal Son returns....so, got your medical back? Good for you...

...alas, still with the same old tired song and dance though, eh?? Nothing new under the sun?

Let's see...more of the tragically wrong and bogus cliams from "PfT". Still shilling for those DVDs, I see?

Video one, excerpts (teaser, really...hoping to sell more copies?)

Few notes: Dan Govato. You say that you include the "credentials" of ALL the quoted pilots...I see you bring out the same troops, never any NEW recruits, huh (??). BUT, don't see Govato's name there.

Now...my thinking, based solely on his (Govato's) words...the only simulators (737) in Phoenix that I can think of (since he mentions PHX) would be at the America West Training Center (back in 2001, was HP...they merged with USAir, and dropped the "America West" name, but corporate offices located to Phoenix).

SO...Govato...training in the 73 SIM (pointing out, your post also said that ALL referenced pilots had experience in the same type as 9/11 --- 757/767. HP did have the B-757, don't know if they owned their own SIMs back then, though). Anyway, they "tried" it in the 737...and claim they couldn't do it??

Funny...WE could. Now, why is that? Does it strike anyone as odd?

Govato says that the 737 is "a lot more maneuverable" than a 757/767???

Really? Apparently he had never flown the airplanes....

Then, the video goes off on a tangent, about Duitch rolls...geeze!!! Dutch roll problems are NOT a factor in the 737, nor in the 757/767. When I flew the 727, it DID have a tendency, but only if the yaw damper was INOP. (The older 707/720s also had this tendency). Usually became a problem due to PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillation)...and the technique trained was aggressive aileron inputs, to make the spoilers come up, and reducing airspeed helped. Again, ONLY a problem when the yaw damper was not operating.

Newer Boeings eliminated most Dutch roll problems by having a less severe wing sweep-back angle. LOOK it up!

The, the video tries to give the impression that the hijackers had limited experience, only in "light" airplanes. Ignoring the fact that they DID have some familiarity in simulators, of the 757/767 variety.

Govato DOES finally speak some truths, as he rambles (at about 6:30 and on) about Level-D sims, and the modern training syllabi for most major airlines. What he says pretty much destroys the "PfT" 'argument', though....just listen.

And what else...oh, yes. We hear (what I assume to be) Rob Balsamo on the line as well, chatting about his Dornier sim experience?

Sorry...I just have to laugh. His limited "airline" experience is very obvious, in every word he types. He seems to think that, because ONE particular sim (the Dornier) had "crash logic" designed for overspeeds, that ALL sims are exactly the same! Pretty funny, and not very well thought out....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

(snipped irrelevant rant)

Few notes: Dan Govato. You say that you include the "credentials" of ALL the quoted pilots...I see you bring out the same troops, never any NEW recruits, huh (??). BUT, don't see Govato's name there.

My bad -

Capt Dan Govatos
10,000TT
Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines
Director of Operations Training at Polar Air
Cargo, and Asst. Chief Pilot for Presidential Air
Manager of Flying for Eastern Airlines
Falcon 900 and a G-200
Check Captain
B737,A300, Da-50, G-200 and C-500
FE, A&P.

SO...Govato...training in the 73 SIM (pointing out, your post also said that ALL referenced pilots had experience in the same type as 9/11 --- 757/767.

I didn't say that. Read it again - (this time I'll bold the word you missed)

"Many of these pilots interviewed have actual flight time in all four of the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. "

In other words, 3 out of 4 of the pilots listed have time in not only type, but the exact aircraft reportedly used. I never claimed they "ALL" did. Please try to pay attention.

Then, the video goes off on a tangent, about Duitch rolls...geeze!!! Dutch roll problems are NOT a factor in the 737, nor in the 757/767. ....

(snipped irrelevant rants)


Newer Boeings eliminated most Dutch roll problems by having a less severe wing sweep-back angle. LOOK it up!

How many times have you flown an aircraft 120-150 knots over Vmo at or near sea level?

The, the video tries to give the impression that the hijackers had limited experience, only in "light" airplanes. Ignoring the fact that they DID have some familiarity in simulators, of the 757/767 variety.

Source?

Govato DOES finally speak some truths, as he rambles (at about 6:30 and on) about Level-D sims, and the modern training syllabi for most major airlines. What he says pretty much destroys the "PfT" 'argument', though....just listen.

What he says destroys the official govt fairy tale, as does the other pilots interviewed above. Why are you only focused on Dan?

Sorry...I just have to laugh. His limited "airline" experience is very obvious, in every word he types.

And yet Balsamo has grown an organization of hundreds of highly experienced Airline Capts, Military Drivers, Avionics Techs, Aircraft Accident Investigators, AMT's, etc.

He seems to think that, because ONE particular sim (the Dornier) had "crash logic" designed for overspeeds, that ALL sims are exactly the same! Pretty funny, and not very well thought out....

Actually, if you do your research in full instead of cherry picking one video above and listen to it all, Balsamo and Kolstad specifically state where some sim's have their crash logic disabled. Particularly the alleged sim test that was performed to exceed Vmo by 150 knots. Kolstad confirms American Airlines 767/757 sims have crash logic installed and it is impossible to control such a sim at the speeds reported on 9/11.

Weedywhacker, let us know when you find an aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots, exceed it's Maneuvering speeds by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was precisely controllable to hit a target with 25'-33' margins for error.

Since it seems your forte is exclusively character assassination, let us know when you would like to discuss Kolstad, Aimer, Deets and Latas as well. Thanks.

Finally, Balsamo never disqualified for a medical for any health reason. People like you lie about Balsamo, repeat it, and you parrot it. Stop obsessing over Balsamo and his career and your libelous claims.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Video #2...the same old, same old from Wittenberg?

Well, at least it's a (mercifully) short video...let's dissect it, shall we?:

His claims, and assertions starting out, show that he's coming from a beginning point of attempting to "argue from incredulity" by using FALSE 'facts' and assumptions...(this is, sadly, a commonly-used so-called "truther" tactic, I'm afraid...):


---"Jumping" from a 172, to a 757/767. His assertion is invalid, since we KNOW this is not how it went down...these guys DID have experience, and orientation in 757/767 cockpits, in simulators.

(*Audience should know this -- the Boeing 757/767 are considered to be similar enough that they are included under a 'common type rating' status, for Airman's Certificates purposes. Type ratings generally apply to all airplanes with max gross takeoff weights above 12,500 pounds. These are all referenced by USA and FAA standards, but are similar around the world, in other jurisdictions).

Wittenberg goes on about the hijackers using VNAV and LNAV (he says "vertical navigation" and "lateral navigation", but I knew what he meant).

I have already posted a short tutorial regarding the ease of which, after only a bit of instruction, someone could learn to LNAV. The two SSFDRs that were recovered, AAL 77 and UAL 93, show that the hijackers had a basic understanding of vertical "navigation" too. Actually, when using the term 'VNAV' it is a very specific function of the FMC, and is a bit more andvanced than what the hijackers actually used, in the autopilot programming modes. They used a combination of Vertical Speed (V/S) and Flight Level Change (FLCH) modes. Basically, they knew how to descend...and knew how the autothrottles worked as well...this isn't 'rocket science'!!

Finally, good ole' Russ blathers on about "five, six or seven Gs.."

Where, oh where did he pull out THAT gobbledegook???

Either poor Russ was fed a load of misinformation, and thus left to make a fool of himself on camera, or...well...WHEN did he retire, again???

BTW...not wishing to attack the 'source' here...but within the aviation community Capt. Wittenberg is NOT a wallflower. He made a 'name' for himself, in many ways, well before 11 September, 2001. There is some history that should be investigated, with him --- to assess his motivations.

His provenance, in particular. Former PanAm. Those who are familiar with the shenanigans that occured when United Airlines originally "acquired" only the very, very 'plum' portions of the almost-defunct PanAm know what I'm talking about. Let's just say....Wittenberg is a typical pilot --- in it for HIMSELF, every step of the way, no matter what.

A little bit of googling, and found MORE nonsense from Russ....even fairly recently (2004?) about American 77. His statemnet BELIES the evidence -- almost as if, like some pilots I know, he's just talking out of his [censored]:

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall.

WRONG!!! This guy is supposed to be "expert"?? He seems addled, and confused, mistaking the facts and circumstances, and even worse? Not realizing his mistakes!

AAL 77, during the turn and first pass over the Pentagon, to line up for the final run...did NOT go much faster than ~290KIAS. Well within normal airspeeds.

His nonsense continues:

The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G
maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run
these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

The source.

The bank angle was AT MOST 35-37 degrees. This is seen in the NTSB video recreation, from the SSFDR data. The radar ground track radii in the turn jive with those approximate bank angles, at the speeds as shown. And, "high G"?? Russ, Russ, Russ....folks, in level flight a 30-degree bank turn gives about 1.15 Gs. It goes up to 2 Gs at 60 degrees of bank! A descending turn, at 35 degrees? STILL less than 2 Gs!

It is very difficult to convey the depth of my disgust at these blatant misrepresentations of facts, and aeronautical physics, and the motivations that SOME (a mere handful) seem to have eludes me. I don't know what they get out of it.


Finally, NOT shown in "Tiffany's" links to videos, above...but seen (if I recall) somewhere else. Just to forestall, in case it comes up: I think it's Ralph Kolstad (might have been Russ) that, at some point, in some video, mentioning UAL 175, talks about "roll reversal" at the very high airspeeds

It is TRUE, the phenomenon. It has been seen, in many different airplanes, over the years.

BUT...you'd think that a guy (Wittenberg, or Kolstad) who is TYPE RATED on the Boeing 767, and has "all that experience", would remember that the 767's OUTBOARD ailerons (the ones out near the wingtips) do not operate when the trailing edge flaps are fully retracted!!!

The aileron reversal "problem" is a function only related to ailerons, near the tips, on wing designs that have sufficient torsional flexiblity for it to become an issue.

These "experienced" pilots don't remember their airplanes' design?

The 767s have, in addition to the two outboard ailerons, two INBOARD ailerons as well...and, in any case, MOST roll control in higher-speed flight regimes is provided by the spoilers (panels on TOP of the wings. You've probably seen them, when you flew and sat near the wing on an airliner?)

Not all the spoiler panels operate in flight...those that do are called, obviously, 'flight spoilers' to distinguish them from the segments that WILL operate, as well, when asked to be deployed on the ground..."ground spoilers".

FYI....the "speed brakes" on Boeing designs also utilize these same panels...they come up simulatneously, when commanded by the pilot. They will also, when extended as "speed brakes", modulate with aileron control movement....but, you don't need to know all that, it's bonus credit info.

Apparently these "experts" could use some remedial traiing, though....