Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by LaBTop


Let's try logic again :
The Comptroller .....

That entire post is a classic example why ATS will never, ever reach the heights of a truly respectable and serious discussion board. It was total gibberish, yet it gets posted and left here without any comment from the mods.

It is also an example of why the Truth people and their "movement" remain laughing stocks across the entire spectrum of the human existence. The amount of conjecture in that post would have choked a horse. When people post pure conjecture while claiming some mantle of legitimacy, and the hosting discussion board does nothing to maintain at least the barest semblance of serious scholarship or knowledge, it becomes just as much of a joke as the conjecture-filled diatribe.

Mosey on, y'all. When does the next act start?

This ^^

Not only the example you've given, but the other continued spamming by CIT is a complete joke, as well.... CIT insists that NOC is still possible and he lists an example at 56 degrees of bank and 1.8 g's. I wonder when they'll tell us what witness saw this huge airliner at extremely low level doing an airshow... NO ONE SAW THIS AND IT'S TOO LATE TO BACK IT IN NOW. with more CIT garbage spam....

Good grief, it's small wonder that only a few loons believe this poppycock. In fact, even most truthers have rejected it. It's small wonder that CIT/pfffft are known as Internet clowns....

ETA: Those paths signed by both Lagasse and Brooks won't hack it either. That path would require 70-80 + degrees of bank and in excess of 4-5 g's or more.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Has Balsamo already openly ackknowledged and corrected his "north of Concourse AAL77 departure gate" saga?

Do you agree that PfT member Jan Zelman's work, when interpreted correctly, shows instead the correct departure gate D26?

Do you agree that my proposal, based on CIT's own eyewitnesses, of a much slower than that NTSB decoded FDR 460 KTS or their 540 MPH end speed showed, is more viable?
Use this : www.csgnetwork.com...
Namely 220 MPH in that last kilometer 22° right bank angled flight path up to the Pentagon west wall, which attitude is much better reflecting what all the CIT witnesses saw and described? Not one of them saw a plane flying towards them in a 56° angled bank.
You know that the bank difference is so significant, that no ANC witness could mistake such a steep angle for what they have ever described with their hand, or/and a toy-plane in their hand.
They never showed such a strong 56° right bank, but perfectly well, my proposed 22° bank. See the, at the ANC maintenance grounds, videotaped CIT interviews.

Btw, why did you not commend on this corrected by me, PfT or CIT picture?
In this bottom post on page 23 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...




It seems to me, that it is the heart of your fly-over matter. It shows how easily that plane when flying with 220 MPH can stay free of all obstacles in front of the west wall, and then impact at the thick second floor slab..
Your CIT heroes dishonestly showed a far too steep descend, based on no witness accounts.

They all say they saw the plane flying already much lower than shown in this picture by PfT, f.ex. near the Annex (Paik and Morin), and even lower, north of the CITGO (Brooks and Lagasse, Turcios), and very low above Route 27 (Peterson, Elgas, Narayanan, Probst etc), contrary to the yellow originally shown much higher PfT flight path shown in my above, corrected picture, which was only constructed by CIT to arrive at a knick in their yellow path, to fit a nearly straight entrance of the plane, as seen in the famous two security boot videos. And thus higher G-loads as a result of that knick.
My red line however let the plane smoothly reach the west wall, also in a nearly straight entrance path by the plane.
No excessive G-loads, no excessive banks, no excessive turns. Just as all CIT and my additional NoC witnesses described it...........

And Trebor, are you the Robert who worked in the same job place with Craig?
Your and Reheat's last 2 posts did only add hot air to the discussion. I saw no counter-argument at all.
Transparent, as usual.

-- next --
The Post Examiner's post dissected further :

Roosevelt Roberts phone interview by CIT, translated to text by me, LaBTop in post #61.
Read also my next post #62.
When you read my italic text inserts in post #61, it will help you to understand what kind of interview technique was used; what irrational trying to "lead the witness" technique went on in there to let RR's words fit a fly-over :

pilotsfor911truth.org...

All the mixing up of planes by CIT and PfT members pivots around this CIT spoken text, just after RR has vividly explained how he saw AAL77 approach the west wall, low flying and in a slight bank above the light poles positioned behind the Lane One area, along Route 27 :

So, from where it headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?
RR: From the, UHH???!!............???.... Can you repeat that one more time please!
Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon...this second plane, do you remember.....
RR: WHY??

This sudden change from the approaching AAL77 coming in low towards the west wall, as RR described so vividly and precisely, to a description of a second plane which headed away from the Pentagon, instead of approaching it like RR just precisely explained, is clearly a move to confuse the hell out of the man. He thus switches over to describing the one minute after impact arriving in the sky above the Pentagon.
And I will debate you infinitely about it, since it is crystal clear what CIT was trying to do. Leading RR from AAL77 to the C-130, because they thought it was the same AAL77 that returned after a fly-over.
But RR's words :

RR: Yes sir, that's not what I think, it was two aircrafts, yes. For sure..!

prove in fact to them that he described two different planes. But that was not convenient for their already full blown and posted fly-over theory.
So since then, they bend his words in such a way, that according to them, he described the same plane returning from a fly-over, when RR described it clearly as the second plane, the C-130 as seen in the 4 photo's of it, high in the sky U-turning in front of the top of the then huge smoke column billowing up.
-- next --

-- next --
Compare my translated text to the one from Craig Ranke in your (ThePostExaminer) post :

My text :

CR: Are you hundred percent sure a jet, an actual jet-plane?
RR: Commercial aircraft.
CR: Commercial aircraft, OK. So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the uhh.. the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?
RR: Yes sir, that's not what I think, it'was two aircrafts, yes. For sure..!
CR: OK...Now where did it seem where they came from?
RR: It seem like uhh.., when I sure by the time I got for the shack it was already in the parking lot at Lane One, anyway it sure was, you couldn't miss it seeing it.
CR: Right, but where did it seem from where it came from?
RR: It seem like uhh.., that it came from uhh.., it, hold on a second, it seem like it came from uhh.......let's look, the same way it came in or it appeared to came in from the same way from where it came in, uhh.., almost like where the first plane hit, so uhh.., it looked like.., it looked like it came from that direction.

(LT: Roosevelt still is describing "it" here as the C-130, and then Aldo confused him again with the next, illogical question (below), introducing a totally opposite direction as Roosevelt just (above) perfectly explained, namely the C-130 coming towards him, almost like the way the first plane did (AAL77) and hit, like it (C-130) came from that same direction.
It's illogical to try to compare a side, to a direction, without giving further clues to RR.(C.Ranke: "" Right, but where did it seem from where it came from? "" and then his next words below : )

CR: So from the same direction, as, as, from the impact side basically, from that direction?
RR: That be correctly, right, exactly.

(LT: RR misunderstands Aldo now, he thinks he means going west again, back from coming to the east.)

Craig Ranke's text :

Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like [incomprehensible], by the time I got the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one, and it was so large, you couldn't miss from seeing it.

Craig Ranke: Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction

My "......Let's look" text, Ranke changed to : "...southwest..look," .....
The rest of his text also differs quite a bit from mine. Listen to RR's phone interview. Check it out, its link is in one of my #60ties post in my only long thread at PfT, link is above.
-- end --

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

You still haven't explained the lack of flyaway witnesses. The "duck and cover" explanation has been laughed off the page and without a flyaway, the flightpath is moot.

There are about 25 pages of non answers from you. You're like a broken record.

Answer my post on Middleton at least. Stop wasting people's time.

NOC = No impact

Here, work your magic on this

www.thepentacon.com...

I'll break this down...

Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like [incomprehensible], by the time I got the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one, and it was so large, you couldn't miss from seeing it.

Craig Ranke: Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction

First, Roberts talks about the aircraft he saw in south parking. Right? Right.

Second, in this consecutive part of the interview Craig Ranke asks, "what direction did it seem like it came from?"
He's referring to the aircraft he saw in south parking. Right? Right.

In the very next paragraph, Roberts describes where it seemed to come from.That is, the aircraft that he saw in south parking.

"almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction"

It's there in black and white.

Right? Right.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Let's try logic again :
The Comptroller has always been tasked to control the entire DoD budgets.
They made a MESS from it, they lost control over 2.3 trillion dollars of the total funds the DoD had received from Congress over several years. Because that's what you do basically in accounting : balance your books incomes against your spendings. These Comptroller checked books were unbalanced. There was 2.3 trillion dollar not accounted for.

As usual, I ask you, what are you basing all of this on? Conjecture is not an argument against the actual facts. Do I believe that our govt is God awful when it comes to finances? Hell yes. Do I believe that $2.3 trillion just vanished into thin air? Nope.

There was enough evidence that the DoD had received 2.3 trillion more than all their DoD books its spending accounted for. Otherwise Rumsfeld had not even known that it was missing in the books. And the order would not have been given to check the books again. By a new party.

Really? Where did you get all of this from Rumsfeld quote? I really truly wish to know what hole you are pulling this out of. About the only thing I would believe is that there is a LOT of wasteful spending in our govt, DoD included.

If I understand you well, you think that the same entity which had the task to keep a clean and balanced DoD book, and lost 2.3 trillion, not accounted for, over a period of several years, will get the task to check their OWN books? Great way of being sure of the outcome.
They messed up. In such a case, your own work will get checked up. Not again, by yourself...

There is a difference between: "we cannot track up to $2.3 trillion due to antiquated financial systems" and "we lost $2.3 trillion." Rumsfeld NEVER said anything about losing that much. Read, and reread his exact quote. Logic and reading comprehension are not your strong points, are they LaBTop? Remember, all of this nonsense was started by a Truther who obviously couldnt read or comprehend what was said. A sad, typical trait of many in the prominent Truther camp.

Of course they got audited by an external party, not connected to their Comptroller offices.
Note that most victims were from, outsourced by the Pentagon, accountancy firms, hired to audit the already Comptroller controlled DoD books. Which then were still missing those 2.3 trillion dollars.
I repeat, find out who ordered that audit, and you shall be enlightened.

So you are just connecting dots that dont exist to create a new work of fiction being passed off as fact. Oh boy. Ok, I'm still trying to figure out how you you pulled this garbage together from his quote. So now, somehow you have connected the US Army's financial offices as the proprietor of the entire DoD defense budget's audit? I mean WOW you are seriously doing some fantastic leaps here. Superman would be jealous. But wait, why on Earth would Rumsfeld admit to something like this right before 9/11? Makes ZERO sense.

Those killed were working for the Army and their financial sector, dealing with ARMY related finances. Where the hell did you pull this garbage that they were auditing the entire DoD? Are you by any chance a part of this to have such "inside" knowledge? Are you one of them?

You really think that Rumsfeld interview was a Muppet show?
That no IMMENSE funds were missing? Rumsfeld and his backers thought otherwise on 9/10/2001.
But the sole fact that again a military unit was ordered to perform that important audit, covering a sum which was the same as 23% of the total yearly budget for the DoD, implicates already that there was no real intention to bring those funds back to their place in the DoD books.

Woah woah woah, back up. First of all, NO ONE has said that the Army's Resource Services is doing an audit of the entire DoD. I saw what you just did there, nice try. You just used conjecture claiming that the Army RS is doing an audit of entire DoD and then in the very next paragraph claim it is a "Sole fact that a military unit was ordered to perform an important audit." I have seen this parlor trick before and it aint gonna fly. You just got busted. No, the Army was not ordered to do an audit of the entire DoD and alleged missing trillions. YOU just MADE IT UP! In effect, lied. Sad. So sad, when one has to create make believe and pass it off as facts.

By the way, my quoted OAA words did not sink in enough, so I repeat them :
""Critical services included telecommunications -telephones and computer operations within the building -motor pool, passports, and contracting. The Administrative Assistant’s staff sustained forty of the seventy-five Army deaths. In one brief moment the office lost almost all of its financial experts and computer files"".

Yes, the ARMY'S financial budget people doing ARMY BUDGETS.

reply to post by LaBTop

These financial experts had all the know how to handle the 2.3 trillion case.
The computer files were lost! The computer operations and telecommunications throughout the building were lost (""and reestablished computer and telecommunications connectivity throughout the building. The extraordinary efforts of the Administrative Assistant’s staff reestablished normal operations within days"".) That was a great simple way to destroy the military monitoring of the 9/11 events for the following days. And the ONI offices, who were feared experts in following global and national events, were also destroyed, all personnel was killed, except one very young guy who was just seconds before send out to deliver a message elsewhere. A general was killed too, that does not happen too often.

So the entire military's intelligence offices were out of commission for a few days, and unable to monitor anythign that happened after 9/11, all because of the plane hitting the Army's Budget office and a section of the Navy's Intelligence Offices? They were unable to monitor anything, in effect being totally blind? Geeze, I didnt know that our entire system of monitoring national safety and military intel was put in the hands of so few? What was the NSA doing? What was the FBI, CIA, Interpol, Air Force, Marines, Army, and all the other intel offices doing? Sitting on their thumbs? Also, regarding the general being killed. Well, golly, its not everyday a freaking plane slams into a military office.

By the way, great concerted effort again to distract from the main part of my NoC posts, and my radar map posts. And all my NoC additional witnesses posts. Not one intelligent word about it, to counter my words, or to strengthen them.

No you see, usually when a Truther is wrong on one major issue, there is a good 99.9% bet that they are also wrong on other issues as well. Just as we have discovered how well you use conjecture to bolster your alternate narrative of the debunked missing trillions, its quite plain to see what your SOP is. You like to type and type and type a lot of stuff, mostly conjecture and pass it off as facts. Twisting anything to make it fit your preconceived notions. That is how a Truther works. Fortunately I am well familiar with the nonsense of missing trillions to catch BS in the act. Where there is one flagrant instance of BS, there is usually more. So I will address your other points once I look deeper into your posts and take them apart.

You all are so transparent.
Not one word addressing the meat of the matter. Well done, good job! Pays well? In ATS stars? What's their value on the markets today, with all this crisis talk?

Can any of you guys address the real meat of the matter?

No, what we do is catch BS before it is turned into fact. You made a shining example of it with the LIE about the missing trillions. Ignorance and BS should be stopped on all fronts as soon as it crops up. Dont worry, your posts will have their day when they too will be shown that they are just as full of hot air as your attempt to turn conjecture into facts.

reply to post by LaBTop


Oh by the way, here is another quote regarding the defense budget and the inability to track money due to crappy financial systems.

The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems...

In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.

Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...

Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...

The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.

They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.

That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.

Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.

Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us....
[plenty more here, please go read the whole thing]
www.defenselink.mil...

Wow! How about that? Someone in the govt admitting to wasteful spending!

reply to post by LaBTop


Now I had some time to look through witnesses, and it is interesting you missed or ignored Albert Hemphill. He is a witness who looking at the Pentagon from (of all the places) the Navy Annex. Here is his account:

At the Navy Annex, “peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon.... the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike[..]He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight […] As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings […] as he impacted low on the Westside of the building

So he is standing there watching the events unfold, and he saw a plane come over his RIGHT shoulder, which means the plane was following the Columbia Pike. Also notice which way the wings were aligned. Left wing down. Hey LaBTop, isnt for your magical NoC flight, the left wing should be up high? Left wing down means he was doing a slight bank to the left. Your NoC flight requires a right bank with the left wing high. How could he miss a plane doing a bank to the right with the left wing much higher?

Also terry Morin. You place him farther inside the Navy Annex. Why? Let us use his FIRST account:

“Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB) I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.”

Ok, so according to him, he is already 10 steps OUT FROM BETWEEN the wings. This places him already from outside the wings. He is no longer in between the wings 4 and 5. He is out on that drive way already making a right turn to the security gate. (It is important to have an understanding of the English language and the nuances in speech. "Out from between" does not he is "in between two objects". He is "out from between" meaning, he is not directly between the two objects, but outside of them. if they were to come together, he would not be crushed.)

Let us see where exactly is that security check in:



If you cannot figure where he was standing, here are Google Map coordinates: 38.867651,-77.068263 giving a rough point where he would be "10 steps out from between" the two wings.

So he is out from between the two wings, placing him walking on that roadway turning towards the security building. He hears the plane come over and it is flying parallel to the Pike. He watches it until it goes behind a line of trees. I do not see anywhere him mentioning he lost sight of the plane as it flew over the Annex. According to him, his own first hand account, he watched the plane travel down the Pike and go behind some trees, when then he heard and saw the explosion. You place Terry deep in between but then ignore the fact that he watched the entire event as the plane went down behind the trees and crashed into the Pentagon. How could he have seen the plane go all the way down, when according to your fantasy flight path, the plane flew well north over the Annex and going North over the Citgo?

reply to post by GenRadek


Also found some interesting information regarding Ed Paiks account. Are you aware of this LaBTop?

911reports.wordpress.com...

Now back to Terry, this is what you claim he said:

Morin describes very vividly where he stood, when the plane came thundering over his head.
He had just stepped about five steps out of the door, back at the footpath between Wing 4 and 5, leading to the elevator hall in the 5th Annex Wing building. He said it flew right over his head, with its right wing following the outer rim of the Annex buildings 4 and 5, where he stood between in the back on the small cemented footpath leading out to the parking lot along the Annex its 8 wings.

With this picture:


But according to his actual words:

Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual.

I assume the red line is Terry's path? You have him walking in a LEFT turn from a door towards the security building. In my account, he states he is already out from between the the two wings and making a RIGHT hand turn towards the security building.

Seriously, i dont know if you like making things up, or are being fed some seriously erroneous information.

Also going back to Albert Hemphill, in order for your version of the flight path, the plane MUST be in a right wing down, left wing up bank to straighten out around the Citgo. But he clearly states that the left wing was DOWN. That would mean its banking to the left. Your flight path has the plane still in a right hand bank, which would mean that when the plane came into Albert's view, it would still be in a left wing up/right wing down bank. A bank to the right. How can the plane have its left wing down (according to him) while the plane is still in a right hand bank? Also recall he was in the now demolished 8th Wing. That places it even closer to the Pentagon. Your path has it way north and it would have had to go over Albert's LEFT shoulder.

Combine that with Terry's account, and boy oh boy, your work is falling apart.

[edit to add]

I also found some interesting quotes from Albert from his interviews with Craig.

HEMPHILL: Yeah, it's hard to say. It looked like it went right over the top of me. Ya know? Because of the, the way his flight path was that, uh, you know, he would have come, pretty much right smack over the top of it. And right over the bridge there, uh, it takes you over to, um, I think in the write-up I did all of those years ago I said 110; I meant 27.

he also said this:

That would be a little bit far.” “I saw one plane and I saw it hit…it didn’t pull up, it didn’t turn right, it didn’t turn left, it went right into the Pentagon.” “I saw what I saw. That is where it stands.”

Hmm, so the plane flew over the bridge over 27. So the plane came in from his right side, flew towards the Pentagon with a left wing down profile, flew over the bridge of 27, and slammed into the Pentagon. No turns left or right. Just straight in. So how does the plane jump north of Citgo and do a right hand bank to aim for the Pentagon??

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


If you can come up with evidence of a flyover, you have a case. Since you can't, you have no case for your theory.

A plane hit the Pentagon. All the NOC silliness doesn't matter.

BRAVO949 wrote

I don't think that NZ Air Force plane (ProudBird's contribution) was going anywhere near 350 knots, by the way. Maybe 350 kmh but not 350 knots.

If air forces could get a 757 or 767 to fly at tree top level at 350 knots then the A-10 would have have never been developed.

"We" could have just slung two Howitzers under a 737 and saved billions.

Seriously, if a 757 can fly 350 knots, slightly higher than a radio anenna on a jeep then it could drop a bowling ball on a tank and knockit out.

One might think the an NZ Air Force pilot who flew a multi-million dollar plane at 350 nautical miles an hour that close to the ground would have landed and been greeted by a courts-martial.

Or, are any of you suggesting the pilots commanding officer ordered the pilot to make the dangerous maneuver?

So it looks like 350 knots to you but it does not look like 350 knots to me.

You are not seriously telling us that the New Zealand Air Force encourages their pilots to do stupid things like fly transport planes that close to the ground at 350 knots?

Are you serious? Reference the Royal New Zealand Boeing 757 airshow display routine.

The high speed pass is flown at 350 knots. See reply from the Royal New Zealand Air Force Pilot, Tony Davis, that flew it.

www.alexisparkinn.com...

It was discussed on the following forums back in 2006

www.airliners.net...

The reply from the Royal New Zealand Air Force Pilot

www.airliners.net...

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:48:13 +0100
To: *************@yahoo.com
From: "Tony Davies"

Hi,

I'm the display pilot of the RNZAF B757 video you posted. I'm not a
member of airliners.net and probably won't join either. But there is
quite a bit of speculation in the threads about technical details of the
maneouver we displayed. If you want to post the facts then send me an
email and I'll give them to you. I also have plenty more spectacular
videos of other maneouvers perform with out B757s.

Tony

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:19:05 +1300
From: "Tony Davies"
To: "Dylan Phelps"
Subject: Re: B757 Videos

Dylan,

I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It's part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It's a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need - it is spectacular already, and safe.

The aircraft is NZ7572 (formerly PH-TKB of Transavia) and it's sister ship, NZ7571, is seen in the foreground of the video shot. Both aircraft are operated by 40 Squadron at Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Whenuapai in Auckland, New Zealand. It is a B757-2k2 with RB211-E4 engines, shortly to become E4Bs.

Feel free to post this information if you so desire. If you want more details, I can provide. I can also pass you more videos of other maneovers we have done but I am a little busy right now and need some time to convert them to MPEG. I have attached a shot of the same aircraft involved with a formation practice for a London flyover with 3 Typhoons taken in November this year, as well as a quick shot taken from inside the B757 at the same time.

Regards,
Tony Davies.

Practice display during 2005. Crank up the volume for the high speed pass at 02:12



It is an impressive display and demonstrated all over the world for a number of years.

reply to post by tommyjo


I'm glad you brought that up.

No body mentioned seeing the 757 doing any sort of flying like that on 9/11.

Just a straight in flight after a large lazy loop to orient self, he just dived right in.

Originally posted by GenRadek

I'm glad you brought that up.

No problem. Thanks for the reply. It certainly would be interesting to bounce a few question off of the 757 display Pilot in reference to Flight 77?

Somehow I think it would be a bit of an eye-opener to those that religiously follow the drivel posted on P4T!

reply to post by tommyjo

It certainly would be interesting to bounce a few question off of the 757 display Pilot in reference to Flight 77?

I wish someone would. Nobody seems to believe me, too anonymous I suppose. Despite the "view" shown by the Flight Data Recorder info made into an animation, that any pilot can relate to when they watch it.

Or, the Dutch TV documentary show "Zembla", and their demonstration in a full-motion simulator.

Instead, we are confronted by the same tired false assertions, and exaggerations, as well as the (likely false) claim from ONE....just ONE person who purports to be an airline Sim instructor, and his story that "they" couldn't do it. This doesn't pass the smell test, to me....since everyone I know had no trouble whatsoever.

reply to post by ProudBird


I agree completely, PB. Unfortunately Tony Davies is still listed as serving. Group Captain Tony Davies.

www.airforce.mil.nz...

It would be interesting to talk to him once he retires?

Hi Reheat,

Since you feel that the NoC flight path is impossible and just a "theory" (although I am not sure how all those witnesses saw a "theory") can you please let us know your thoughts on this? I think it would be quite humorous to hear.

z3.invisionfree.com...

OK Marquis. What do you want?

Originally posted by snowcrash911
OK Marquis. What do you want?

Last chance. Aren't you supposed to be more effective by actually being on the board? Please address me by screen name or I will be forced to report you.