so much 'debunking' but what about...

reply to post by SGTSECRET


Well I'll ask - even though I am pretty sure I know the answer - where can I read about all these professional pilots that think the flight was impossible?

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association?
Airline Pilots Association International?
United States Pilot Association?
Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations?
Allied Pilots Association?

Please tell us.

reply to post by hooper


Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

ive also included a complete analysis of flight 77 flight path by pilots. so yes, pilots have said its impossible and have many questions about how this went down.




www.opednews.com...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

[

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
reply to post by hooper

 

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

ive also included a complete analysis of flight 77 flight path by pilots. so yes, pilots have said its impossible and have many questions about how this went down.

www.opednews.com...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Just as I thought. That came from Ballsucker at pffft who cross posted it on Oped News. Also, it would be wise to determine who is behind that Patriots site by cross checking the pfffft site....

It might be of interest to everyone just what those who have worked with "Rotten" Ralph think of his credibility...

There are implication that "Rotten" Ralph was selected for TOP GUN in the F-14. He wasn't, he participated in Top Gun in an A-4 adversary role, but none of the articles posted by "truthers" mention that. BTW, that is not so special as they would like you to believe...

Why does no one detail what they think was impossible about AA 77's flight into the Pentagon? Why don't you post what was so impossible or even extremely difficult about it and I won't accuse you of an "Appear to Authority" fallacy.

Tell me what was so difficult specifically and we'll address that in detail... Otherwise, you're just spreading false information without any clue as to the validity of what idiots say about that scenario...

What about all of that physical evidence I outlined? You seem to be ignoring that and forming an opinion from some discredited conspiracy sites...

Originally posted by Reheat
[

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
reply to post by hooper

 

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

ive also included a complete analysis of flight 77 flight path by pilots. so yes, pilots have said its impossible and have many questions about how this went down.

www.opednews.com...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Just as I thought. That came from Ballsucker at pffft who cross posted it on Oped News. Also, it would be wise to determine who is behind that Patriots site by cross checking the pfffft site....

It might be of interest to everyone just what those who have worked with "Rotten" Ralph think of his credibility...

There are implication that "Rotten" Ralph was selected for TOP GUN in the F-14. He wasn't, he participated in Top Gun in an A-4 adversary role, but none of the articles posted by "truthers" mention that. BTW, that is not so special as they would like you to believe...

Why does no one detail what they think was impossible about AA 77's flight into the Pentagon? Why don't you post what was so impossible or even extremely difficult about it and I won't accuse you of an "Appear to Authority" fallacy.

Tell me what was so difficult specifically and we'll address that in detail... Otherwise, you're just spreading false information without any clue as to the validity of what idiots say about that scenario...

What about all of that physical evidence I outlined? You seem to be ignoring that and forming an opinion from some discredited conspiracy sites...

edit on 1-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

so im guessing you didnt look at anything except for the whole top gun part. to see WHAT pilots have issues with regarding the flight you need to read the source ive already cited. you can call it false all you want, theres alot of info there, including the NTSB info and flight recorder data, and at the same time has pilot input explaining what the issues are with the official story. oh and the top gun guy you were talking about has thousands of hours of flight time, i'll believe him over a random person over the net any day...sorry.

-this is the part where you ask for names, or you claim to be a pilot with some ridiculously large amount of experience...therefore no one else could possibly know what they are talking about..

heres some of that pilot analysis you seem to be discrediting. its must more detail than you would like to pay attention to i suppose. somehow this is all fake right..even though the data is from flight recorders and official reports?

the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.

Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?

didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me

this is all from the source i already showed you, you know..the one you skipped over just to trash talk about mr top gun pilot.

reply to post by SGTSECRET


As for your misinformed opinion, I read the Oped News article. No where in that articles does "Rotten" Ralph delineate what he finds impossible about the Pentagon scenario. I already know the crap that's on the pfffft site controlled by Ballsucker. Ballsucker tells us what Kalstad said, but there is no proof that he said more than the quote in the Oped New Article.. No details except from Ballsucker. If it appears that I don't trust or believe Ballsucker, you are absolutely correct. He is a known proven liar, fraud, and charlatan. Most truthers and truthers sites are not buying his garbage any more. There are very few sites where he can post as he has been banned from most. He comes here under a sock and as soon as the Admins identify him, he is gone.

I am simply going to address everything about the Pentagon Scenario in the blind. It has been beaten to death over and over again and again... I do have a life and it is not all spent on combating hearsay and ignorant misinformed opinion or charlatans with an agenda.

If you'll post what was specially wrong with the flying at the Pentagon I'll address it eventually. I'm busy shortly with guests for lunch and will not spend hours here today... Regardless of not knowing who to believe about the flying part, why haven't you addressed the physical evidence I listed earlier? Surely, you understand that....

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
heres some of that pilot analysis you seem to be discrediting. its must more detail than you would like to pay attention to i suppose. somehow this is all fake right..even though the data is from flight recorders and official reports?

the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.

Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?

didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me

this is all from the source i already showed you, you know..the one you skipped over just to trash talk about mr top gun pilot.

Every single bit of this is from Ballsucker at pffft, it is not from Kolstad. I don't have time to address it now, but I will later.... You are simply being duped by a fraudulent charlatan....

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
reply to post by Alfie1

 

so you are saying there were 2 released? i am only aware of 1, and if there was 2 and it clearly showed the plane than no one would be here commenting, so obviously this is still an unresolved issue...

I am not saying any tape clearly shows the plane but I find it difficult to imagine what else was caught by the security gate cameras. It has a vertical tail fin and, if you blow it up (excuse pun ) , my perception is that you can see AA colours.

What I do say though is that it is a made up issue, with no basis to support it except incredulity, and that it is of zero consequence when you look at the weight of evidence proving that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

For example :-

Radar,
Flight Data Recorder,
Air Traffic Control,
Aircraft wreckage,
DNA identified body parts of passengers and crew and personal effects,
Physical damage to Pentagon and en route ( e.g. light poles ,)

and then you have a whole raft of eyewitnesses on a bright and sunny morning :-

911research.wtc7.net...

edit on 1-1-2012 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)

Radar/Traffic Control: The spiral dive approach to the Pentagon was such an extreme maneuver that experienced air traffic controllers thought it was military jet.

Flight Data Recorder: American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment. Also it is very odd that the FDR was missing a serial number used for aircraft identification in the event of an accident.

Wreckage: where are the engines? yes yes ive seen the image of a piece that looks as if one person can pick it up. not only where ARE the engines but why is there no damage to the pentagon caused by the hardest, heaviest part of the aircraft? the pentagon has one small hole where we are to believe the nose hit, where are the other holes from where the engines would have hit, im sure there wouldnt be 3 seperate holes, most likely one BIG hole, but you get the point.

DNA: i didnt see bodies anywhere, but sure none of the news crews were right up in the action. this plane pretty much disintegrated i mean really nothing left other than a couple pieces you can pick up by hand, but somehow all the bodies were intact and identifiable, highly doubt it.

Light Poles: suprised you didnt notice this but..if you look at these light poles some are facing the wrong way to be knocked down by this plane headed into the pentagon.

reply to post by SGTSECRET


The flight data recorder did not show the cockpit door opening and closing, because that "feature" of the system was not in use. The airlines chose NOT to activate it. You really need to get away from that website, its full of horse manure.

We could argue all day long about what happened at the pentagon, I like to to keep it simple and ask why the FBI classified the video footage? That simple act is very telling! And please don't use the classified because of investigation and trial bs, if that's the excuse they wouldn't have released the grainy security post footage or the equally bad gas station footage.

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
reply to post by Alfie1

 

so you are saying there were 2 released? i am only aware of 1, and if there was 2 and it clearly showed the plane than no one would be here commenting, so obviously this is still an unresolved issue...

I am not saying any tape clearly shows the plane but I find it difficult to imagine what else was caught by the security gate cameras. It has a vertical tail fin and, if you blow it up (excuse pun ) , my perception is that you can see AA colours.

What I do say though is that it is a made up issue, with no basis to support it except incredulity, and that it is of zero consequence when you look at the weight of evidence proving that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

For example :-

Radar,
Flight Data Recorder,
Air Traffic Control,
Aircraft wreckage,
DNA identified body parts of passengers and crew and personal effects,
Physical damage to Pentagon and en route ( e.g. light poles ,)

and then you have a whole raft of eyewitnesses on a bright and sunny morning :-

911research.wtc7.net...

edit on 1-1-2012 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)

Radar/Traffic Control: The spiral dive approach to the Pentagon was such an extreme maneuver that experienced air traffic controllers thought it was military jet.

Flight Data Recorder: American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment. Also it is very odd that the FDR was missing a serial number used for aircraft identification in the event of an accident.

Wreckage: where are the engines? yes yes ive seen the image of a piece that looks as if one person can pick it up. not only where ARE the engines but why is there no damage to the pentagon caused by the hardest, heaviest part of the aircraft? the pentagon has one small hole where we are to believe the nose hit, where are the other holes from where the engines would have hit, im sure there wouldnt be 3 seperate holes, most likely one BIG hole, but you get the point.

DNA: i didnt see bodies anywhere, but sure none of the news crews were right up in the action. this plane pretty much disintegrated i mean really nothing left other than a couple pieces you can pick up by hand, but somehow all the bodies were intact and identifiable, highly doubt it.

Light Poles: suprised you didnt notice this but..if you look at these light poles some are facing the wrong way to be knocked down by this plane headed into the pentagon.

Hardly know where to start with your stuff. You just seem to uncritically hoover up stuff from Pf9/11T, never mind how old and beaten to death it is.

Yes, Air Traffic Conrollers at Dulles commented that AA 77 was being thrown about like a military jet. Controller O'Brien commented that " you don't fly a 757 in that manner , it's unsafe." But then I don't imagine the hi-jack pilot had safety uppermost in his mind so I am not sure of the point you are making.

As has already been pointed out to you there is no evidence the flight deck door parameter was ever hooked up to the FDR. The FDR recovered from the Pentagon not only contains the information relating to the final fatal flight but the details of multiple previous flights, including trans-continental, amounting to some 40 hours of flying. The cockpit door was never ever recorded as open. I don't understand what you are saying about a serial number on the FDR. What serial number would you be expecting ? Has it burned off ? What difference would a number make to you ?

As regards engine parts recovered from the Pentagon this is a report by aerospace engineers giving their proffessional opinion that the parts are from a Rolls Royce RB 211 engine as fitted to AA 77. (and not all Boeing 757's)

www.aerospaceweb.org...

I didn't think anyone imagined that intact identifiable bodies of passengers and crew of AA77 were recovered. Sadly, it was a case of DNA identification of body parts.

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

Radar/Traffic Control: The spiral dive approach to the Pentagon was such an extreme maneuver that experienced air traffic controllers thought it was military jet.

Air Traffic Controllers thought it was military because passenger planes are flown with the comfort of the passenger in mind. The terrorists had only one goal and that was to use the plane as a missile and hit the Pentagon which they successfully completed.

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

Flight Data Recorder: American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment. Also it is very odd that the FDR was missing a serial number used for aircraft identification in the event of an accident.

The FDR contains data from several other flights and in all flights the door was never opened. That is not possible therefore as ViperTech has posted, that feature of the FDR was not activated. Airlines use the features of the FDR that they are required to by law and for their convenience. The lack of serial number is not troubling in the least. The airline knew what plane it was and tracked the information by other means. You are grasping at straws trying to make your "facts" fit your "reality".

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

Wreckage: where are the engines? yes yes ive seen the image of a piece that looks as if one person can pick it up. not only where ARE the engines but why is there no damage to the pentagon caused by the hardest, heaviest part of the aircraft? the pentagon has one small hole where we are to believe the nose hit, where are the other holes from where the engines would have hit, im sure there wouldnt be 3 seperate holes, most likely one BIG hole, but you get the point.

It is quite obvious you have not read the engineering report detailing the damage done to the Pentagon. It lays out how and what the damage was. Read the report and it will answer all your questions.

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
DNA: i didnt see bodies anywhere, but sure none of the news crews were right up in the action. this plane pretty much disintegrated i mean really nothing left other than a couple pieces you can pick up by hand, but somehow all the bodies were intact and identifiable, highly doubt it.

Once again you chose to live in your own reality and do not do research. Reading the the Pilots4Truth website is not research. Not all bodies were intact and DNA can be determined through fragments.

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Light Poles: suprised you didnt notice this but..if you look at these light poles some are facing the wrong way to be knocked down by this plane headed into the pentagon.

Based on your sloppy research of the topic I'm going to say that you are not an engineer or a scientist. You have chosen to believe the piss poor "research" of a couple of truthers out to make an easy buck on the gullibility and paranoia of lazy people. All your questions have been answered many years ago. Just because a video camera wasn't in place to record the plane hitting the Pentagon does not mean that it did not happen.

Originally posted by huh2142
Based on your sloppy research of the topic I'm going to say that you are not an engineer or a scientist. You have chosen to believe the piss poor "research" of a couple of truthers out to make an easy buck on the gullibility and paranoia of lazy people. All your questions have been answered many years ago. Just because a video camera wasn't in place to record the plane hitting the Pentagon does not mean that it did not happen.

Just so you know, I get exceedingly annoyed to see "debunker" nitwits cite research such as the recovery and analysis of flight AA 77's final moments, previously unavailable due to a bug in ROSE software, knowing it was prepared by "truthers" and peer reviewed by people like me, and then act as if they don't have "truthers" to thank for the very Pentagon no planer debunking they're citing.

Case in point: the serial number was indeed discovered inside the FDR data, and if you knew anything about Pentagon research justifying your big mouth, any of you omniscient "debunker" warriors would have mentioned that pertinent information to the author of the OP.

None of you have the faintest idea what 9/11 truth (or research) is really about and the same goes for the majority of 9/11 "truthers".

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by huh2142
Based on your sloppy research of the topic I'm going to say that you are not an engineer or a scientist. You have chosen to believe the piss poor "research" of a couple of truthers out to make an easy buck on the gullibility and paranoia of lazy people. All your questions have been answered many years ago. Just because a video camera wasn't in place to record the plane hitting the Pentagon does not mean that it did not happen.

Just so you know, I get exceedingly annoyed to see "debunker" nitwits cite research such as the recovery and analysis of flight AA 77's final moments, previously unavailable due to a bug in ROSE software, knowing it was prepared by "truthers" and peer reviewed by people like me, and then act as if they don't have "truthers" to thank for the very Pentagon no planer debunking they're citing.

Case in point: the serial number was indeed discovered inside the FDR data, and if you knew anything about Pentagon research justifying your big mouth, any of you omniscient "debunker" warriors would have mentioned that pertinent information to the author of the OP.

None of you have the faintest idea what 9/11 truth (or research) is really about and the same goes for the majority of 9/11 "truthers".

edit on 1-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Do I understand this right, you helped peer-review a document that is used to prove the existence of planes by
alleged truthers and trusters alike?

Is that really what 9/11 truth research is all about?

I have yet to find this proof, so I must be one of those truthers in the majority. I feel like such a fool.

reply to post by SGTSECRET


I agree and so does this CNN reporter who was at the Pentagon immediately after the event and from his observation claimed that there was no evidence that a Plane had struck the facade of the Pentagon.

He even states that the structure didn't immediately collapse but only did so some 45 minutes afterwards.

Interesting because this report only aired once was quickly covered up thereafter.



I guess that is why they call the 911 event there the PentaCon !



Peace

reply to post by nh_ee

I guess that is why they call the 911 event there the PentaCon !

Really? "They" do? Who is this they? Why would "they" do that?

Originally posted by nh_ee
reply to post by SGTSECRET

 

I agree and so does this CNN reporter who was at the Pentagon immediately after the event and from his observation claimed that there was no evidence that a Plane had struck the facade of the Pentagon.

He even states that the structure didn't immediately collapse but only did so some 45 minutes afterwards.

Interesting because this report only aired once was quickly covered up thereafter.

(Dishonest contextomy video snipped)

I guess that is why they call the 911 event there the PentaCon !

Peace

No, it was called "The PentaCon" by two serial liars from California who work in marketing, and thus know how to introduce catchy titles to a gullible, paranoid audience.

As for Jamie McIntyre:

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon.

Source

The McIntyre hoax is one of the oldest and weakest Pentagon hoaxes around. Anyone who still peddles it today really needs to get a new hobby.

Originally posted by comprehension
Do I understand this right, you helped peer-review a document that is used to prove the existence of planes by alleged truthers and trusters alike?

No, I helped peer review a paper that is used to prove AA 77 crashed at the Pentagon by sane, rational people without a debilitating obsession with titillating, sensationalist nonsense caused by an inability to process information properly.

I don't use childish dichotomies like "truthers and trusters", as if "truthers" aren't as gullible and credulous as any. See example in previous post.

Originally posted by comprehension
Is that really what 9/11 truth research is all about?

Yes.

Originally posted by comprehension
I have yet to find this proof, so I must be one of those truthers in the majority. I feel like such a fool.

Unfortunately, yes.

Moving on.

The PentaCon

Geez, where's that "IGNORE" feature gone to ?
Oh, that's right ...it would defeat the entire purpose of this forum...to attack those who question ...

"Thou Shalt Not Think ...or Question What You've Been Instructed to Believe...from Official Sources.."

PentaCon

It has a nice Ring to it !

And Now for my next trick ladies and gentlemen by the application of new space aged nano-technology and a newly discovered science called "911 Day Special Physics".

We are going to make an entire wide body Jetliner disappear right before your eyes !!

Poof !

No more plane !

How about THAT folks?

Now turn on your High Definition TV with mouth correctly agape ...and go absorb more of that Official Story !
But Dont forget your favorite artificially sweetened beverage and your favorite artificially flavored snacks !




Peace