It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

page: 20
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



You challenged John Lear's expertise. That makes it your challenge. John countered your challenge to him with action not just words.

No I didn't. John didn't come into this discussion until a ways after I posted my opinion. Check your facts.


You got your absurd presumption from my words you cited?

And what did I say? I apologized if I was wrong. And you still need to discuss it???? My humble opinion is that you seriously need to grow up.


The word enlightment is giving you a comprehension problem, is it?
This is a perfect example of why you are having so many problems with so many people here. You just can't let it go and get over it. Seriously if this is how you act when you interact with people on a daily basis, you must have serious social problems. Let this sink in. I apologized and in return you continue insulting me. How incredibly immature.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


Body remains still have to be intact to get DNA from some body parts but not all.

Yes there must be body parts to get DNA from the body parts. This is true. Eye witnesses at the crash site stated there were body parts everywhere. Even John Lear says that there were body parts the only difference is that he says they were planted. Are you going to challenge John about that or just me?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Unfortunately I live in Michigan. I said I'd really like to do it but I can't fly out to vegas, it's simply not practical.


How badly do you want to prove your points of argument? People set on proving their points make time and find the money to do it to prove their points of argument.



Why in the world would you think there is some kind of fund raising group on either side of the DISCUSSION??? Are you serious???


I do not believe I mentioned any fund raising groups. Why did you presume that is what I meant?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



How badly do you want to prove your points of argument? People set on proving their points make time and find the money to do it to prove their points of argument.

Not bad enough to shut down my 2 businesses
Look maybe you don't really get it so let me lay it out for you. This is a fun diversion for me to come here and chat with MOSTLY reasonable people and come up with interesting ideas and even learn a few things. I'm simply not going to shut down 2 businesses to fly to vegas "CAUSE YOU WANT ME TO"



I do not believe I mentioned any fund raising groups. Why did you presume that is what I meant?


Well this is what you said, and I quote:

Surely among your side people could donate to send one of you to try out your hypothesis, can't they? Surely there are organized groups with money promoting your side of the argument. You could contact them to help some of you prove your hypothesis for them and yourselves.


Now lets go ahead and break it down so you can understand what you said

Surely there are organized groups with money promoting your side of the argument.

You mention and organized group....but to do what I ask myself? Oh yes it says to donate.

So you suggest an organized group with money....well that sound just like a fund raising group to me and I'm guessing all other sane people


Hopefully this helps you understand what you meant



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123


No I didn't. John didn't come into this discussion until a ways after I posted my opinion. Check your facts.


The timing does not matter. The fact is you have continuously challenged his expertise, from the time he offered his reasoning via his expertise to these discussions.

Now he counters his opposition, among them you, to make the effort to prove your own points of argument beyond your biased opinions. Talk the talk and walk the walk is what John is doing. You are backsliding when offered the same opportunity to talk the talk and not agreeing to walk the walk from your opposition opinionated view.

According to you: You made your opinionated points first. John then countered with his expertise second. You continued to counter John with your opinions. Now he has finally countered you to put actions to work to prove your opinions correct. You continue to backslide by talking the talk but not walking the walk to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Man you both fight like you are married....

So let me throw this out there. Lets say that Mr Lear goes ahead and gets everything in place, and people go out there and conduct the experiment. They fail....they fail fail fail. This includes pilots ranging from novice to expert. Well lets say a few experts succeed. Are you going to say that the information is skewed or bias? Are you going to say that they failed on purpose? Will you be willing to accept the conclusions that we can draw if there is over a 75% failure rate?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


OK. So do you concede all you have is opinion until you can prove differently with actions?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Ok, enlightenment if you prefer that word. It is still for your enlightment, not ours, if you accept John Lear's offer to try what you think could have happen. He is giving you and your side unique opportunity to prove it.

If you do not quit the ad hominem attacks against other posters, the one lacking credibility continues to be you.


You lost me there...

I'm not attacking you, and I really would like you to have the experience. Also it is not "my" side and I'm not sure what is "your" side, so I asked you if "your" side was like John's.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



But I do not need it, and you do. It was offered to your side not mine.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
Will you be willing to accept the conclusions that we can draw if there is over a 75% failure rate?


Well if some succeed are you going to throw out all of your conspiracy and declare that 9/11 was exactly like the report said? No of course you’re not. The reasonable person would take that new found knowledge and apply it to the situation at hand. If none do it except for highly experienced pilots then I would go back and relook at it all to find where the confounding information is at in the official report.

It could lead me in many different directions even one of your conspiracy, but that is not the only direction and this is just as if they are successful it still doesn’t totally eliminate your position.

Are any of you trying to find the truth or are you all just trying to win a debate?


[edit on 22-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



The timing does not matter. The fact is you have continuously challenged his expertise, from the time he offered his reasoning via his expertise to these discussions.

No I haven't. This is what's known as posting false information.


Now he counters his opposition, among them you, to make the effort to prove your own points of argument beyond your biased opinions.

I wholehearted admit my posts regarding the subject are my opinion. Yeah, go me



Talk the talk and walk the walk is what John is doing.

John and obviously yourself have the free time. Good for you.


You are backsliding when offered the same opportunity to talk the talk and not agreeing to walk the walk from your opposition opinionated view.

NOPE. I have explained to you that I cannot and will not close down my businesses to play in a simulator. You might think your taunting has meaning but only in your own world.


According to you: You made your opinionated points first. John then countered with his expertise second.

Nope, didn't happen.


You continued to counter John with your opinions.

Nope, didn't happen still.


Now he has finally countered you to put actions to work to prove your opinions correct.

And if it was realistic for me to do, I'd do it. I have a career that takes priority over playing video games. One day when you have responsibilities, you'll understand, until then you'll have to trust me.


You continue to backslide by talking the talk but not walking the walk to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.'

posting more false info. Good job !



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I'll take John Lears challenge to fly a simulated 767 into a simulated WTC tower, give me enough of a fore warning and I will do everything possible to get to Las Vegas and even pay half of the sim costs. Let me know if this sounds fair to you John.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


first, I'd like to say I find orionstar amusing and if you'll notice, he/she must always respond not matter what
It amuses me


Like I've said about a half dozen times so far, no matter what the outcome, I'll find it interesting and I greatly appreciate the fact that John has taken it upon himself to do this.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
But I do not need it, and you do. It was offered to your side not mine.


Ok good, you don't and I don't either for I have a lot of time in them already. What is my side BTW?

Can you answer me just one thing in that is your hypothesis based on John Lear’s theory that there were no aircraft at all, and it was all done with advance alien technology using holograph’s and advance weaponry?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Could you answer this previously posted question for me please?


Yes there must be body parts to get DNA from the body parts. This is true. Eye witnesses at the crash site stated there were body parts everywhere. Even John Lear says that there were body parts the only difference is that he says they were planted. Are you going to challenge John about that or just me?


You say there were no body parts, John says there were. Is he wrong or are you wrong?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
If all the opposition has for points of arguments is red herring and ad hominem against others, the opposition has no credibility in points of argument.

Obviously, the opposition is completely unaware that when people present different points of view, they are taking opposition sides to promote their differing points of view aka opposing sides of argument.

Now the opposition has decided to play muddy the water to divide and conquer. Since John Lear also takes the view no alleged planes were involved, I seriously doubt John or anyone else taking the same view thinks humans were in the air flying without aircraft surrounding them.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Why is it disrespectful to imagine a scenario that allows the passengers and or pilots to remain alive? There is no evidence they died, that for sure. I do not agree with John Lear on this count, but since we know the official story is a total lie any other possibility remains a viable option.




It's wrong because John is implying that the pilot is alive and well. And that by choice, since he is writing to that pilot, he chooses to remain in hiding.

Totally sick.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since John Lear also takes the view no alleged planes were involved, I seriously doubt John or anyone else taking the same view thinks humans were in the air flying without aircraft surrounding them.


Thats not what I said. I said that John has stated there were body parts at the Shanksville crash site. So who's right? You or John?

By the way, ask John if you don't believe me. I'm sure he won't mind.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Then cite the words you claim were made or drop it. That is simple enough, isn't it?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


He said it in another thread. Ask him if you don't believe me. If you don't ask him, I'll assume you believe me.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join