Monday, September 28, 2009

767 pilot Ralph Kolstad: Government's 9/11 story is ridiculous: here's why

Tuesday 9/29, on Fair and Balanced, 9 -10 a.m. Pacific (noon - 1 pm Eastern) on http://www.noliesradio.org ... free on-demand archive here ...

Ralph Kolstad of Pilots for 9/11 Truth discusses the absurd impossibility of the claim that two incompetent, inexperienced pilots hit the World Trade Center Towers at 430 knots and 510 knots, respectively. Ralph and other experienced pilots say that 767s flown at those speeds close to sea level would be virtually impossible to control. In simulations, experienced pilots could not hit the WTC towers at anything close to those speeds. Additionally, Flight 175 (510 knots) would have been torn to pieces long before it got to 510 knots at sea level -- the equivalent airspeed of flying at Mach 1.19 (722 knots) at 22,000 feet! But not to worry, the engines could not possibly make it go that fast anyway. Ralph, who has many years' experience flying the same 767s allegedly used in the WTC attack, says the government's claim that 767s hit the Towers at those airspeeds is not just impossible, it's patently ridiculous.

These and other issues are explored in the brand-new, long-awaited Pilots for 9/11 Truth DVD 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, featuring Ralph Kolstad and other experienced Pilots.

Ralph Kolstad's resume includes:

23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international captain with American Airlines
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, attended TopGun twice (second time as "enemy" instructor)
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds

5 comments:

  1. Kev, ask Mr. Balsamo how he can possibly believe that an airliner flew over an eight-lane freeway at 100 feet to land at DCA runway 15 and nobody noticed it. Ask him if the DCA ATCs were in on the plot. Ask him if 757s and 737s used runway 15 routinely. Ask him why Roosevelt Roberts didn't see the plane fly to DCA, and why Mr. Roberts believes he saw the plane fly away to the southwest, and what the G-forces would be for a U-turn in five seconds as Roberts describes.

    Ask him why he and Craig Ranke abandoned the discussion of Ranke's OpEd News article rather than answer the questions I raised there.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/INDEPENDENT-INVESTIGATION-by-Craig-Ranke-090825-917.html

    Ask him why he responded at OPEd news to reasonable questions with bluster, bluff, and ad hominem attack instead of answers--and thus very poorly represented his own positions and the truth movement.

    Ask him why his video about his postulated flight path declined to claim that the turn over the top of the Pentagon was possible for a 757.

    Ask him to explain the logic of how faked damage evidence proves flyover.

    Ask him whether the turn from the northern flight path to the west end of the parking lot where Mr. Roberts said he saw the airliner was aerodynamically possible.

    Ask him how he can justify wasting so many people's time with irrational, implausible, stupid, and discrediting nonsense like CIT's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Snug-bug,

    All of your questions were answered on OpEd, You just didnt like the answers.

    This show is not about the pentagon, it will be discussing the WTC issues.

    Also, I won't be able to make it today, but I am trying to contact Rusty Aimer and Ralph Kolstad, both 757/767 Capts I interviewed in our latest film, to fill in with Kevin. Rusty actually has time in the aircraft reportedly used at the South Tower, United 175. Hopefully one or both can make it.

    Once again, I apologize for the short notice Kevin, and I apologize to your listeners. We will definitely reschedule in the near future.

    Rob Balsamo
    Co-Founder
    pilotsfor911truth.org

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Balsamo, the above questions were not answered. Your performance at OpEd News, as anyone who reads the thread can see, was evasive, defensive, and dishonest. You very poorly represented the truth movement there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The interview was a disappointing hour. This is why I don't like real time media--you wait around for an hour waiting for the thing to take off, and it never does. In written media you can sense from the opening how much care and thought has gone into it.

    Commander Kolstad said little of substance. Apparently the radar data show impossible airspeeds for flight 175 so either there’s something funny with the data or something funny with the plane. Kolstad speculates that the military might have modified a plane to allow it to achieve higher speeds without breaking up, but provides no specifics on what modifications would be needed, but he sticks firmly to the “We don’t know what happened except we know the official story is wrong” line. Kolstad recommends “In Plane Site” as an authority on the aircraft.

    He claims that there are several hundred members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Since the website has no complete members listing, this is impossible to verify.

    In the last part of the program Barrett whines about being attacked on the internet by people who don’t have names. Poor Kevin.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Snug.bug,

    I normally don't get into a discussions with "bugs" or idiots who know very little to be dangerous.
    Guys like Commander Kolstad do not have to prove anything to people with funny assumed names throwing barbs hiding behind their keyboards.
    Notice the folks at Pilots for 9/11 Truth have their full names and pictures published and their credentials are verifiable.
    We don't claim to know all the answers but we sign our real names in the bottom of what we say!

    Captain Ross "Rusty" Aimer (UAL Ret.)
    CEO
    Aviation Experts, LLC
    Member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth

    ReplyDelete