MovieChat Forums > Loose Change: Final Cut (2007) Discussion > Expert Top Gun/Airline Pilots say Flight...

Expert Top Gun/Airline Pilots say Flight 77 maneuvers impossible


To all those who still believe the official story of 9/11, here's a big question for you:

Do you think that US Navy Top Gun pilots and commercial airline pilots with 40+ years of flying experience, logging 23,000 hours of air-time, know their *beep* regarding aviation maneuvers?

If so, do you think you are qualified to argue or disagree with them?

See below what the world's top pilots said about Flight 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Pay attention to the part in bold.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm


U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

by Alan Miller Page 1 of 1 page(s)

September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy Top Gun pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didnt make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navys Top Gun air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

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 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!


He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?


So, one of the world's best pilots says he CANNOT duplicate the maneuvers of Flight 77, and that it's not possible. What does that tell you?

Are you more qualified than Commander Ralph Kolstad to comment on the maneuver of a 757? Do you have similar qualifications that he does? Have you logged 23,000 hours of flight time? Have you flown fighter jets and 757's for 40 years? What are YOUR qualifications against his?

Also, here is a similar statement from another experienced season pilot with 35 years experience flying commercial airlines and been on 100 combat missions for the Air Force. He explains below why Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible, even for the best pilots. Again, are you more qualified than he is about the plausibility of Flight 77's maneuvers on 9/11?! Pay attention to his words in bold below.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

[img]http://patriotsquestion911.com/Photos/Russ%20Wittenberg2%20220%20JPG80.jpg[/img]

Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." http://americanbuddhist.net

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."
http://911underground.com

Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.


For more statements and analyses like these from many highly qualified veteran expert pilots with decades of experience in the Air Force and Commercial Airline Industry, see here:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Remember folks, these are NOT about theories, they are about FACTS. And none of these experts are nutty paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Here also are full lists of many qualified experts who have come out challenging the official account of 9/11. Their full names, pictures, qualifications and testimonies are all documented at the link below.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Summary:

CREDIBLE CRITICS OF THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11: "Terribly Flawed," "Laced with Contradictions," "a Joke," "a Cover-up"
May 18, 2009 English PDF English HTML Danish PDF
French PDF German PDF Greek PDF Norwegian PDF
Polish PDF Swedish PDF

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11 – More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports
June 17, 2009 PDF

Respected Medical Professionals Launch New 9/11 Truth Group – Announces Online Petition Calling for New Investigation
Feb. 24, 2009 MS Word Article on OpEdNews

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover- up”, “A White-Washed Farce”
Jan. 14, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up"
Jan. 5, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed"
Dec. 13, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False"
Dec. 4, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
and Government Officials Question
the 9/11 Commission Report

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 200 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite. (continued below)

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

reply

Do you think that US Navy Top Gun pilots and commercial airline pilots with 40+ years of flying experience, logging 23,000 hours of air-time, know their *beep* regarding aviation maneuvers?

If so, do you think you are qualified to argue or disagree with them?


For every pilot you bring up, I can show you 5 others that disagree.

Remember folks, these are NOT about theories, they are about FACTS. And none of these experts are nutty paranoid conspiracy theorists.

No, these are personal opinions, not facts.



No way the girl in the pics is her since I slam girls like that on the weekends-Jerome66

reply

Certainly his opinion is worth considering. That is what makes him an experience pilot.

Anybody want a peanut ?

- Fezzik, " The Princess Bride " ( 1987 )

reply

Im with ya but how can you possibly explain away all of the eyewitness testimony that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon? Even in the film the narrator/director has moved away from the missile scenario offering it as little more than something to consider....I admit its all so fishy but a missile scenario does not make much sense either....

There is NO Gene for the Human Spirit.

reply

hes right

'He who takes things out of the Earth invites disaster'..Hopi saying

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Why don't you and brian go argue about how great Avatar is(n't) and leave us alone?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Start with brian. Not only flooding but also cross-posting--on the wrong boards.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Plus, hitting one of the largest office buildings in the world (barely, almost missed completely) is hardly a fantastic feat of flying.

Do you think the eyewitnesses were all lying?


It could have been a military plane disguised as a 757.

No 757 can do 500 knots at 20 feet off the ground. It's impossible and no one can do it, not even in a flight simulator.

These pilots would disagree with you. They are professional and fully named.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html


http://www.happierabroad.com-Your Guide to Dating and Social Fulfillment Overseas

reply

It could have been a military plane disguised as a 757.

No 757 can do 500 knots at 20 feet off the ground. It's impossible and no one can do it, not even in a flight simulator.


False!

Many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces. The AFDS not only controls the plane when the autopilot is enabled, but Boeing recommends that these computerized systems always be in operation to advise the pilots on how to best fly the aircraft. The primary advantage of computerized control systems is that they can make corrections to an aircraft's flight path and help prevent the pilot from accidentally putting the plane into an uncontrollable condition. The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out.

These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11. Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.

One of the most interesting quotes comes from Afework Hagos who commented on the plane see-sawing back and forth, suggesting that the pilot was struggling to keep the plane level in either pitch or roll or perhaps both. Hagos was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when the 757 passed overhead. He reported, "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance." Another eyewitness named Penny Elgas also referred to the plane rocking back and forth while Albert Hemphill commented that, "He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just 'jinked' to avoid something." These observations were further confirmed by Mary Ann Owens, James Ryan, and David Marra who described the plane's wings as "wobbly" when it "rolled left and then rolled right" and the pilot "tilted his wings, this way and in this way."

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.



Club Stewie: Where the Fur Flies!

reply

[deleted]

Check out this interview. You will learn something from it.

This guy is as qualified and experienced as it gets when it comes to flying. This is NOT some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL with a long prestigious career in the US Navy and commercial Airline industry.

Captain Ralph Kolstad has 17 years of experience flying US Navy fighter jets and landing on aircraft carriers, and 27 years experience flying large airliners. He has flown a variety of different aircraft and has logged 23,000 hours of flight time. That's about as experienced as you can get.

Listen to his interview with Kevin Barrett about the 767's flying into the WTC at 500 knots on 9/11. It's very revealing.

http://noliesradio.org/archives/FB20090929__RalphKolstad_web.mp3

In the first half of the interview, Kolstad explains why flying a 767 into the WTC isn't as easy as you think. You can't just point the plane at the towers. Steering an airliner is very tricky, especially at sea level. The aerodynamics are more complicated than people assume.

A 767 can only do 500 knots in two scenarios - at cruising altitude (above the clouds), or in a straight nose dive. If you were at the altitute of the WTC, you cannot do 500 knots on a 767. And if you pulled the throttle at full speed at that altitude, you'd lose control of the plane and could not even steer it. That's true even if you're the best pilot in the world.

Hitting a target he explains, especially a narrow one like the WTC, is very difficult and only achievable when you come in at LANDING SPEED, not at full throttle like the hijackers did.

In fact, he saw highly trained professional pilots in flight simulators try to hit the WTC and ALL of them failed. They were only able to hit it when they came in at landing speed. (which is NOT the speed that the 9/11 hijackers came under)

Most astonishing of all, he said that HE HIMSELF COULD NOT HAVE FLOWN those 767's into the WTC like the hijackers did on 9/11, despite all his vast experience, training and skill!!!!!!

Imagine that! That says A LOT.

As to how the planes on 9/11 hit the WTC, he admits he does not know the answer and does not like to speculate. To say that it was a military plane disguised as a 767 or a remote controlled jet, or whatever, would be speculating and he does not want to go there. All he knows for sure, he says, is that a trained professional pilot in a 767 flying 500 knots at sea level would NOT be able to hit the WTC, for various reasons. Anything else is purely speculative.

Now if one of the most experienced and qualified pilots in the world is saying this, that really does mean something. This is NOT some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL with a long prestigious career in the US Navy and commercial Airline industry.

He also gives us some insight into what other airline pilots he's talked to thinks about the whole thing, and how many would rather not even talk about it at all.

And he said that most debunkers on the internet are not qualified professionals and don't know *beep* about what they are talking about (you know who you are).

Listen to the interview here:

http://noliesradio.org/archives/FB20090929__RalphKolstad_web.mp3

http://www.happierabroad.com-Your Guide to Dating and Social Fulfillment Overseas

reply

In fact, he saw highly trained professional pilots in flight simulators try to hit the WTC and ALL of them failed. They were only able to hit it when they came in at landing speed. (which is NOT the speed that the 9/11 hijackers came under)

Most astonishing of all, he said that HE HIMSELF COULD NOT HAVE FLOWN those 767's into the WTC like the hijackers did on 9/11, despite all his vast experience, training and skill!!!!!!



What a load of BS! My god, hitting a huge stationary building is much easier than landing. Aim and gun it.


Club Stewie: Where the Fur Flies!

reply

A 767 can only do 500 knots in two scenarios - at cruising altitude (above the clouds), or in a straight nose dive. If you were at the altitute of the WTC, you cannot do 500 knots on a 767.


And the horsesheeyt continues.

As a Colonel in the USAF with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Aerospace Engineering and 26 years experience, here is my assessment:

The 767 is flight-tested and certified to be safe (flutter-free, able to carry gust loads, controllable, etc.) up to Vd (the maximum dive speed). This speed may be found in the type certification documents that are filed with the FAA.. For the 767-200 at Sea Level, this speed can be found in Type Certificate # A1NM, available from the FAA at the follwing web site: rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302e51 a401f11a8625718b00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf

If you want to find it yourself, just do a Google search for “Type certificate A1NM Vd”. This document clearly states that the Vd for a 767-200 is 420KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed). This is the equivalent of 420*1.1516 = 484 mph (calibrated).

At sea level on a standard day, this would also be the true airspeed. As it is, the corrections are small. Now you need to compensate for compressibility to convert to equivalent airspeed. At sea level on a standard day, calibrated airspeed and equivalent airspeed are equal. At 700ft and 420KCAS, we’ll have a downward correction about one knot – say 419KEAS.

Next we correct to true airspeed. Assuming a standard day, the air density at 700 feet is 97.9806% of that at Sea Level. V = Ve /(.979806)^.5 = 419 / 1.01025 = 423.3 knots. Now lets convert to mph. 423.3*1.1516 = 487.5 mph (true).

The 767 has actually been flight-tested at various altitudes (all the way down to near-sea-level) to establish these values, and in fact, it is standard industry practice to go a bit faster during the flight test and set these Vd values slightly to the conservative side. So, odds are that the 767 was flight-tested to about 500mph in a dive near sea-level.

Now Wwu777, let's see your analysis of this, and show your math.


Arguing with a Truther is like trying to teach a ham sandwich to play chess - Sivazh

reply