Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Attacks

Professional Pilots Rob Balsamo and FAA Authorized Flight Examiner/Check Airman Dan Govatos discuss the difficulty of the WTC attacks as well as attempts to duplicate the attack in an Airline Simulator on tnrlive.com.

visit http://truthorlies.org for archive of full interview.

Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org for the latest information and in depth analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78

Great segment. I learned

Great segment. I learned quite a bit in a short amount of time. Keep up the good work Mike, Rob, Dan, P4911T and everyone else.

This is big

So do we have a case for the planes being remote controlled? It would appear so. This is really important testimony. Another nail in the coffin for the official version.

All commercial jets are flown by 'remote control'

The pilots are there in case of emergency. The flight management system is "programmed" to fly the plane pretty much from takeoff to landing.

The implication of "true remote control" is that there was additional hardware and software that "took over" the FMS, and would have had to stop the pilots from disengaging the auto-pilot and stop their radios from working — which, if you think about it, in the scheme of things, would probably be pretty easy to do, relatively speaking. (that is, someone would have to know what they're doing to do that, but I think one should easily be able to visualize and understand how easy it would be to accomplish something like that by some who did know what they were doing)

Since they claim you can't fly into the WTC towers manually, I would have liked to hear them discuss the possibility or probability of it being done by reprogramming the FMS.

Although the Pentagon plane (which is what they tend to focus on) looked as if it was being flown manually based on the flight data recorder information they received from the FAA. (or wherever it was they got it) And it must have been flown manually, because why would they program the FMS to do that big loop, although I suppose it's possible.

Or perhaps the "expert flying" was the FMS flying the plane. That is probably also a distinct possibility.

It's too bad the pf911t forum got infected by a bunch of super-paranoids — it used to be a great place to post and interact.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent

http://www.chico911truth.org/

9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)

"Super-Paraniods"?

We are? uhhh.. ok . (by the way.. no "doughnut" is registered at our forums. Care to tell us your member name to see some of your posts?)

Well.. despite your jab at our organization of professionals, i'll still address your post..

It is quite possible to modify any aircraft for remote guidance and make aerodynamic modifications to account for the increased airspeed requirements as reported for this attack.

However, most pilots that i know who have done their research, feel these 'hijackers' did not have the ability to pull off what was done on Sept 11 with a first time success rate for 75% of intended targets.

Even the so-called 'debunker' pilot agrees...

"Hanjour was very lucky in his nefarious endeavour, because a pilot of his
experience, allowed to try multiple instances of the same manoeuvre, would
have a very high failure rate." - Giulio Bernacchia, Italian Airline Pilot

Cheers!
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

You didn't reply to anything in my post

I specifically discussed the FMS and the possibility of it being programmed to make the flights in question. (all three, or any one)

(and as for the pf911t forum, I didn't say everyone there was a "super-paranoid" — but it doesn't take too many bad apples to spoil the whole barrel)

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent

http://www.chico911truth.org/

9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)

Who what where?

Once again i ask, your member name at our forums? I think we run a pretty tight ship if i may say so.

Is there a reason you do not want to give us your member name at our forums?

And since you brought it up.. who are these "few bad apples"? Gotta let us know if a "few" are preventing you from posting...

You know.. common courtesy and all.. going to the source prior to complaining perhaps?... sorta like what we did with the FBI and NTSB. :-)
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

Been There -- Done That -- Not Interested in Re-Hashing

Why are you purposely not responding to my points and questions?

I've seen you do this avoidance thing before on the forum.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent

http://www.chico911truth.org/

9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)