UA 175 - Pilots Discuss WTC Attack

Have a listen to the link below. This is Ralph Kolstad who also contributed to the
latest P4T presentation.

Ralph has 23,000 hours flight time, 27 years in the airlines, B757/767 for 13 years mostly as international captain, 20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, participated in TopGun twice, is also a civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds.


noliesradio.org...

Official Trailer of latest Pilots for 911 Truth Presentation

www.youtube.com...

A real pilot with a real name and a real career talking about the alleged speeds of the planes.

Very interesting to listen to. Thanks for the link, turbo.

weedwhacker, when you eventually show up, you can study this so when you have your chat with Ralph, you can discuss all of the points with him. You did contact Ralph, right?

Pilots including those who actually flew in the alleged UA175, and UA93
talk about "Control" of aircraft over max operating limits.

vimeo.com...

Originally posted by turbofan
Pilots including those who actually flew in the alleged UA175, and UA93
talk about "Control" of aircraft over max operating limits.

vimeo.com...

Wonderful. Finally a good reason to post something. Finally some input from actual experienced real commercial pilots, which is who the 911 Commission should have sought advice from right at the get-go in their so-called 911 investigation. That alone would have proven to the world that these hijackers could not have possibly flown these large aircraft into buildings and at high gee forces as it is claimed. That is likely exactly why the 911 Commission did not seek such advice.

I always thought that inexperienced Cessna pilots would have had extreme difficulty with keeping the much larger 757s / 767s from rocking back and forth (dutch rolling). Just imagine trying to hit the 210 foot wide towers with the aircraft rocking back and forth. It must have been experienced remote control pilots or some kind of homing beacons.

Imagine trying to fly down the hill, pulling up, and trying to hit the 1st floor just above the lawn; all while desperately trying to keep the 757 from rocking back and forth. Impossible for the inexperienced.

Great information. S & F.

Dutch roll
Dutch roll is a type of aircraft motion, consisting of an out-of-phase combination of "tail-wagging" and rocking from side to side. This yaw-roll coupling is one of the basic flight dynamic modes (others include phugoid, short period, and spiral divergence). This motion is normally well damped in most light aircraft, though some aircraft with well-damped Dutch roll modes can experience a degradation in damping as airspeed and altitude increase. Dutch roll stability can be artificially increased by the installation of a yaw-damper. Wings placed well above the center of mass and dihedral both tend to increase the roll restoring force, and therefore the Dutch roll tendencies; this is why high-winged aircraft often have slight anhedral.

The Dutch roll mode can be excited by any use of aileron or rudder, but for flight test purposes it is usually excited with a rudder singlet (short, sharp motions of the rudder to a specified angle, and then back to the centered position) or doublet (a pair of such motions in opposite directions). Some larger aircraft are better excited with aileron inputs. Periods can range from a few seconds for light aircraft to a minute or more for airliners.

The name comes from the movement that (Dutch) skaters make when skating on ice.

Dutch roll is also the name (considered by professionals to be a misnomer) given to a coordination maneuver generally taught to student pilots to help them improve their "stick-and-rudder" technique. The aircraft is alternately rolled as much as 60-degrees left and right while rudder is applied to keep the nose of the aircraft pointed at a fixed point. This coordination technique is better referred to as "rolling on a heading", where the aircraft is rolled in such a way as to maintain an accurate heading without the nose moving from side-to-side (or yawing). The Yaw motion is induced through the use of ailerons alone due to aileron drag where the lifting wing (aileron down) is doing more work than the descending wing (aileron up) and therefore creates more drag, forcing the lifting wing back, yawing the aircraft toward it. This has to be countered precisely by application of rudder in the same direction as the aileron control (left stick, left rudder - right stick, right rudder). This is known as synchronised controls when done properly, and is difficult to learn and apply well. As each aircraft is different, learning the correct amount of rudder to apply with aileron is different for each aircraft. It has nothing to do with sideslip, which is what results when it all goes wrong.

Origin

reply to post by HennyPen


The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Aeronautical engineer and pilot

Audio Interview with Nila (well worth listening to imo)

Part One

Part Two


Alleged Pentagon Boeing Pilot Hani Hanjour - Training and Skills
Hani Hanjour Reloaded


[edit on 30-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by turbofan
Have a listen to the link below. This is Ralph Kolstad who also contributed to the
latest P4T presentation.

Ralph has 23,000 hours flight time, 27 years in the airlines, B757/767 for 13 years mostly as international captain, 20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, participated in TopGun twice, is also a civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds.


noliesradio.org...

Official Trailer of latest Pilots for 911 Truth Presentation

www.youtube.com...

Does it bother you in the least that of the millions of pilots out there, just these handful THINK it is impossible. Just something to think about. If it really was as obvious as these folks say then I would think you would have heard from more than what - a half dozen self proclaimed "experts"?

Originally posted by hooper
Does it bother you in the least that of the millions of pilots out there, just these handful THINK it is impossible.

Hooper, please post the link where you interviewed all those millions of pilots out there who, according to you, think it's possible. Thanks.

Originally posted by hooper

Does it bother you in the least that of the 'millions' of pilots out there, just these handful THINK it is impossible. Just something to think about. If it really was as obvious as these folks say then I would think you would have heard from more than what - a half dozen self proclaimed "experts"?

Does it bother you in the least that of the 'millions' of pilots out there, maybe you don't know what most of them think about the flight capabilites of the 911 aircraft and the capabilities of the supposed hijacker pilots?

Maybe they prefer to keep their opinions to themselves and keep their jobs and not risk their necks. It could potentially be quite risky to take a stand against the US Government and US Military official positions if you are working for them directly or indirectly.

Try as I might, I cannot seem to be able to find any organizations of 'thousands' of pilots supporting 911 aircraft capabilities or pilots supporting 911 terrorist hijacker capabilities and qualifications anywhere, let alone 'millions'. My searches end up only with pilots questioning such capabilities. Such as here

Perhaps you have and could point us in the right direction?

I can find lots of organizations filled with pilots and architects and government officials and military officers and other professionals; but oddly most of them have seemed to have waited until they were retired and beyond reprisals before they took a public stand on 911.

Perhaps you have large databases of pilots and architects and government officials and military officers and other professionals who publicly support the 911 officail storyline?

I question whether there are 'millions' of pilots in the world since the total aircraft in the world was estimated at 312,000 in 2005. Perhaps you have more accurate sources?

312,000 Active General Aviation Aircraft
17,770 Passenger Aircraft
89,129 Military Aircraft
26,500 Civil Helicopters
29,700 Military Helicopters.

According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association there are
approximately 312,000 active general aviation aircraft worldwide.

Origin

[edit on 30-9-2009 by HennyPen]

Originally posted by HennyPen
Perhaps you have large databases of pilots and architects and government officials and military officers and other professionals who publicly support the 911 officail storyline?

It's just a cop-out that government loyalists and deniers use so they don't have to do any actual explaining or proofing. They think that just because all of the architects or pilots or scientists of the world haven't publicly stated an opinion one way or another, then that automatically means they believe the official story.

This is the sad and typical logic we get from the government loyalists and deniers. It's no wonder they can't see that 9/11 was an inside job.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by HennyPen

 

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Aeronautical engineer and pilot

Interesting. More critical info from an actual real life pilot.

Some air traffic controllers thought looking at their radars, that Hani Hanjour was a skilled military pilot flying a highly manueverable military plane?

Imagine if the aircraft with Hani's heavy-handed Cessna dexterity started rocking back and forth (dutch roll) at the official 460 knots aircraft approach speed. How could he possibly get the aircraft back under control and aimed at his 1st floor target in the 13 seconds it took to fly the last two miles of his official south flight path? Can a commercial 757 pilot complete multiple control surface movements plus a precise pulling back on the yoke for a high gee pullup in 13 seconds timespan?

I don't think it is possible.

Then of course those five heavy light poles were supposed to be battering away at his wings really making his precise ace fighter pilot manuevering extremely interesting.

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.”

Origin

This is very interesting. I am basically new to the alternative 911 theories. Frankly, I am not really sure what I think about the whole thing. I read the ATS posts with an open mind. I never really gave these theories much thought, until this post.

As I think back over the many many commercial flights I have been a passenger on over the past few decades, I recall many times I experienced what I think were dutch rolls.

As I recall, usually it was during approaching a runway at much lower speeds. Sometimes it appeared we were dodging an aircraft which should not have been near us. It happened in every manner of aircraft; DC10s, L-1011s, 747s, 757s, DC9s, 707s, etc. I cannot even imagine a dutch roll at high speeds. It must be extremely dangerous and difficult to recover from for a novice.

First one wing would roll up and then the other. Sometimes the pilot would raise the flaps and increase power to the engines. Sometimes he would change the flaps settings, or even use the air brakes. Often it seemed it took him several dutch rolls to level the aircraft out.

But these were highly experienced pilots; not Cessna rejects. These were skilled highly trained pilots; not hijacker novices learning on the go. These were licensed individuals familiar with their cockpits and with the position and use for every switch; not newbies afraid to touch anything, with warnings written in a language not their own.

757 cockpit

Dutch roll
Dutch roll is a type of aircraft motion, consisting of an out-of-phase combination of "tail-wagging" and rocking from side to side. This yaw-roll coupling is one of the basic flight dynamic modes (others include phugoid, short period, and spiral divergence). This motion is normally well damped in most light aircraft, though some aircraft with well-damped Dutch roll modes can experience a degradation in damping as airspeed and altitude increase. Dutch roll stability can be artificially increased by the installation of a yaw-damper. Wings placed well above the center of mass and dihedral both tend to increase the roll restoring force, and therefore the Dutch roll tendencies; this is why high-winged aircraft often have slight anhedral.

The Dutch roll mode can be excited by any use of aileron or rudder, but for flight test purposes it is usually excited with a rudder singlet (short, sharp motions of the rudder to a specified angle, and then back to the centered position) or doublet (a pair of such motions in opposite directions). Some larger aircraft are better excited with aileron inputs. Periods can range from a few seconds for light aircraft to a minute or more for airliners.

The name comes from the movement that (Dutch) skaters make when skating on ice.

Dutch roll is also the name (considered by professionals to be a misnomer) given to a coordination maneuver generally taught to student pilots to help them improve their "stick-and-rudder" technique. The aircraft is alternately rolled as much as 60-degrees left and right while rudder is applied to keep the nose of the aircraft pointed at a fixed point. This coordination technique is better referred to as "rolling on a heading", where the aircraft is rolled in such a way as to maintain an accurate heading without the nose moving from side-to-side (or yawing). The Yaw motion is induced through the use of ailerons alone due to aileron drag where the lifting wing (aileron down) is doing more work than the descending wing (aileron up) and therefore creates more drag, forcing the lifting wing back, yawing the aircraft toward it. This has to be countered precisely by application of rudder in the same direction as the aileron control (left stick, left rudder - right stick, right rudder). This is known as synchronised controls when done properly, and is difficult to learn and apply well. As each aircraft is different, learning the correct amount of rudder to apply with aileron is different for each aircraft. It has nothing to do with sideslip, which is what results when it all goes wrong.

Origin

reply to post by HennyPen


Thanks Henny, I'm glad you joined the discussion.

Futher to these points, here is a short list of other considerations we can
all use to guage the impossibility of the official story:


#1. The manufacturer limits these particular commercial airliners to 360 knots.

#2. We have videos of wind tunnel flutter tests showing oscillations and stressing of components on the airframe.

#3. We have an example of a 767 via Egypt Air which breaks apart
at lower dynamic pressure in thinner air.

#4. We have a pilots encyclopedia warning of mach tuch, dutch roll,
and other "out of control" situations, yet we are to believe the aircraft
flies without any issues at these incredible speeds?

#5. We have EXPERIENCED fighter pilots, check-air men, and 757/767
pilots who cannot hit towers in the simulators after several tries...and
can only do so once the speed has been reduced to near LANDING SPEEDS (150-200 knots)

Some say the planes should stay together and be fairly easy to control
hitting 3 out of 3 targets SPOT ON by a bunch of rookie terrorists?

I rest my case. You should all watch the video I posted, and check out
real pilots talking about this impossibility in P4T's latest presentation.

Educate yourselves and understand that hand flying a commercial airliner
at speeds WELL over their design limits is not a "point and shoot" game.

I always thought that inexperienced Cessna pilots would have had extreme difficulty with keeping the much larger 757s / 767s from rocking back and forth (dutch rolling). Just imagine trying to hit the 210 foot wide towers with the aircraft rocking back and forth. It must have been experienced remote control pilots or some kind of homing beacons.

That's why they put a "yaw damper" in all Airliners, to help dampen out any dutch roll characteristics, and also anhedral / dihedral to the wings. Back in the 1950s, skeptics of swept wings and jet flight claimed that they would be uncontrollable due to dutch roll characteristics, but it turned out to be a far smaller problem than they previously thought.

Anyway, listening to the radio now, good listening. Also, 600 knots indicated at 20,000 feet would be more stressful than 600 knots indicated at sea level, mostly because 600 knots at 20,000 feet would mean a higher mach number, but the same dynamic pressure. But I would agree that a bunch of Cessna pilots would hit buildings at those speeds in those aircraft is highly unlikely.



[edit on 1/10/2009 by C0bzz]

Somewhere out there on the net, there is a study, which was conducted by a reputable university, of the long approach video of the south tower plane, whereby it was clocked at anywhere from 550-575+ MPH, possibly even as high as 590, at that altitude. Russ Wintenburg, another pilot on record, who flew the ACTUAL plane alleged to have hit the south tower, has indicated that he could not have controlled it at that speed and altitude. According to him, if I'm not mistaken by my memory of his testimony (I'm not a pilot) the controls actually stiffen and become unresponsive..

And we know the south tower plane made a couple last minute adjustments on final approach (there's a CNN left side approach video somewhere which shows this) and then, as most of the videos show, the plane makes a very hard left turn at the very last moments leading up to impact and was tilted and losing altitude from that hard turn, with the nose pointing down, in the final second or two to impact, which would indicate a hard left turn - something, according to Wittenburg, which would be utterly IMPOSSIBLE for ANY human pilot to perform at that speed and altitude.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09f84630d229.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/791635cf0ea1.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by turbofan


You know it was Pilots for truth that introduced me to the No plane theory.

Yes their are the things that no Human could with those planes...and then their are things those planes just could not be capable of period. Like the Pentagon circle over...

Funny thing... I knocked the No plane theory like everyone else till P4T.

reply to post by titorite


NPT - oh no, not you. Please don't go there..?! Thanks.

P.S. See pictures of plane above.

Forgive me, if you meant to say - no plane hitting Pentagon wall and no plane at Shanksville, and not no plane hitting WTC twin towers, with ah "video fakery" etc.

Must be just a communication breakdown, but when I hear "no plane theory", well, then we're right into la la land.

So please, don't call it "no plane theory" unless you're with Morgan Reynolds and Jim Fetzer, Nico Haupt, and those guys.. who are WORSE than the JREF "sceptics"..!

[edit on 1-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Russ Wintenburg, another pilot on record, who flew the ACTUAL plane alleged to have hit the south tower, has indicated that he could not have controlled it at that speed and altitude. According to him, if I'm not mistaken by my memory of his testimony (I'm not a pilot) the controls actually stiffen and become unresponsive..

I think you may mean Rusty Aimer? I'm not sure if Russ flew that exact
aircraft, but it's possible.

As for the controls, it's not as though they would "stiffen" up; they would
reach their maximum travel and lose their effectiveness. That would
render the controls unresponsive as you mention.

This topic is actually discussed in detail within the latest P4T video.

Also, 600 knots indicated at 20,000 feet would be more stressful than 600 knots indicated at sea level, mostly because 600 knots at 20,000 feet would mean a higher mach number, but the same dynamic pressure.

You should have a chat with a certain self-proclaimed pilot on this forum
who doesn't get this fact.

Originally posted by tezzajw
A real pilot with a real name and a real career talking about the alleged speeds of the planes.

Very interesting to listen to. Thanks for the link, turbo.

weedwhacker, when you eventually show up, you can study this so when you have your chat with Ralph, you can discuss all of the points with him. You did contact Ralph, right?

wow.
i've not laughed that hard since the first wayne's world.
wheedwhacker's no slouch tho.

btw. the common man needs no more facts. the human psyche has been shown to believe what it believes, regardless of facts....so, 9/11 people, your battle is not about facts, but psychology.

It's like hey, all evidence was destroyed immediately, but somehow it was reanimated and now it's heading back to ny to be investigated.

People know, it's just easier not to.
sigh......

You should have a chat with a certain self-proclaimed pilot on this forum
who doesn't get this fact.

Could you explain what you mean, please. Who said that 600 ias at sealevel is more stressful than 600 ias at 20,000 feet? Also, do black boxes record in terms of indicated airspeed, or something else?

[edit on 1/10/2009 by C0bzz]