Expert Top Gun/Airline Pilots say Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by tezzajw
Don't back down now, you've quite clearly stated here that you want to talk shop with him.

Ya know...it's quite different to attempt conversation via interwebs, versus face-to-face in chat made. There are nuances, voice intonations...mannerisms, etc, that are hard to explain nor define....

What do you mean, weedwhacker?

You clearly stated that you would relish a chance to sit down and chat with Ralph Kolstad. Are you wanting to back out now that you know you can get the chance?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I keep my BS detectors better tuned, nowadays......

Yeah, me too...

I read the following comment by you,

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW....the good Commander and I have never met. I would, though, be most interested in sitting down and talking 'shop' with him, so he could explain to me, pilot-to-pilot, why he has the opinions he does.

and I informed you that as far as I know, Kolstad is a member of Pilots For Truth.

Check here and see for yourself, weedwhacker. Kolstad is listed as a core member.

Why don't you email Pilots for Truth and ask for Kolstad's details? You did want to sit down and talk with the man, so why don't you initiate the contact?

From your last post, it appears that all you are doing is backing down and finding excuses not to contact him or speak with him.

Which is it, weedwhacker - will you try to contact him or not, knowing that he's a core member of Pilots For Truth?

Neutral readers to the thread will note that weedwhacker has a choice. He can try to contact Kolstad for his chat, or look very foolish by backing down.

reply to post by tezzajw

Neutral readers to the thread will note that....

....ATS member tezzajw intentionally chooses to instigate, for no other reason.........

I shall not continue with the completion of that thought. It will lower me to another's standard, and I will not allow that to happen.

There really is no other sort of response necessary to the equivalent of a school-yard taunt.

Internet conversations that devolve into this sort of behaviour serve no purpose.

reply to post by weedwhacker

I've never read anything more hypocritical, weedwhacker.

You wanted to speak with Kolstad! I showed you that he could be a member of Pilots For Truth. If not a member, then he would probably be contactable through them.

What do you then do? You back away from wanting to speak with him!

weedwhacker... Tim, you're ok. But you've let me down here. Normally you seem to have the courage to follow through with your claims.

reply to post by Mark_Amy


O.K., so they're dead. So the government piloted the planes into the buildings by remote, and there was never any hijackers? What about all the phone calls loved ones got from their family members talking about the hostile takeover of the planes? Howcome family members aren't speaking out about what may be going on? I don't hear any of them saying that the phone call they got from their loved one just before the were obliterated somehow didn't sound like them or somehow automated in a way. I'm more tempted to believe that our government knew that something was coming but couldn't figure out what it was, and missed the window to stop it. Didn't want to create a panic, and warn the U.S.A. of some type of attack, but not know what, where, or when. This conspiracy that the U.S. Government orchastrated the whole ordeal just doesn't sit well with me. Besides I think that the government couldn't plan something that big, plan to kill all these people and somehow manage to keep the whole thing a secret, and not screw at least part of it up. Those people can't even budget money! Something's amiss.

reply to post by skyeyes


You may want to double check your claims on that last post.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by tezzajw
Don't back down now, you've quite clearly stated here that you want to talk shop with him.

Ya know...it's quite different to attempt conversation via interwebs, versus face-to-face in chat made. There are nuances, voice intonations...mannerisms, etc, that are hard to explain nor define....

What do you mean, weedwhacker?
its pretty obvious what was meant here.. why are you confused..
You clearly stated that you would relish a chance to sit down and chat with Ralph Kolstad. Are you wanting to back out now that you know you can get the chance?
why do you push this issue? where has he backed out?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I keep my BS detectors better tuned, nowadays......

Yeah, me too...

I read the following comment by you,

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW....the good Commander and I have never met. I would, though, be most interested in sitting down and talking 'shop' with him, so he could explain to me, pilot-to-pilot, why he has the opinions he does.

and I informed you that as far as I know, Kolstad is a member of Pilots For Truth.

Check here and see for yourself, weedwhacker. Kolstad is listed as a core member.

Why don't you email Pilots for Truth and ask for Kolstad's details? You did want to sit down and talk with the man, so why don't you initiate the contact?
why dont you let him decide? why do you keep insisting?
From your last post, it appears that all you are doing is backing down and finding excuses not to contact him or speak with him.
and it appears that you have either some kind of reading comprehension disorder, or a short attention span here.. thats quite stretch, based on what he actually said..
Which is it, weedwhacker - will you try to contact him or not, knowing that he's a core member of Pilots For Truth?

Neutral readers to the thread will note that weedwhacker has a choice. He can try to contact Kolstad for his chat, or look very foolish by backing down.

and the neutral readers will also take note of how you tried to instigate one of our members into a confrontation on another board..

I just uploaded an interview with Ralph Kolstad here:

Description:

Kevin Barrett interviews Commander Ralph Kolstad, a retired US Navy Top Gun Pilot and Veteran Airline Pilot, who explains why the official version of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers were not aerodynamically possible and can not be replicated by any pilot in the world. As one of the most experienced pilots in the world with over 100 combat missions under his belt, Kolstad's testimony and analysis carries a lot of weight.



To hear more about pilots, experts, scientists and engineers who dispute the official 9/11 story, visit:
www.patriotsquestion911.com...
www.pilotsfor911truth.org...
www.ae911truth.org...

reply to post by WWu777


You seriously believe that no pilot in the world could fly aircraft into two of the largest skyscrapers in the world ?

How does anyone ever land ?

Originally posted by WWu777
I just uploaded an interview with Ralph Kolstad here:

My God. This is like a bad...really bad...zombie movie.

I could care less if you are Orville or Wilbur. I don't care how many hours or how many different aircraft types these lunatics have, if they claim even the most basic of pilots could not hit two of the tallest buildings in the world with a state-of-the-art airliner, you have got dog poop inside your head.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by WWu777

 

You seriously believe that no pilot in the world could fly aircraft into two of the largest skyscrapers in the world ?

How does anyone ever land ?

Listen to the interview above. Commander Kolstad explains why. Pilots land by slowing down to landing speed and descending and then lowering their landing gears. They do not land at 400mph, which is not possible to fly at sea level. You can ask Boeing to confirm this. They have.

To fly at 400mph to 600mph, you have to go higher above the clouds. It's the law of aerodynamics. If you try to go that fast at sea level, the plane will go out of control.

No pilot in the simulator could hit the twin towers at 400mph, only at landing speed.

Understand now?

Also, isn't it odd that four airliners crashed with no debris? (except the easily fake-able small pieces you saw on the news) Never in history has even one airline crashed on land with no debris. Yet on 9/11 it happened four times?!

Also, the cell phone calls at 30,000 feet were not possible, not even today. Next time you're in an airline flying at 30,000 feet, try opening your cell phone, and you'll see.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by WWu777
I just uploaded an interview with Ralph Kolstad here:

My God. This is like a bad...really bad...zombie movie.

I could care less if you are Orville or Wilbur. I don't care how many hours or how many different aircraft types these lunatics have, if they claim even the most basic of pilots could not hit two of the tallest buildings in the world with a state-of-the-art airliner, you have got dog poop inside your head.

Well not a single pilot in the simulator was able to hit the WTC at 400mph. Not one. Care to try it yourself?

The only way to hit the WTC was at landing speed. But those planes were going at 400mph. You've been debunked. Enough said.

reply to post by WWu777

Well not a single pilot in the simulator was able to hit the WTC at 400mph.

THAT is a lie....and Ralph Kolstad is a liar.

The ones who say they "couldn't" hit the WTC @400 MPH are lying....they intentionally mucked it up, or else just lie through their teeth about it.

Here, this is a REAL Boeing 757 that is lining up on a runway, to pass by the audience at an AirShow...his speed was 350 KNOTS! 350kts = 402.5 statute MPH. A typical runway for large transports is 150 feet wide. (Some are rarely up to 175 feet......MANY Airports that need to accommodate the new Airbus A-380 are widening their runways to 200 feet). The majority of runways are narrower than the WTC Towers.




Or, this guy.....I know, because the pilot of the 757 in video above was contacted, what his speed was for that AirShow.....here is another example, this time a B-737 (unknown exact speed, but it is obvioulsy FAR faster than normal landing speed):


Sorry, but from your comments it's obvious you are not a pilot....those of us who ARE (and don't lie) know that Kolstad is full of it.


Now....although a fighter, it is still an airplane, and being hand-flown....so, just how did this pilot line up on that one tiny man??:



Here, some guys being target standing in a field.....no runway to line-up on:


Same event, viewed from the cockpit...can you read the Airspeed Indicator? Screen resolution is poor, but I see it at around 320 knots (upper left corner of the HUD, in the forward windscreen):


The pilot has NO problem steering and aiming at the men...very small targets.


THIS is a very poor resolution also, but it shows that even a HOBBYIST pilot, using a desktop Flight Simulator program, can re-create the WTC attacks!!! I don't own one of these programs, but many, many people do.

YOU can go buy one, and see for yourself. I have flown much older (circa 1996) types of desktop FS programs, and they all share one thing in common....they are MUCH more difficult to fly than a full-motion simulator, and even MORE difficult to fly than the real airplane!! It has to do with peripheral vision limits (n simulators) as well as g-force motion cues:


(ETA- just for full clarification, in the above video the person who made it shows an instrument panel arrangement that is NOT specifically accurate to the existing configuration on American Airlines 11, on 11 September, 2001. Those have no bearing on the "experiment", however).


I shall return with an in-depth debunk of Ralph Kolstad, from the video you posted above.

reply to post by ProudBird


I told ya Proudbird, it's still a popular meme...

reply to post by WWu777


Oh, and more......(before the Ralph Kolstad debunk) because the title of this thread (your thread, being the OP) is about American 77. Already shown to be untrue that the "maneuvers" were "impossible"....this is very old news.

The thread diverged into the WTC flights, which have been addressed.

Now:

Also, isn't it odd that four airliners crashed with no debris? (except the easily fake-able small pieces you saw on the news) Never in history has even one airline crashed on land with no debris. Yet on 9/11 it happened four times?!

Untrue, also. There was ample debris. Why lie about it??

Also, the cell phone calls at 30,000 feet were not possible, not even today.

More disinformation. There seems to be a lot for this OP to catch up on.

NONE of the (very few) cellphone calls that actually connected were made when the jets were at 30,000. Perhaps that research should note that some calls from the flights were made by the on-board AirFones? Specifically designed to work from those altitudes.

Next time you're in an airline flying at 30,000 feet, try opening your cell phone, and you'll see.

The rules prohibiting cellphone operation in flight are still in force. However, just for fun, I tried it a few months ago..at cruise altitude, and in a fairly remote area (the American desert SouthWest). I did not choose to make a call (roaming charges, ya know) BUT....I had a strong signal.

Try again.

What do you make of the debrie found at the pentagon then?

reply to post by WWu777


When are you going to put the bong down and move on?

My daughters best friend was on flight 77 taking her first vacation after 6 years of college and getting her masters degree. My daughter took her to the airport and walked with her to her gate. My daughter and son-in-law stood at the window and watched the plane leave. So, did she and all of the other passengers somehow get kidnapped and hidden while these tyrants stole the plane and turned it into a missle?

Your rants that seem to never end are a joke.

I do believe there are a lot of things that we have been misled on over the last 100 years, this isn't one of them. Our foreign interventions are done by politicians lying to the public. UFO's, we are told, are just a figment of our imagination. Politicians are going to make everything better for us, right?

I am not taken in by contrived lies, but when I have first hand knowledge of an incident, I have to address it.

I don't care what some Top Gun jock has to say. It was flight 77, not a missle. People died, people left family, people grieved.

reply to post by RADAST


RADAST, I've been researching the Pentagon for a long time now, and I've been adamant for a couple of years now that AA 77 crashed there.

I've peer reviewed a new analysis of flight AA 77's DFDR, which can be found here and contains analysis of its final seconds of flight, previously unavailable due to the fact that the last data frames were rejected because they failed an error check, presumably because either the data or the error check fields were incompletely recorded. They show the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Although it's obviously painful material, maybe you're interested, just a heads up.

As a truther, I apologize for any possible grief that has been caused to you and your daughter by 9/11 'truthers'.

I don't know how you feel about the 9/11 Commission Report, and if you're content with it, because I'm certainly not, but I do not promote no passenger, no hijacker and no plane claims, in fact, I've been trying to explain for years why these theories have no merit. I also do not support 'Bin Laden innocent' or 'hijackers alive' claims, and actively campaign against them.

For what it's worth.

reply to post by RADAST


@RADAST......I am a friend of friends of the First Officer, David Charlebois, from American Airlines flight 77, on September 11, 2001.

The airline industry can tend to be a "small world", especially within certain specific sub-sets. Pilots are one sub-set (of which I am a part). Although I never worked for American, nevertheless I knew people there (other pilots), as well as at other airlines. The connections are sometimes amazing, just "who" you can know.

In my case, the connection was more to a social situation, and was related to a personal network of non-airline friends, and the fact that David Charlebois lived in the same geographic area that I did, at the same time.....the Washington, D.C. area.

I made it a point to be free (on days off) for his funeral.....it was held at a prominent Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. (St. Matthews Cathedral, on Rhode Island Ave, NW).

I am NOT a Catholic, but attended (in my full company airline uniform) out of respect. The cathedral was quite full, and many, many of F/O Charlebois' American Airlines colleagues were also represented....many in their uniforms....and many with their luggage as well....because they had taken the effort to go directly to the Service, whether on their way to work that day, or just getting in from a trip.

Those of us in the airline industry know the significance of that part......because, WE KNOW!!!!

Edit....note that the Service was emotional, not only for that one individual (David Charlebois)....the American Airlines employees there had also lost another five of their colleagues as well......just to be clear.

CREW

Charles Burlingame of Herndon, Virginia, was the plane's captain. He is survived by a wife, a daughter and a grandson. He had more than 20 years of experience flying with American Airlines and was a former U.S. Navy pilot.

David Charlebois, who lived in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, was the first officer on the flight. "He was handsome and happy and very centered," his neighbor Travis White, told The Washington Post. "His life was the kind of life I wanted to have some day."

Michele Heidenberger of Chevy Chase, Maryland, was a flight attendant for 30 years. She left behind a husband, a pilot, and a daughter and son.

Flight attendant Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the wife of flight attendant Kenneth Lewis.

Flight attendant Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the husband of flight attendant Jennifer Lewis.

Renee May, 39, of Baltimore, Maryland, was a flight attendant.

American Flight 77

reply to post by WWu777


As promised....this is only preliminary at this point, but based on THIS video (which is NOT a "video", but is instead a propaganda "hit-piece" to fluff up DVD sales for the so-called "PilotsFor9/11Truth".....recorded as a soundtrack only form some crappy Internet "radio" show to boost sales for an OLD re-issued attempt (the DVD) to muck with the real truth......



It took me only to get through the radio "Host's" introduction, and to hear that the main leader of so-called "PilotsFor9/11Truth" (here-to-for abbreviated "P4T"), one Rob Balsamo, could not even be bothered to attend, but instead send "Rotten" Ralph Kolstad in his stead, make me think that, well, something was "up"....


Getting past the "Intro", @ 3:30 or so, Kolstad describes (bearing in mind this is touted as "NEW" information, from a "new" DVD) the same old tired "story" that I've heard from years ago.

These guys (Kolstad, Balsamo and any others that they "cite") have been spinning this yarn for so many years, they are thoroughly invested into it by now.......


The story, as I recall, came from an alleged "SIM Instructor" (and member of "P4T") who worked for America West Airlines, at the time....(Now USAir, post merger), and it allegedly occurred at the HP (IATA code for America West) training facility in Phoenix, Arizona.

As far as I know, Ralph (The Mouth) Kolstad.....(Or, "Rotten" Ralph, his TopGun handle) did NOT.....I repeat, did NOT participate in these simulator events, (at HP training in PHX) as he relates in this online radio interview.

And, I get all of these lies and misinformation, in just the first 4 minutes of a 51-minute recording.

I can offer more.....maybe after I take some Pepto-Bismal.......

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by tezzajw
Don't back down now, you've quite clearly stated here that you want to talk shop with him.

Ya know...it's quite different to attempt conversation via interwebs, versus face-to-face in chat made. There are nuances, voice intonations...mannerisms, etc, that are hard to explain nor define....

What do you mean, weedwhacker?

You clearly stated that you would relish a chance to sit down and chat with Ralph Kolstad. Are you wanting to back out now that you know you can get the chance?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I keep my BS detectors better tuned, nowadays......

Yeah, me too...

I read the following comment by you,

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW....the good Commander and I have never met. I would, though, be most interested in sitting down and talking 'shop' with him, so he could explain to me, pilot-to-pilot, why he has the opinions he does.

and I informed you that as far as I know, Kolstad is a member of Pilots For Truth.

Check here and see for yourself, weedwhacker. Kolstad is listed as a core member.

Why don't you email Pilots for Truth and ask for Kolstad's details? You did want to sit down and talk with the man, so why don't you initiate the contact?

From your last post, it appears that all you are doing is backing down and finding excuses not to contact him or speak with him.

Which is it, weedwhacker - will you try to contact him or not, knowing that he's a core member of Pilots For Truth?

Neutral readers to the thread will note that weedwhacker has a choice. He can try to contact Kolstad for his chat, or look very foolish by backing down.

You have Weedwhacker by the balls for 100% on that one an his retreat is obvious.


This one needs one of his own to come in and back him up or discredit Ralph Kolstad.