FAA or 84RADES data falsified, or both.

Originally posted by Reheat


Hey Boone, I'll bet Cap'n King Air wishes he had never heard of CIT when he has to invent this stuff to support their delusions. What do you think?

Did you see all of that stuff they posted about him on their Web Site before they deleted it?

Excuse me?

If your are referring to FAA certified pilot Robert Balsamo, the founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, with whom we are closely aligned, you are lying.

We said nothing bad about him nor did we delete anything from our site that we said about him nor does he "wish "he had never heard of CIT".

You are spreading malicious rumors which is why you did not say what we allegedly published about him. You completely fabricated the notion.

Your official story fantasy has crumbled around you and you have been 100% discredited so now you are resorting to personal lies against us in one last desperate attempt to cast doubt on our organizations.

All from behind the protection of anonymity.

Stop lying about what we have published on our website hoping you'll stir up some sort of infighting.

It won't work. Nobody believes a word you say about anything because you have been repeatedly exposed as dishonest in the past.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Your official story fantasy has crumbled around you and you have been 100% discredited so now you are resorting to personal lies against us in one last desperate attempt to cast doubt on our organizations.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63a2283e2de2.gif[/atsimg]

I bet that guy would agree with you.

reply to post by AJ_Frost

Might want to familiarize yourself with the definition of precedent Reheat. But then again, you and perhaps one or two others (who also refuse to put their names to their claims), feel the NTSB is wrong on many levels. Its no surprise you (and the others) refuse to debate P4T but spend your days and nights obsessing over them.

Actually, AJ, I am a member at P4T. I am currently on moderated status there because I refused to address off-topic rants, attacks, and questions made by two delusional idiots.

It seems to work out a lot better if the opposing sides have the debate here at ATS where the moderation is fair. Whadda u say, wanna play?



[edit on 7-6-2009 by Boone 870]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Stop lying about what we have published on our website hoping you'll stir up some sort of infighting.

It won't work. Nobody believes a word you say about anything because you have been repeatedly exposed as dishonest in the past.

Dishonest you say?

Like this:

originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So I went to Terry's house to see if I could get him to confirm or deny this detail. He confirmed it with flying colors. I interviewed him for an hour on his front porch but like Levi he was the only other witness who refused to grant me permission to publish his interview.
Link

and then a few months later

originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
In this addendum to The North Side Flyover we have released the conversation we had with witness Terry Morin who was at the Navy Annex when the attack jet flew over him.
Link

Is this the type of "dishonesty" you speak of, Craig?

Originally posted by Boone 870
Dishonest you say?

Like this:

Since we're on the subject of dishonesty here's a couple of more examples.

Pre Debunking the North of Citgo Theory




Post Debunking the North of Citgo Theory




Here's another intentionally deceptive one....

The smoke column was NEVER North of the impact point, yet CIT would have you believe it was.....

reply to post by Reheat


Yeah, I remember when CIT tried to pull off their ‘smoke on the north side of the Pentagon‘ charade.

Did you see the professional pilot's latest opinion regarding the delayed turn of GOFER 06?

The above is clear to any real pilot that Gopher06 delayed his turn after departure. ATC does not ask once, nor twice, to turn to heading if assigned prior to departure.

Non-pilots, and those who make excuse for the govt story, anonymously, would have you believe Gopher06 turned "immediately" after departure (some of the more ignorant GL's still claim CS1 was assigned..lol), and conveniently omit the above facts. Post #5

This "delay" he's referring to was a whopping 6 SECONDS!

aal77.com...

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Reheat

 

Yeah, I remember when CIT tried to pull off their ‘smoke on the north side of the Pentagon‘ charade.

Did you see the professional pilot's latest opinion regarding the delayed turn of GOFER 06?

The above is clear to any real pilot that Gopher06 delayed his turn after departure. ATC does not ask once, nor twice, to turn to heading if assigned prior to departure.

Non-pilots, and those who make excuse for the govt story, anonymously, would have you believe Gopher06 turned "immediately" after departure (some of the more ignorant GL's still claim CS1 was assigned..lol), and conveniently omit the above facts. Post #5

This "delay" he's referring to was a whopping 6 SECONDS!

aal77.com...

Sure, Gopher 06 delayed long enough to get his gear and flaps up although he doesn't really have to wait to retract flaps. One wonders why Cap'n King Air has to invent this stuff as he will always revert to manipulated data ultimately anyway.

It is not uncommon at all for Tower Controllers to remind the pilot of a departure turn. It doesn't mean anything at all other than some Controllers like to hear themselves on the radio.

As has been said multiple times the standard procedure is to turn as soon as it's safe to do so after Take-Off. That usually means at least the landing gear is retracted and at a safe altitude, which would be just a few hundred feet likely less than a mile after Take-Off exactly as depicted in the radar data.

reply to post by Reheat

That usually means at least the landing gear is retracted and at a safe altitude, which would be just a few hundred feet likely less than a mile after Take-Off exactly as depicted in the radar data.

Right on, as usual! In airline Ops, it is 400 feet AGL for the turn, IF the procedure specifies an immediate turn. Military, well...a transport like the Herc? Probably follow similar procedures. But, you guys know that already.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In airline Ops, it is 400 feet AGL for the turn, IF the procedure specifies an immediate turn. Military, well...a transport like the Herc? Probably follow similar procedures. But, you guys know that already.

That sounds like a good altitude for passenger carrying airlines. I suspect it does vary with the specific airline, tho'.

There is no specified minimum for AF aircraft. That's why I said a safe altitude. It would vary by type of aircraft. Since Gopher 06 was returning to his home base, he very likely was empty and turning at a lower altitude in an empty Herc would be no problem.

That radio transmission in which the ADW Tower told Gopher 06 to "turn left, contact Departure, was an ATC directed turn, which Gopher would immediately comply with unless there was a reason he could not do so. For all we know, there might have been conflicting traffic on the extended runway heading.

To state that controllers never repeat departure instructions is just plain silly.

This continued harping on the Camp Springs Departure is also just as silly. A heading of 270 on the Camp Springs SID is exactly the same as a 270 assigned departure heading. There is no difference. It is a non issue.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by Reheat]

reply to post by Reheat

...the ADW Tower told Gopher 06 to "turn left, contact Departure,

Yes, exactly! This is why P4T fail so miserably in trying to confuse and muddy things.

It works exactly the way you said. When a clearance specifies a turn after take-off, normal phraseolgy is "XXX, Andrews Tower wind blah at blah, turn left heading 270, cleared for take-off"

Pilot rogers, repeats the heading....and off he goes. Local says, as a routine reminder, "Turn left, Contact Departure".

You would think that pilots with ATPs would know and understand this?

There isn't as much cash potenital in just understanding it, Weedwacker.

I mean, they have some remodeling to get funded.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You would think that pilots with ATPs would know and understand this?

That's part of the problem, he DOESN'T have an ATP. Apparently, he even got his Commercial License out of a "cracker jack box".

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Wow, looks like you guys had a productive weekend. Typical P4T/Capt Bob off topic bashfest mixed in with proven Reheat lies.

Yes, typical evasion of the topic of discussion by devotion to trivia and nonsense. Proven lies? There are no lies by me, only continuing overwhelming support of the FACTS of the validity of the 84th RADES Data and the known flight path of the C-130 versus the distortions of your "buddies" of the Clueless Investigation Team by their manipulation of visual products and your apparent support thereof.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Hardly a "cracker jack box".

Your level of knowledge and judgment do indeed indicate that you have a piece of paper that very likely came from a "cracker jack box". Maybe you got yours from the same place you accuse Hani Hanjour of obtaining his?

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Also, it's labeled a "Certificate", "License"s expire, Pilot Certificates do not. An "Airman" of your claimed experience should know this.)

See, I said you invented stuff and I was correct...... There is no difference between the definition of a License and the definition of a Certificate, you simply made it up. The fact that the FAA documents are good for life has no bearing on the name of the document at all, just more of your extraneous trivia in a failed and feeble attempt to insult.

license definition

li·cense (lī′səns)

noun

1. a formal permission to do something; esp. authorization by law to do some specified thing license to marry, practice medicine, hunt, etc.
2. a document, printed tag, permit, etc. indicating that such permission has been granted

www.yourdictionary.com...

certificate definition

cer·tifi·cate (sər tif′i kit; for v., -kāt′)

noun
a written or printed statement by which a fact is formally or officially certified or attested; specif.,

1. a document certifying that one has met specified requirements, as for teaching

www.yourdictionary.com...


All of the physical evidence available indicate the C-130 flew the path depicted by the 84th RADES Data, the ADW flight strip, the ADW/DCA Radar, the ATC audio tapes, the Tribby Video, and the Looney photographs.

You will NEVER EVER convince a rational mind of anything else. Keep up the good work of convincing only "twoofers" of anything else. SNIP
[edit on 9-6-2009 by Reheat]

Admin Edit: Removed Personal Attack

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Crakeur]

A reminder...

Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.

Originally posted by Reheat
Proven lies? There are no lies by me,

Your lies have been proven by Craig above and the FAA.gov airman registry.

(unfortunately, a mod removed the post above with source links proving your lies, and inaccuracies stated by those who make excuses for the govt story... some of it is quoted in your reply, except source links of course... and the proven inaccuracies. Such as trebor claims of BUFFR. Please note, there was not one personal attack in the removed post. I did however quote Boone's "delusional idiots", so that is why they probably removed it. But Boones personal attacks and Reheat's lies remain.)

Your level of knowledge and judgment do indeed indicate that you have a piece of paper that very likely came from a "cracker jack box". Maybe you got yours from the same place you accuse Hani Hanjour of obtaining his?

I never made any claims that i have a "piece of paper". However Cap'n Bob as well as the heavy Jet Capts, LGA ATC, numerous Aircraft Accident Investigators.. etc etc.. who support him can be verified. As can the various FAA Inpectors who have given him his check rides, unlike Hani Hanjour and FAA Inspector "John Anthony" who recommended a translator to an alleged "Commercial pilot", instead of a 709 ride.

See, I said you invented stuff and I was correct...... There is no difference between the definition of a License and the definition of a Certificate, you simply made it up.

Certificates are earned through education and do not expire. Licenses are permissiions granted and expire. Your own definition shows the difference. If you have more questions, please contact any Aviation University in the USA or the FAA themselves and ask them why they call it a certificate instead of a license.

All of the physical evidence available indicate the C-130 flew the path depicted by the 84th RADES Data,

Obtained through a "back-door" FOIA by a person who has grave errors throughout his analysis of anything, and quit not only the "troof movement" twice, but also flipped out on JREF.

the ADW flight strip,

penciled in...

the ADW/DCA Radar

Processed by mentioned individual above.

the ATC audio tapes,

Controlled by govt agencies...

the Tribby Video, and the Looney photographs.

Tribby video does not corroborate the above.

Conflicting evidence includes statements made by the pilot, eye witnesses statements placing the aircraft approaching from Northwest, ATC audio showing a delay for the turn, and ATC Strip with BUFFR as first waypoint, computer generated (not penciled in).

You will NEVER EVER convince a rational mind of anything else.

Never?

Then why does the above list grow? I guess they arent of "rational mind". You better alert the FAA.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by AJ_Frost]

reply to post by AJ_Frost

Also, I'm sure many arent surprised you dont source your claims as the questions were not off topic rants.

Yes, the questions were off-topic. The title of that thread is "Boonedoggled compass, which way is west," not "ANC contradicting eyewitness testimony." If I wanted to address the eyewitnesses (who not only contradict each other, but contradict themselves) I would've bumped one of CIT's North Side threads.

But I didn't... I'll link to the thread below so that anyone interested can see that I was forced by a moderator to address an off-topic question. That's why I like to debate here on ATS. There are no agenda driven moderators to run cover for other moderators when they start losing their argument.

Back to the topic-

At least one aviation "professional" claims that the hand written instructions on the flight strips (TL 270) are post-departure vectors. This clearly is not the case, the flight strip for VM 306 has a "vector" to 050, but it never departed. Your thoughts?

Link

Originally posted by Boone 870
At least one aviation "professional" claims that the hand written instructions on the flight strips (TL 270) are post-departure vectors. This clearly is not the case, the flight strip for VM 306 has a "vector" to 050, but it never departed. Your thoughts?

Link

Please find me the exact quote of "post departure vectors". Thanks.

Anyone reading the thread linked above will decide why you refuse to answer the questions. Its a moot point for you and me to argue.

reply to post by AJ_Frost


Here's the link AGAIN:

(post #13)
pilotsfor911truth.org...

This is very simple, AJ. Using Rob's reasoning, GOFER 06 was issued a vector after departure or it was assigned to Camp Springs One.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Boone 870]