FAA or 84RADES data falsified, or both., page 15

privacy

Pages: << 12 13 14 15 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 01:11 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by ValkyrieWings

ALPA membership consists of ~9% of total pilots certificated, does that mean 91% disagree with them? ALPA has been in existence for 70+ years, P4T has been around for 3.

As of the end of 2006, there were 597,109 active certificated pilots, according to the AOPA Jan. 12, 07 newsletter which cites the FAA's estimates.

Yahoo Answers

ALPA has been in existence for many decades, and P4T for 3 years. And this is relevant how???

Your comparisons are a logical fallacy...

AND then you went on to say it's been discussed on THIS board. Fine. I didn't see that discussion. SO, I'm approaching my next question from that perspective. How is it a "logical fallacy" if P4T can only convince a miniscule number of pilots, and of those, they aren't even on the same page? BTW, based on P4T membership rosters, they cut a wide swath of life experience. Statistics mining is a dangerous hobby.

Not to mention not every pilot wants to put their name up on the web only to be subject to Reheat Nazi Style Witch Hunts harassing their employers due to the fact they question 9/11.

Oh. ad hom I see.

Sound advice, as always. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that a perusal of some of the P4T claims aren't worth "putting their names to"?

No, of course not.

{tagging}

[edit on 3 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 02:26 PM by ValkyrieWings

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ValkyrieWings
ALPA has been in existence for many decades, and P4T for 3 years. And this is relevant how???

Do you think ALPA had 54,000 pilots by year 3?

AND then you went on to say it's been discussed on THIS board. Fine. I didn't see that discussion.

Yes, you miss a lot of discussions. You also missed the destination of GOFER06 when it was posted in the first post of this thread, (among many others topics if others wish to read on from there).

SO, I'm approaching my next question from that perspective. How is it a "logical fallacy" if P4T can only convince a miniscule number of pilots,

P4T isn't just "pilots". They also have numerous Aircraft Accident Investigators, ATC (one who is FAA Specialist at LGA), A&P's.. etc etc. Do you think they started with the same number they have now? Hint: They didn't. The lists grows regularly.

and of those, they aren't even on the same page?

They sure look to be on the same page to me.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Not to mention not every pilot wants to put their name up on the web only to be subject to Reheat Nazi Style Witch Hunts harassing their employers due to the fact they question 9/11.

Oh. ad hom I see.

It's not an ad hom if its fact.

"However, rest assured that I along with several others will immediately notify his employer about his activities and lack of good judgment if I find out where he's flying " - Reheat, July 16, 2009

More here.

So weedwacker, do you approve of harassing employers? Approve of attempting to destroy the livelihoods of those who question 9/11 just as the Nazi's did with anyone who questioned them? Hey, why stop there? Let's harass employers if an employee has a "certain" sexual preference. How does that sound weedwacker?

What Reheat doesn't realize is that if Rob Balsamo is flying at an airline, don't you think his employer would already know about his "activities" over the past three years? Ever heard of PRIA? Perhaps not. Google it. Do you think Rob Balsamo doesn't have any connections in aviation or support for his "activities" from aviators? Click the link above.

I actually would like to see Reheat attempt such threats. Maybe he'll actually put his name to his attempted defamation. I'm sure Rob would love the opportunity.

Unfortunately, all threats, promises, claims, from "Reheat" are empty.

Sound advice, as always. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that a perusal of some of the P4T claims aren't worth "putting their names to"?

No, of course not.

Whatever makes you feel better. But the fact remains, P4T lists grows with highly credible experienced aviation professionals who place their names, faces and professional reputations in support. People like you on the other hand remain behind your screen with no one offering their names or professional reputations to support you. You don't even offer your own to support your own claims. Not ad hom. It's fact.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by ValkyrieWings]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 08:55 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by ValkyrieWings

You also missed the destination of GOFER06 when it was posted in the first post of this thread...

If it was in the OP, then yes I missed it. BUT, again, how is this relevant??

I heard the destination in the audio tapes, I knew that the ADW ground controller had no idea that the identifier for Minneapolis was 'MSP'. SO, she read it out phonetically. She was military, not civilian, and who knows how much experience she had.

The rest of your response to my post is needless hand-waving and attempts to justify the little group known as 'P4T', using I might say some desperate "logic".

AS TO the destination of MSP, THAT is where the whole kerfluffle started, because it HAD to be assumed, apparently, that GOFER06 was allowed to depart mostly North, with a slight Northwest bound track after vectors to intercept its filed course, in order for the rest of this tenuous P4T "story" to hold together, and to justify the false claim of falsification off the RADES data!!!

It began as an assumption, based SOLELY on the geographical location of the destination in relation to KADW, and failed to take into account the real-world situation of ATC, and how traffic is routed in the Terminal Area, as it is funneled to the route structure and sent merrily on its way.

I offered the 'Newark Seven' SID ( or is it an 'eight' yet??? ) to show just ONE example, yet it was apparently ignored. That seems to be a common trait of some "investigators" when facts don't mesh with their 'beliefs'.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 10:33 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by ValkyrieWings

Follow on...(ahhh, you got a 'star'!! How adorable!)

This is from the OP, LaBTop, I belive the OP made the first THREE posts, so I didn't see any mention of 'MSP' in them (of course, they were long and filled with errors...so, it was painful to read them). YOU linked, up above, to page 10...hardly the "first post" in this thread...

Originally posted by LaBTop
The GOPHER06 is identified as a T/C-130/I, is that I standing for Intelligence? And the T for Turbofan?

That little snippet all by itself shows the lack of understanding and research displayed by the OP in first raising this question about RADES.

It's difficult to take anything else seriously, but it's been fun to watch all the deflections.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 11:52 AM by Reheat

reply to post by weedwhacker

What I find ironic and hilarious at the same time is that pffft brags incessantly about their little band of certified "professional" aviators who can be verified in the FAA database, yet in virtually the same breath must by virtue of common logic consider all of these audio tapes, flight strips, and radar returns either fake or altered in some manner. The source of the material proving certification is exactly the same as the material proving the flight path of the C-130..... the FAA. They (he/pffft) even must also consider the civilian sourced video and photographs that prove the flight path as either fake or altered, as well. And he wonders why I think Rob Balsamo is stupid.

Furthermore, this flyover delusion is one of the stupidest theories devised by the 9/11 "truther" crowd. It is right there with space based energy beams and mini-nukes at the WTC.

It continues........ Good judgment is one of the prerequisites of a pilot no matter what field of aviation one works in. It is even more crucial when other lives are involved. Then they wonder why I will have a conversation with whatever aviation related employer was duped into hiring such an idiot to fly for them, if I ever discover who that employer might be.

It is not my intent to deny anyone a livelihood. No one should be denied the ability to earn a living flipping hamburgers or cleaning public toilets!

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:19 PM by ValkyrieWings

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is from the OP, LaBTop, I belive the OP made the first THREE posts, so I didn't see any mention of 'MSP' in them (of course, they were long and filled with errors...so, it was painful to read them). YOU linked, up above, to page 10...hardly the "first post" in this thread...

Weedwacker, this image is posted in the very first post of this thread.

What are the last three letters printed to the bottom right in the clearance for GOFER06? You see the "MSP"? That's the destination.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by ValkyrieWings]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 12:29 PM by ValkyrieWings

Originally posted by Reheat
Furthermore, this flyover delusion is one of the stupidest theories devised by the 9/11 "truther" crowd.

Who is the bigger fool, the fool or the one who follows around the fool daily telling him he is a fool.

And thanks for admitting you will stoop to Nazi tactics, albeit empty as all your other claims and threats.

Reheat, you won't even sign up to P4T forum for debate anonymously, you obsess over them daily from forums you know they cannot reply, and you claim you will call his "employer"?

There just aren't enough laughing smilies for such smoke.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 01:59 PM by Reheat

Originally posted by ValkyrieWings

Originally posted by Reheat
Furthermore, this flyover delusion is one of the stupidest theories devised by the 9/11 "truther" crowd.

And thanks for admitting you will stoop to Nazi tactics, albeit empty as all your other claims and threats.

In case you didn't know I am not a Government. I am a private citizen and I will be performing a public service.

Originally posted by ValkyrieWings
Reheat, you won't even sign up to P4T forum for debate anonymously,

As is quite obvious, there is nothing to debate. Speaking of Nazi tactics, pfft is about as close as one can get on Internet Forums.

Originally posted by ValkyrieWings
you obsess over them daily from forums you know they cannot reply, and you claim you will call his "employer"?

You seem to have no trouble replying here even with shoes on. The only obsession is yours with delusions that are stupid.

Originally posted by ValkyrieWings
There just aren't enough laughing smilies for such smoke.

It's not my fault you've used up all of the smilies in this thread. We'll see what kind of smoke is generated if I can find the right information.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 03:15 PM by trebor451

Originally posted by ValkyrieWings

Whatever makes you feel better. But the fact remains, P4T lists grows with highly credible experienced aviation professionals

Really? Can you name them? All I have seen is a group of people who can't understand a standard departure from an air force base and who think the Pentagon had surface to air missiles on-site in 2001.

And who think there are moon bases. And who think aviating a 757 is a difficult evolution.

All I see are a bunch of has-been losers who cannot sell their crazy ideas to hundreds of thousands of pilots around the world.

All I see is someone making excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse as to why all the aforementioned facts are present.

Could you list those "highly credible experienced aviation professionals " again? Cause I missed them the first dozen times you blathered on about them.

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 03:35 AM by turbofan

Why don't you get your tape recorder and get on the phone...or better yet,
set up an interview on camera with any of the core members of P4T and ask them
why they are not professionals even while their names appear on FAA.gov.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by turbofan]

Pages: << 12 13 14 15 >> ^^TOP^^