IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
John Bursill Called Out On His Bogus Flight Sim Conclusions, forced to watch "911: The WTC Attack" for the 1st time

Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 27 2009, 02:08 PM
Post #1





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Towards the end of my debate with Bursill the flight sim stuff was brought up.

I made a thread on his turf (911oz forum) calling him out on it and he is coming unglued.

He pinned the thread and locked it while he views the full presentation and puts together a rebuttal but he has already spouted off a quick response complete with more attacks on P4T.

Thread here:

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=6518


QUOTE (John Bursill)
I have watched these to sections...you've embedded.

Ok, as I said in the interview nothing in this film I was unaware of and it being made into a film means little.

I agree with all the figures quoted by Balsamo, but I completely disagree with his "speed of sound" portrail as he is presenting a false analogy. Is this to confuse the public, unfortunately it appears so!

I maintain that .86 is the Mach Speed "Operating" limit at all altitudes in respect to the "Mach Effects" as I have said many times. I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective "drag" and "air pressures" are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction. It would be extremely dangerous to the handling of the aircraft, agreed but in my sim test holding the aircraft in a constant attitude was not difficult. It would also result in damage to the aircraft if maintained especially to the composite aerodynamic fairings etc.

I do not dispute that the NSTB's figures could be wrong and I have seen others estimate the speed of 175 at more like 440 Knots using the video...that does seem much more reasonable.

You need to realize that showing a the 767-200 transitioning through the sound barrier as he does time and time again is both ridiculous and blatantly fraudulent. There was and is not any "shock wave" on any aircraft at 510 knots at 1,000 ft, lol.

Flight 175 was no where near Mach Speed at 510 Knots? You must be a little concerned by now Craig supporting your mate Rob?

My point which I was making was that the pressure differentials when approaching Mach speed are the issue, which are generally a problem between .8 and 1.2 Mach or the Transitional Zone for a better term that will cause the wings to develop massive vibrations and deflections as shown disingenuously by Balsamo in his misleading film with the 747 wind tunnel testing.

I will try to explain this to you, from Wiki...

Transonic flow

Main article: Transonic

The term Transonic refers to a range of velocities just below and above the local speed of sound (generally taken as Mach 0.81.2). It is defined as the range of speeds between the critical Mach number, when some parts of the airflow over an aircraft become supersonic, and a higher speed, typically near Mach 1.2, when all of the airflow is supersonic. Between these speeds some of the airflow is supersonic, and some is not.

Supersonic flow

Main article: Supersonic

Supersonic aerodynamic problems are those involving flow speeds greater than the speed of sound. Calculating the lift on the Concorde during cruise can be an example of a supersonic aerodynamic problem.
Supersonic flow behaves very differently from subsonic flow. Fluids react to differences in pressure; pressure changes are how a fluid is "told" to respond to its environment. Therefore, since sound is in fact an infinitesimal pressure difference propagating through a fluid, the speed of sound in that fluid can be considered the fastest speed that "information" can travel in the flow. This difference most obviously manifests itself in the case of a fluid striking an object. In front of that object, the fluid builds up a stagnation pressure as impact with the object brings the moving fluid to rest. In fluid traveling at subsonic speed, this pressure disturbance can propagate upstream, changing the flow pattern ahead of the object and giving the impression that the fluid "knows" the object is there and is avoiding it. However, in a supersonic flow, the pressure disturbance cannot propagate upstream. Thus, when the fluid finally does strike the object, it is forced to change its properties -- temperature, density, pressure, and Mach number -- in an extremely violent and irreversible fashion called a shock wave. The presence of shock waves, along with the compressibility effects of high-velocity (see Reynolds number) fluids, is the central difference between supersonic and subsonic aerodynamics problems.

--END--

It is these differing pressures on the frame during transonic speeds that will cause the aircraft to break up just as we saw with Egypt Air, where speeds above .91 Mach and reaching .99 before destruction.

The speed that Balsamo referred to as destructive that has been quoted of 420 Knots (VD) was the airspeed limit for testing allowed by the FAA, not the speed the aircraft would break up at which we could assume would be much greater maybe aroud 500 Knots, this is speculation and as Balsamo says we must get the Boeing Data. It was interesting that the Mach speed limit for testing was .91 (VD) which equates to 600 Knots at sea level BEFORE THE MACH EFFECT COULD CAUSE THOSE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS DUE TO CHANGING AIR PRESSURE.

I understand what Balsamo is talking about and I understand "Cross Over Altitude" and I have talked to well over one dozen 767 Captains who say the 767 could "PROBABLY" do around 500 knots as seen on 9/11 engines being the issue. Not for a long time and not while in a turn...given.

I talked to Dr Frank Legge today, and the Journal await for your paper to show them "illogical and unscientific" with regards the Pentagon Paper? And Craig in the scientific community these statements calling them "unscientific or illogical" are considered personal slanderous attacks, and I demand you stop doing such and immediately apologise! This is even more disturbing when you refuse to submit a paper in support of your claims?

They are also waiting for Balsamo to prove his "G Force" analysis correct at the Pentagon?

Please Craig stick to witnesses and not science as you say they are your forte. If you want to debate me on this please set it up, I can't wait

Any further claims attacking my integrity or any person from the Journal with "illogical or unscientific" slanderous remarks will result in me asking for your banning at this site. Lets work together and build up this movement rather than destroying as you say you oppose.

Regards John



Looks like he's willing to debate this topic.

Of course the fact that he would challenge ME on it is laughable since I already pounded him for 2.5 hours and simply brought Rob's debunk of HIS claims to his forum to get a response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2009, 09:21 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Bursill... rolleyes.gif


yawn....

I didnt bother to read the above thoroughly.

We never claim 510 knots at sea level is the same as breaking the sound barrier at altitude. Matter of fact, we state clearly there are other factors in the transonic ranges, numerous times. However, EAS, dynamic pressure, etc, is the same. Seems Bursill is still ignoring the reasons Boeing assigned 360 knots near sea level.

Tell Bursill to read the associated press release, watch the presentation again and realize .86M at altitude is 360 knots near sea level as it pertains to dynamic pressure.

Im not surprised he is coming unglued after you gave him a spanking Craig.

Personally, I dont have time. Maybe he would prefer to debate Capt Aimer or Capt Kolstad? Both of which have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly dispatched as AA11 and UA175, and are interviewed in WTCA. Let me know and i'll shoot them an email. However, I highly doubt they'll entertain Bursill either.

After reading Bursill's above statement,

"I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective "drag" and "air pressures" are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction. It would be extremely dangerous to the handling of the aircraft, agreed but in my sim test holding the aircraft in a constant attitude was not difficult. It would also result in damage to the aircraft if maintained especially to the composite aerodynamic fairings etc."


Bolded emphasis above added by me...


... any one of our pilots will put Bursill to bed in less than 15 mins. I wont waste my time here getting into the intricate details of why a Manufacturer assigns a Vmo (no Bursill, its not due to less wear and tear..lol), but I will cover just one example clearly showing Bursill doesnt have a clue about what he is debating nor researching.

For Example, Bursill doesnt even realize the bank and pitch angles in the last few seconds for the alleged UA175. Not only did the aircraft "change direction", but it pulled G forces!

In the last few minutes, the data shows even a greater airspeed AND direction changes than impact data! Shit, i animated it as well, based on actual data! Geeze, it appears Bursill hasnt thoroughly studied anything with respect to aviation related incidents on 9/11. Why is that? Its clear he didnt even listen to the Kolstad interview regarding sim's and completely ignored the presentation on what a sim is used for... (hint: its not used for aerodynamic stress).

If i have some down time, perhaps i'll show Bursill reality, but i will find it hard pressed to even find 15 mins for him...lol

Craig, i bet if you take two weeks to study the material, you'll put Bursill in his place AGAIN, without ever having an aviation background.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 11 2010, 11:23 AM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



He's preparing something and getting cocky!

QUOTE (John Bursill)
....not saying anything here but...let it go...ego trap was set and went off...take the intel you got and walk away:)

NO COMMENT CIT that was yesterday...P4T are the only legit target...and they will be exposed....I SWEAR IT!

JB


Except he admits he still hasn't watched the whole thing!
laughing1.gif


QUOTE (Bursill)
Hello all,

I will be onto this soon; has some one got a working link to the whole piece?

Watch this space...shit storm of truth brewing:)

JB

http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic...01&start=15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 11 2010, 11:30 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I already know what he is going to say...lol

... that we claim 510 knots exceeds Mach 1 at sea level. We make no such claim.

Bursill has had a stick up his ass for our organization for quite some time since we wont boot John Lear and accept John Bursill instead.

Our pilots will take Lear any day out of the week and twice on Sunday as compared to Bursill. I wont even list Bursill even if he accepted to be listed on the same list as Lear. Which by the way he is, at Patriots Question 911. Bursill has also cried to Alan at Patriots. Seems Bursill thinks he owns "The Movement" or something and trying to dictate to us how we should run our organization. Too funny.

Bursill should concentrate more on himself instead of attempting to discredit others who place their own name on their work. Some might begin to think Bursill has an agenda.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jan 12 2010, 10:22 AM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 9 2010, 01:30 PM) *
Some might begin to think Bursill has an agenda.

He does. He has pasted himself into a corner, even I can see that, and he cannot budge because of incoming egg.

EDIT. I wonder if he has ever studied Kermode?

You don't have to reply Rob, just thought I would add my 2p in support.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jan 12 2010, 10:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrodway
post Jan 12 2010, 09:35 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 283
Joined: 5-August 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,609



The past history of their own forum administration speaks for itself.

I would have kept a diary of the shenanigans if I had known they would be attacking P4T/CIT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 13 2010, 11:25 AM
Post #7





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



He's launched the first catapult......


QUOTE (John Bursill)
Hello all,

I received the ok from Balsamo to download his film as he does not want my money:) Thanks Rob....I don't want anyone alerting the authorities to any copy write issues;)

This is not meant to be my definitive view on this matter, this is a forum. While I will attempt to be as factual as possible please wait for my essay on the matter before quoting this overview from here till Timbuktu:)

First of all the simulator test I did was real and I stake my reputation on that, as you know I am unable to give the exact location of where it was as my employer has forbid it. The 767-300 aircraft I tested achieved well over 500 Knots at 2,000 feet altitude. As I have said it was an industry standard flight simulator used to test and train Australian Pilots and it is ludicrous to suggest that pulling circuit breakers for "aural warnings" disabled the "crash logic" of the simulator. Even if it was true, which I can prove it's not, it would not disable the performance profiles which come directly from Boeing test data that establish the speed possibilities!

A few brief points about the film, I will be doing a complete critique at a later date and a radio show.

As regards "impossible speed" Balsamo offers absolutely zero proof that a 767-200 cannot achieve 510 Knots and uses false analogies continuously during his film to falsely claim that he has.

Balsamo claims that an explanation of the speeds seen is that the 767-200 may of been possible by a "supped up" or enhanced 767 aircraft, I know of no such precedent (their could be one?) and Balsamo offers no further info. There are 767-200 freighters and fuellers in service that are strengthened to carry heavy loads but not to operate at 500 Knot airspeeds, that I know of. I am not saying that that is not a possibility.

Some aspects of this film are obviously trying to confuse the public about "super sonic" flight, as Balsamo continually refers to the 767 flight 175 as obtaining "super sonic" airspeeds, which is absolutely false. Yes he explains early in the film that the "equivalent airspeed" seen at low altitude would obtain "super sonic" flight at high altitude, he continually neglects to clarify that only approximately .77 Mach or 77% of the speed of sound was achieved by 175.

The thing that is overall most disturbing about "9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK" is the comparison that Balsamo makes to the crash of Egypt Air and it's mid air break up. Balsamo as his main point why the speed of 175 and 11 is impossible is that it broke up at approximately 430 Knots "Equivalent Airspeed". The culprit being "dynamic air pressure" tearing the aircraft apart. It is interesting to note that this occurs at .99 Mach which puts the aircraft in great danger, being in the transonic region (.8 - 1.2 Mach).

I will give a brief overview of what is "reasonable" to "consider" caused this break up of Egypt air 990 in my view;

1. Transonic flight of "high speed" commercial aircraft above the aircraft "Critical Mach Number" has always been the danger that will cause structural failure due to "wing flutter" and "Shock waves". Flt 990 achieving .99 Mach speed is the single most likely cause of it structural failure in this case.

2. The turning off of the engines (as happened with Egypt Air) at an extremely high speed would cause a massive amount of torque onto the engine mounts, possible tearing the engines off and or the wings. The engines are designed to be pulling the aircraft forward not acting as a parachute. There would also be a very rapid change in the aircraft attitude due to these torque effects applying massive G forces. edit add... The engines are used for reverse thrust during landing opposing airspeeds of only around a 150 Knots as the aircraft slows, these forces are of a completely different magnitude compared to .99 Mach or EA 430 Knots. (I'm not saying this happened, it is just reasonable to consider it as I said at the start)

Later in the film Balsamo claims that the aircraft are uncontrollable at speeds over 420 Knots. These claims are also flawed. While obviously I agree that the hijackers' would not most likely be able to hit the towers at 500 Knots or any speed maually; Balsamo fails to discuss any auto pilot modes that would make it reasonably simple like "Control Wheel Steering". He also fails to discuss the fact that a remote control system may have been used. There is a whole essay in just this part of his inaccurate and misleading piece. For example regarding the uncontrollability of the aircraft he shows an aerofoil while explaining "Mach Tuck" that has elevator trim tabs. The 767 as do most large airliners DO NOT USE TRIM TABS ON ELEVATORS, rather they use a movable horizontal stabilizer. How Balsamo could put this argument forward to the public is beyond me!

As you can see, there are so many errors of judgement and fact that it will take considerable effort to do a full and accurate critique of "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

And I am happy to debate Balsamo on radio on this issue as long as it is with a neutral host?

Kind regards John



You definitely should debate him Rob.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Jan 13 2010, 11:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 13 2010, 01:53 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Bursill might need to debate himself....lol. He seems to be another walking contradiction.

"I agree absolutely that the pressure on the airframe changes massively at low altitude as Balsamo states and that the effective "drag" and "air pressures" are equivalent to super sonic speeds at 510 Knots at sea level yes, but this pressure is only a catastrophic structural problem when the aircraft is changing direction." - John Bursill

Bursill is so lost in his above replies a radio interview would be useless as there isnt enough time to educate the guy. I had to explain to him how to use the buttons on our DVD page for crying out loud! Out of thousands of orders in the past years, there has not been one person who was unable to follow the directions of domestic vs. international orders, except Bursill...lol...

I'll debate him one on one any day of the week recorded, and twice on Sunday, after Bursill is able to figure out a simple order process. smile.gif

Keep in mind, Bursill is a forum member here with an active account. Why he elects to post his BS elsewhere and not confront us directly here, is, in his words, "beyond me!". (but we all really know why... wink.gif)

Finally I'm not the only one he will "debating". Bursill seems to think the presentation is a result and opinion of only one person, me. It is not. It is the result of Capt Jeff Latas, Capt Ralph Kolstad, Capt Rusty Aimer and other 757/767 Drivers who wish to remain anonymous.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Apr 27 2010, 06:51 PM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



I haven't listened to it yet but apparently Bursill has continued his attacks on P4T in this new interview with Ken Jenkins:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/23251

From the comments at blogger:

QUOTE
This simply something that must be done it is not an attack!

Claiming the speed of Flight 11 and 175 is impossible is not backed by any hard evidence or any verifiable data. Robert Balsamo is not open for debate and has rejected attempts by people at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice to revise his claims.

Lt Col Robert Bowman agrees with me and so do many other pilots I meet in my work that a 767-200 could and did do the observed speed, the industry standard simulator did the speed also.

It is a shame that Pilots do not have a board of directors (that I know of) as do many of our successful groups, it appears to be a one man show publicly which is a problem.

Listen to the show, I do not attack Pilots just their (Balsamo's predominantly) wild claims!

Did you ever wonder why this site, 911Truth.org and A&E's don't link to Pilots for Truth any more? Do you think we don't want a successful group like them with us? Take a deep breath listen to the show and ask me questions and I will endeavour to answer them for you if you are fair dinkum...

Regards John
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 29 2010, 10:17 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Bursill was asked to answer some questions prior to debate to make sure he understands what it is that he is debating.

He refused to answer every one and ran.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.ph...mp;postcount=14

I was then banned from the above forum.

As for Bowman, I haven't heard any complaints from him regarding our work and he is still listed as a member of our organization.

As for AE911T? Dwain Deets is a prominent member for AE and has reviewed our work. He is an Aeronautical Engineer with NASA Dryden Research. He agrees with our work.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19919

Richard Gage also purchased our latest DVD on the World Trade Center attack. I told him that I would have just given him the DVD if he sent me an email, but Richard replied he wanted to support our work.

Bursill's motivation in the Truth Movement is clear. His main focus is divide and conquer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Apr 29 2010, 11:31 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



3 cheers.

I love Richard Gage - such a deliberate, graceful presence, and what courage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Apr 29 2010, 11:35 AM
Post #12





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Yeah his all out assault on P4T is out of control.

He is clearly unable to address the info directly so he is focusing on you personally while making wild generalizations regarding the information and clearly being unable to directly address the specific points made in your presentation. Over at blogger after Adam Syed proved that you did not refuse to debate him and also pointed out that you're a pilot and that Bursill is a mechanic here is how Bursill replied:

QUOTE
Well first of all what I said was accurate, so the premise of your response is in error...but we will struggle on:)

Firstly a am a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer in Avionics on the actual type of aircraft that hit the towers, I am not a mechanic although I was and I do certify for their work. Balsamo I believe is not currently employed as a mechanic or as a pilot and has had a few problems with his health...you may be able to give us some info on that? Balsamo is not qualified on heavy passenger jets I believe, please correct me if that is not true?

The whole premise of "he would know better about the top speed of a 767-200 than me" is ludicrous, pilots are not allowed to exceed certain limits on aircraft or they lose their jobs and he is not even rated on that type of aircraft. The pilots he asks about it wouldn't have a clue how fast the plane would go as they have not been even close to the speeds seen on 9/11. As I have said previously many pilots I meet that fly 767's "believe" they could do that speed, THEY DO NOT "KNOW" ANYTHING, that is called being reasonable....yes? I know you have trouble with that concept from time to time, especially it seems when some one like me suggests it's a good idea for us as a group to be "reasonable". I know this is because it's such a threat to our success in your view...?!

Lets get a few things straight that are not controversial or if they are please let me know?

1. Two twin engined planes that looked just like 767-200's hit the towers on 9/11.
2. Robin Hordon has said that in his research he has found that continuous ground radar tracks were established for those flights 11 and 175, that is from take off to crash.
3. There is no hard evidence demonstrating the planes were swapped.
4. There is no hard evidence establishing supped up 767-200 (high speed) exist. There are freighters and fuellers that are strengthened for heavier loads.
5. No test data can be obtained from Boeing which would give us the Dynamic Airspeed and the Mach Number where it might be expected that the 767-200 would break up flaps up, and this data is available.
6. The only test that could be done to get any idea what speed the planes could achieve could be done in the Boeing Approved simulator (based on their test data), which I did and it achieved in excess of the speeds seen by a considerable margin, without, that is doing wind tunnel testing with scale structural models.

Don't worry Adam I will do a show on this later in the year, and I'm sure you'll love it!

Meanwhile why don't you stick to helping the campaign by not supporting clearly unsupported claims of "impossible speed" when logically and scientifically they hold no water.

Evidence Adam might be important to establish a claim like that.....even a mechanic knows that;)

Regards John

PS - Oh sorry I should be quite about such claims....sorry...(sarc)
PPS- Yes I know we don't have much evidence proving 11 and 175 were just that, that is no excuse for making a story up to disprove


The circular logic is astounding. As if your analysis should be dismissed because there is "no hard evidence" that the original planes weren't what hit the towers. The point is that the information in your presentation IS hard evidence and Bursill is clearly unable to debunk it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 29 2010, 11:39 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Apr 29 2010, 11:35 AM) *
....and also pointed out that you're a pilot and that Bursill is a mechanic...



Wouldn't it be nice if Bursill started his own organization of perhaps "Aircraft Mechanics For 9/11 Truth" and focused on something productive.... instead of attacking others?

Bursill wont, Bursill cant. Because Bursill doesnt have the strength, the ambition, the ability nor the knowledge.

All Bursill knows is to create division through what appears to be envy, or an agenda.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Apr 29 2010, 12:28 PM
Post #14





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Ahh but didn't you read his reply? He is NOT a "mechanic"!

He is an "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 29 2010, 12:46 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Apr 29 2010, 12:28 PM) *
Ahh but didn't you read his reply? He is NOT a "mechanic"!

He is an "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer".



lol.. .actually, no, i didn't read his reply.

I see he is an avionics tech... laughing1.gif

Basically, when a radio takes a shit, he changes it out with a new one..

No wonder the guy hasnt a clue regarding aerodynamics or pilot skill with CWS usage. -- Bursill thinks CWS mode helped the "Hijackers" to hit their targets and influenced Legge to put such disinfo in his paper, This is what Capt Kolstad had to say about CWS....


QUOTE
From: Ralph Kolstad
Subject: RE: CWS Deactivation/Uninstalled?
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 12:25 PM

Rob,



Let’s see if I can say this very plain and clear to those who may not understand.



“I started flying the B767 in 1986. At that time there was a CWS (Control Wheel Steering) option to select rather than the autopilot. I tried it once during my 50 hours of line training. It was just for demonstration purposes. The autopilot on the 767 is exceptionally smooth. CWS was nowhere near as smooth. From then on during the rest of my 13 years and over 6000 hours on the 757/767, I NEVER used CWS again. Since NO pilot ever used CWS, it was soon deactivated, and ultimately taken out of the aircraft. It was gone by 9-11-2001. Anyone who thinks that a raghead who can’t fly a C172 would, or could, understand CWS and use it effectively, is either a major distracter, smoking some whacky-tobacky, or just has no clue what they are talking about.”



I hope that is clear enough that CWS was useless. Therefore, any discussion of using CWS is totally irrelevant.



Ralph



From: Pilots For Truth [mailto:pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 1:18 AM
To: Ralph Kolstad; Ross F. Aimer
Subject: CWS Deactivation/Uninstalled?



Hi guys,

Ralph, we spoke the other night about CWS being uninstalled on your 767's before 9/11, could you please just give me a brief short statement i could use with this idiot John Bursill?


Regards,
Rob


too funny...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jun 26 2010, 07:55 PM
Post #16





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Bursill admits this is not about truth, but pride/ego.

QUOTE (John Bursill)
Pride...is a problem...

I'm sorry for being angry, prideful and conceited during this debate!

I apologise to 911blogger and the 911 Truth Movement for my rash actions in heat of battle for truth!

Kind regards John

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2010-06-24/nasa...#comment-234181


So will he now retract his "probable speed" article/alleged simulator experiment and apologize to Pilots for 9/11 Truth for attacking them and accusing them of "dissinfo" [sic]?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 23 2010, 07:56 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



So, I'm in a group email exposing the lies of John Bursill for harassing our core members at Blogger,

Some guy named Scott Ford fires in asking to be removed from the group email while claiming that I am attacking survivors and victims of the 9/11 attacks. Scott also says he can set up a "neutral forum" for me to "debate" John Bursill.

I reply:

QUOTE
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote:

Scott,

I don't know who you are but It appears someone lied to you as I have never nor has anyone from our organization "attacked people who lost loved ones on 9/11". And if you cannot find such a quote on our website, I ask you to immediately retract your libelous claims.

I have had two sites shut down for their libelous attacks on our organization. Are you affiliated with any website? And if so, are you spreading such libelous claims as you are doing here?

I'll have to do a bit more research on you as I've never heard of you before.

If you do wish to inform yourself, please visit our website and read through the work we've done for the victims and the public in general, placing our names, faces and professional reputations on the line.

Start here with the affidavit we signed in Lawsuit brought by Pentagon Survivor April Gallop.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html

As for your "neutral forum".

I have tried to "debate" Bursill on his own turf, he locked one thread, fled from another, then I was banned. Click the link below to the 911oz forum.

The same type of censorship and evasion went on over at Blogger.

How "neutral" can your "forum" be when you are already libeling me personally and our organization --unsourced-- when I don't even know who you are....?

Quote your claims or retract them.

Rob



Scott fires back:

QUOTE
On Thu, 9/23/10, Scott Ford <ford@visibility911.com> wrote:


From: Scott Ford <ford@visibility911.com>
Subject: Re: John Bursill Still Gets It Wrong -
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 5:48 PM


Hi Rob,

I am both relieved and excited you don't know who I am.

I am referring to these back channel emails to large lists where you and your supporters are attacking Cosmos as a liar about a very good friend he lost in the attacks. In fact, I just got one 5 minutes ago from your good friend and uber-supporter Adam Syed. I distinctly remember several insulting emails from you as well. No, I'm not going to spend even a second to go find them, I'll let you do that. Even your rants at 911Blogger that I have witnessed in the last few years alone would take me all day to index. I don't really care if you think I am lying because you are just trying to bait me anyway, plus you have zero credibility.

But I will say this. Back off.

The way you talk to good activists like Cosmos and Jon Gold in public email exchanges is deplorable. This tells me you and your manufactured operation cannot be trusted. That's all I need to know. I judge people on what they DO, not just what they say. Pilotsfor911Truth has a clear agenda to poison the well with bad information, what (or who) motivates you is none of my concern.

There is also no censorship at 911Blogger. The people banned there were banned for breaking the rules. Period.

Personally, it's been fun to watch your pyramid of disinformation collapse around you so fast that you can barely hold on to any supporters without blatant lies. I knew at the end of the day, the critical thinking and good intentions of the truth movement would see through this facade of yours, disregard you and move on. This is especially true in other countries, and in cities here, like San Diego for example, where you have outspoken operatives, er ... I mean members. I am proud of my fellow activists for being too smart for dirty tricks and sticking to responsible information about these crimes, and throwing out distracting conspiracy porn from so-called pilots and so-called citizen investigators.

So no I'm not going to apologize for calling you out as a big problem, or for being an annoying prick for that matter.

Stop attacking good people that are fighting for the truth. The truth, the honest truth, will always prevail my friend. That is why your lies are being crushed like dirty, stinking, rotten tomatoes.

So nice to finally meet you! Cheers! :-)

<S>


I reply:

QUOTE
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote:

Scott,

I am not the one attacking people.

It is Cosmos [attacking me].

Matter of fact, I have [n]ever typed his pseudo name "Cosmos" before this morning in an email.

Adam did expose his lies apparently. But that has nothing to do with me. I didnt even reply to it. Im busy working on the NORAD response (or lack thereof), ATC and Radar for our next presentation "9/11:Intercepted".

Anyway, thanks for letting us know your position. I will promptly send it out to our entire "fabricated" organization listed here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

I suppose all these people in uniform are photoshopped as well?

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Scott, it is clear the reasons I have never heard of you, and you have heard of me.

Regards,

Rob




Scott backpedals:

QUOTE
From: Scott Ford <ford@visibility911.com>
Subject: Re: John Bursill Still Gets It Wrong -
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 6:42 PM

Ugh.

A quick scan of that email will tell you I didn't use the word "fabricated", so again please stop lying. By "manufactured" I mean your arguments, not your people. I know PLENTY of great people who support Pilots. And, they have a right to. I don't have any problem with people who support your group because they believe your theories. I am fine with disagreeing with my friends on details of the attacks. Many, many good people support your organization. I have never said a bad thing about those people.

It is YOUR disruptive behavior, lies and tricks like that which I am forced to respond to here that I object to.

So, before you go publicly share my personal emails without my permission (which is the most cowardly lame thing ever - next to slandering survivors of a tragedy, that is), please also include these comments. I don't really have time to keep documenting these petty tricks of yours.

Everybody on your list that knows me also knows that I am fine to agree to disagree with their views. I'll just warn you in all fairness to do some digging before you try to slander me in public and make yourself look like an idiot. So don't say I didn't warn you.

<S>



I reply:

QUOTE
Scott.

Please quote from our website our "theories".

Be sure to read the underlined sentence on top of the home page first.

Thanks.

Rob




Some choice quotes from above:

"Personally, it's been fun to watch your pyramid of disinformation collapse around you so fast that you can barely hold on to any supporters..." - Scott Ford

"I know PLENTY of great people who support Pilots. " - Scott Ford

"Many, many good people support your organization. I have never said a bad thing about those people." - Scott Ford

"Pilotsfor911Truth has a clear agenda to poison the well with bad information... " - Scott Ford


My next question is - Does anyone know this Scott Ford character and do you happen to know much crack he smokes in a day?

laughing1.gif

Too funny....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 23 2010, 08:54 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I can state that not only was I banned and censored on 911 blogger, but every email I sent and even personal requests to Richard Gage about the matter were ignored.

This was not a matter of breaking a rule. This was a matter of censorship with no cause given. I am not the only one and many others were banned and censored as well.

There is something the matter when adults cannot engage in open debates - which of course require that the debaters have different perspectives on a matter.

I don't know any other reason than ego, control, paranoia which is behind this. But accusing someone of being a spy, and agent and so forth because you disagree is a rather bizarre argument to make or position to hold.

The sad thing here is that people who are respected in the truth effort are engaging in the above and that is both hidden from most people and hardly any different that the approach and tactics of those who advance the official story. We are now officially into the kettle calling the pot black territory.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Sep 24 2010, 06:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 23 2010, 09:42 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Here is an email exchange I just had with Ted Muga, with respect to "Scott Ford" claims above in the San Diego area:

(Be sure to read from the bottom up, sorry, dont have time to format)

QUOTE
Re: Fw: Re: John Bursill Still Gets It Wrong -
Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:40 PM
From:
"tmuga@aol.com" <tmuga@aol.com>
View contact details
To:
pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com

Go for it Rob, you have my permission. R. E. "Ted " Muga, Commander, USN-retired

In a message dated 9/23/2010 6:33:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com writes:

Hi Ted,

Can I please have your permission to post your email publicly?


It will be a big help to sift out the frivolous and libelous claims made by our detractors.

Thanks my friend...

Glad our work is helping out the San Diego crowd.

Rob

--- On Thu, 9/23/10, tmuga@aol.com <tmuga@aol.com> wrote:


From: tmuga@aol.com <tmuga@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: John Bursill Still Gets It Wrong -
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 9:30 PM

Ted,

Do you know this guy Scott Ford?
---- ------ - ----- ------- ----

Rob, haven't meet or heard of anyone with that name. And since I don't participate in the blogger debates, I am not familiar with any of the other names mentioned in your last e-mail. Also, I'm familiar with all of the activists groups down here in San Diego, We all support each other and have zero problems working together. So.......if you come across anyone in our San Diego area that "has a problem", give them my e-mail and have them contact me directly.

New subject: at our last monthly "San Diegans for 9/11 truth " event we featured your ""Attack on the Pentagon" DVD., to a packed house ( 150 plus ). It was received with 100 % approval. Our panel for the Q & A session after the video consisted of myself,, an AF pilot, a NASA engineer, and a senior American Airline flight attendant. ( all retired, of course ). It turned out to be one of our most successful events to date. Thanks to your DVD.

Ted
www.sd911truth.org



Ted Muga experience and quals as follows:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core#Muga
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 24 2010, 10:32 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Note also the change in story as per Cosmos' "uncle Mickey" now being referred to by his friends as "Cosmos' friend". For years he has used the term "uncle".

Let's just cut the crap here. Somebody tell me if these posts by "Cosmos" aka YT are ambiguous in any way and what immediate impression he was trying to give..



...anybody??



I had thought that this was a touchy subject and better left for people to see the information themselves and decide what was going on but now this guy and his "friends" has turned this into a stick with which to beat the people who really know how these gossips and liars operate.

Do the victims' families actually know what these people are saying and doing in their name??

I can't wait for "Atomic Kitten" to post his findings on the censorship and proven disinfo that these people continue to link to in the full knowledge that it is.

By the way Rob, one of Cosmos' "friends", Adam Larson has made his feelings known on April Gallup
here...

http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/...masterlist.html

(worth a read for a laugh on how low this simpleton will go on the disinfo)



Fucking hypocrites.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th December 2021 - 11:27 PM