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

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

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Captain Ralph Kolstad Interview Discussing 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Pilots For 9/11 Truth - Sept 29. 2009

Rating 5 V
 
rob balsamo
post Sep 29 2009, 06:20 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Captain Kolstad did a great job filling in for me with Kevin Barrett today. I was scheduled to do the interview, but unfortunately couldnt make it. Capt Kolstad discusses our latest presentation "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Archive is now up...

Click Play...


Or right click and save target as, mp3. 10mb download.
http://noliesradio.org/archives/FB20090929...Kolstad_web.mp3


Capt Kolstad experience and quals:

Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
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, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html#Kolstad

Thank you Ralph for doing this with such short notice. Great job!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
panthercat
post Sep 29 2009, 10:46 PM
Post #2





Group: Core Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 14-April 07
From: Pahoa, HI
Member No.: 952



Their server is having a furball. That link refuses to work in any browser.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 30 2009, 12:00 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Its working for me... smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tezzajw
post Sep 30 2009, 05:44 AM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 23-March 09
Member No.: 4,213



Good to hear a real pilot with a real name and real, verifiable credentials speak about what he thinks of the official government story.

A nice, simple interview that I hope reached a few people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnS
post Sep 30 2009, 09:04 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 19-November 08
Member No.: 3,993



Nice interview (link worked fine for me).

Watched the new WTC video last night with my brother. I enjoyed it, want to watch it again, make sure I'm not missing anything. My brother, at the end of it, just said nahhhh, I don't buy it. I said well, you can't just say nahhhhh, you have to have a reason. What do you not agree with? He kept saying "They just didn't convince me." I kept saying "why?" He had no answer other than he just didn't like it basically. So obviously there's this continuing psychological resistance for a lot of people, a kind of sub-rational refusal to accept facts.

But one thing he did say, he was downtown in NYC the day it happened and actually saw the first plane hit the North Tower. And he said the plane didn't look to him like it was going particularly crazy fast. With all due respect to the problems of eyewitness perception and memory versus hard data, and apologies if this has been well discussed elsewhere on this forum (I did look, couldn't find it) -- what if the speed data are just wrong?

The video mentioned there were other speeds mentioned from other sources, but kind of dismissed them rather casually in favor of the NTSB numbers. For good reason, NTSB is the authority. But the one flaw in the argument would be if the assumptions about speed were wrong, then the rest of it falls apart. So I'd have liked to have seen more discussion of alternative opinions about the speed, how the speeds were calculated, what analyses were done from the available video footage and so forth. It would be worth establishing the reasonableness of the speed assumption a little more solidly, I think. Didn't the video say they were going greater than 1M, shouldn't there have been a "sonic boom"? How reliable are the radar data? Taking that speed calculation, we can either say it wasn't a (normal) 767, or we can say the calculation must have been wrong. Isn't that as likely? Why or why not? Discuss! Please!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 30 2009, 09:14 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Hi John,

Thank you for the compliment and your support.

We go over the implications of the data being false in the film. But to elaborate a bit more... The National Transportation Safety Board has "Safety" in their title for a reason. They are the authority to affect change in Flight Safety making our skies safer for all on board, and on the ground.

If one feels the NTSB is incompetent to provide simple Radar data regarding speed..... as we said in the film, one better think twice about getting on their next flight.

If the data is falsified. Then we have to ask why? And who is falsifying data at the NTSB? Which again has major ramifications for Flight Safety.

As for your question regarding over Mach 1. The speeds reported at sea level has the same dynamic pressure effect as over Mach 1 at altitude based on Equivalent airspeed as calculated in the film,. You won't hear a sonic boom on 9/11 because the WTC aircraft did not break the sound barrier at sea level, but would have at 22,000 feet for the same dynamic pressure according to the calculations of EAS. It gets a bit more technical here and this is why we need wind tunnel data from Boeing. Although I suppose they could falsify data as well, but the main purpose of this film is to wake up more pilots and seriously take a look at these ridiculous speeds, as Capt Kolstad was saying in the above interview.

Hope this helps and once again, thank you for your support!

Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnS
post Sep 30 2009, 09:54 AM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 19-November 08
Member No.: 3,993



Thanks for the quick response, Rob. I love what you guys are doing, I have most of the DVDs and I love showing them to a friend of mine who's a pilot, and anyone else I can get to watch them. I'm going to watch the WTC one again tonight, so I'll try to shut up until I watch it again. But actually another comment or two (can't help myself):

I hear what you're saying when you point out we shouldn't get on planes if we can't trust the NTSB to have reliable data on something as simple as speed. But, well, maybe we shouldn't! Sorry, I'm a non-pilot, I don't know anything about it, but do you feel the NTSB radar data are by and large extremely accurate and reliable? (I don't see why they'd intentionally falsify data in a way that UNDERMINES the government story, so I think it's a choice between accurate or inaccurate, rather than accurate or lying.)

Also, is there a Point A to Point B consistent radar track of AA11 and UA175 from take-off to impact? In other words, does the evidence imply that something ELSE happened to those flights (disappear off radar at some point like flight 77?) and some sort of special drones appeared to fly into the towers? Or rather does it imply that there was something special about those planes, they were souped up or whatever but that yeah, passengers were on them, they were in fact flights 11 and 175?

I know you're reluctant to speculate, for very good reason, but what does the radar track suggest?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 30 2009, 10:04 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (panthercat @ Sep 29 2009, 09:46 PM) *
Their server is having a furball. That link refuses to work in any browser.

Strange- it apparently worked in Oz and not in HI. I know that Oz often has some awfully sub-par Internet connections. I was able to download an MP3 of it- here it is:

http://www.freefileserver.com/393130
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 30 2009, 10:47 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (JohnS @ Sep 30 2009, 08:54 AM) *
Also, is there a Point A to Point B consistent radar track of AA11 and UA175 from take-off to impact? In other words, does the evidence imply that something ELSE happened to those flights (disappear off radar at some point like flight 77?) and some sort of special drones appeared to fly into the towers? Or rather does it imply that there was something special about those planes, they were souped up or whatever but that yeah, passengers were on them, they were in fact flights 11 and 175?

Hello and welcome John. welcome.gif

As far as "continuous track," there mostly is for AA11 and UA175 in the USAF 84 RADES data. I don't have server space big enough to host the original RADES .ISO files stated to be from a FOIA request by the "debunking" John Farmer/"911files" who has since "disappeared."

You can find the RADES .ISO files [today, at least] at:

http://www.aal77.com/rades/rades.htm

His on-again-off-again website has been mirrored there, and you might want to grab those RADES .ISO files quickly, as his work has been known to "disappear" repeatedly in the past.

Anyway, here is the original .XLS spreadsheet said to have been prepared from the RADES RS3 software by the USAF 84 RADES unit:

Post #351
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777531

The RS3 software is somewhat "tricky," and it does not run well (or at all) under "stock" Windows Vista, but it should work well under WinXP or 98. I can try to take some screenshots from the RS3 software- that is MUCH easier than mapping the lat/lon data points in the .XLS spreadsheet.

EDIT: Of course, no FDR data has ever been released for either of AA11 or UA175, and I don't know of any FAA data released on those, so the RADES data, video, eyewitnesses, and the "official" NTSB reports are all we have to go from there.

EDIT2: Oh yes, as far as the "take off" of UA175, that was apparently from out over the Atlantic, not BOS (according to the NTSB report and the USAF 84 RADES data)- hmmm...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 30 2009, 01:01 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Keep in mind folks... based on what i said above is only showing the possibilities based on the data.

With that said, i feel airline flying is very safe and that you will be very safe in flying on any airline.

But, if your excuse is that the data is flawed, false.. etc, that is when you have to make some tough decisions. (not speaking to anyone in particular). The same goes for AA77 and UA93 data. Although, we know for a fact the AA77 data has been manipulated and that the UA93 data does not support observed events.

You can deduce the reasoning from there. :-)


dmole, remember, NTSB also has ASR radar with Mode C for the alleged UA175. Much more accurate than RADES. This is pointed out in the film.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Sep 30 2009, 01:37 PM
Post #11





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



Does this work for you Panthercat ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnS
post Sep 30 2009, 02:16 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 19-November 08
Member No.: 3,993



Thanks again to Rob and to dMole for responding. I do recall from the video the reference to ASR Mode C, and agree it seems as trustworthy a data source as could be hoped for (except perhaps for FDR).

I've spent an embarrassing amount of time reading 9/11 web forums today, starting out in a quest for information on radar and devolving from there. No surprise but it's really striking how vitriolic most of the "discussion" is. You guys and other "truthers" really take a lot of crap from a lot of people, and another striking thing as far as I'm concerned is that most of your attackers are terrible writers! I see over and over again somebody will point out an apparent flaw in the government story, in quite a reasonable manner, and then there's a bunch of attacks just smearing the guy, calling him names, saying he's an idiot or he can't understand his own data or he's just trying to sell DVDs or this kind of thing, but notably lacking a calm, reasoned counter-argument. And usually written in horrible English! I mean the difference in argument quality and writing quality is really striking, with a few rare exceptions. And I'm reading trying to keep an open mind. I'm thinking, OK, you say he's wrong, cool, tell me why, maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture here. And 99% of the time they give me nothing. It's disappointing. Just sayin'...our side appears to be smarter and have better manners. I'll bet we're better looking too. ;-)

So I can't blame you here if you find yourselves getting defensive or getting sarcastic, but I would urge you to resist the urge, and just maintain that calm, reasonable, patient demeanor you normally have. It's the best weapon and anything less I think will scare away anybody new to the debates or still undecided. Maybe I'm especially sensitive to it after wading through slime all morning, but even Rob's use of the word "excuse" to describe a question about the data puts it in a certain combative context in a subtle way that I think is more problem than solution, if you can forgive a mild criticism. I do realize it wasn't aimed at me and I'm not the least bit offended personally. But if somebody is saying hey, maybe the speed information is wrong, I think it's harmful to say they're looking for an "excuse" for the government. They may be (like me) just trying to think through all possibilities. Even if they ARE numbnuts making lame implausible excuses for the ridiculous nonsense put out by the government, I think it's more effective to be at pains to be patient, reasonable, calm, imperturbable, etc. If there is one off-putting aspect to the DVD, it is that the tone lapses into sarcasm at times. Again, I can well understand how weary you must get of the jackasses you must have to deal with regularly, but I think it's so important always to remember the new people and the undecided. Tone may speak as loudly as facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 30 2009, 03:58 PM
Post #13


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (JohnS @ Sep 30 2009, 07:54 AM) *
(I don't see why they'd intentionally falsify data in a way that UNDERMINES the government story, so I think it's a choice between accurate or inaccurate, rather than accurate or lying.)

Hi JohnS, and welcome to the forum. On the whole I like what you're saying about presentation and trying to control our emotional tone. I obviously don't take this advise as can be seen in a recent post where I just blow up about the whole "Legge" issue.

I pulled that particular quote out of context because it is an interesting question I've often pondered. In relation to the WTC, "WHY" is it so important that the allegedly hijacked airliners be flown at these excessive speeds? Just as your brother said the first plane he witnessed did not appear to be traveling at excessive speed, so, too, eye-witnesses at the Pentagon interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team often report that the plane they saw wasn't flying all that fast. So WHY this apparent insistence upon high air speeds even when it pushes the envelope of credulity? One can only speculate about the motives of another absent verifiable facts and all speculation is just that and nothing more. The fact is, though, that in these instances, we have four aircraft that, for all practical purposes, "disappear" without much of a trace after impact. What little debris there is at ANY of the four alleged crash locations has not been positively identified as belonging to ANY of the four allegedly hijacked airliners. A Boeing 7x7 obliterated beyond recognition at a crash site has to be (to my layman's perspective) as anomalous as having a steel structure "collapse" due to fire. To have it happen four times in one day has to be "explained" somehow.

What we have here is the equivalent of a murder mystery where-in the four weapons used to commit the crimes at four different locations were destroyed in the act of committing those crimes. How can two Boeing aircraft fully penetrate the steel frame exterior of both WTC towers; disappear with little (and no positively identified) debris completely inside the Pentagon; and, likewise, into a rather small 'hole' in a strip-mine near Shanksville? One obvious speculation for excessive air-speed is the need to account for these anomalies.

Another factor I like to throw into this is more along the lines of counterintelligence operations: The proverbial riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. To escape detection it is sometimes useful for a smart perpetrator to generate as much contradictory evidence as possible thus making certain detection all the more difficult. After all, if they can keep us guessing, keep us in the position of never being able to "prove" much of anything scientifically, then they win by maintaining control of the perceived narrative. They want to keep it all "a matter of opinion," with their opinion reining supreme with appeals to authority and incredulity. I think this is precisely why the whole Legge affair is important. The official narrative floats "plausible" explanations not necessarily based in fact (or, as shown, even reasonable possibility) but sufficiently graspable to satisfy most who harbor a bias of incredulity.

.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnS
post Oct 1 2009, 12:34 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 19-November 08
Member No.: 3,993



QUOTE (painter @ Sep 30 2009, 04:58 PM) *
Hi JohnS, and welcome to the forum. On the whole I like what you're saying about presentation and trying to control our emotional tone. I obviously don't take this advise as can be seen in a recent post where I just blow up about the whole "Legge" issue.


Well hey, I never said it wasn't healthy to VENT now and then! ;-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post Oct 1 2009, 06:25 PM
Post #15





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



Ralph...you did a great Job filling in thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 13th December 2017 - 09:44 AM