Originally posted by Boone 870
This is very simple, AJ. Using a Rob's reasoning, GOFER 06 was issued a vector after departure or it was assigned to Camp Springs One.

Thats not what it says Boone, that is your interpretation of it. And seeing as i have read you stopped flying at less than 35 hours, combined with your bias, its clear why you are misinterpreting the words as "post departure".

The post states a "heading vector" and that is exactly what it is. No where does the post claim "post departure".

Please stop the spin.

---

---

---

---

Originally posted by AJ_Frost

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

Your lies have been proven by Craig above

You reference to a known liar as proof is quite humorous.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
and the FAA.gov airman registry.

Your made up definition.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
I never made any claims that i have a "piece of paper".

Sure, the third person reference is very convincing, not.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
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.

Your continued "appeal to authority" fallacy is quite trite. All you have verified is that there are few people who have questions about 9/11. You have no proof at all that any of them support your deluded opinions on specifics, particularly this one....

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
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.

Unsourced claim and hearsay.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
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.

A Medical License is termed a license and does not expire. The terms are interchangeable as shown by my quote of the dictionary definition. Both Licenses and Certificates may have additional requirement such as continuing education. Again, you're making up a definition.

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

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
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.

"Poisoning the Well" fallacy. You have no evidence or proof there is any error in either the 84th RADES Data or the ATC radar analysis. They both agree.

Originally posted by Reheat
the ADW flight strip,

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
penciled in...

A very common practice and it is verified by ATC Audio.

Originally posted by Reheat
the ADW/DCA Radar

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Processed by mentioned individual above.

"Poisoning the well", again. Prove it's wrong with something other than contradictory witnesses.

Originally posted by Reheat
the ATC audio tapes,

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Controlled by govt agencies...

The same agency which you tout above as verification of your expertise and that of your supporters. "Cherry Picking" what you want to use as verification.

Originally posted by Reheat
the Tribby Video, and the Looney photographs.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Tribby video does not corroborate the above.

It most certainly does prove the final flight path and the pass by the Pentagon, beyond any doubt. Any alternative is aerodynamically impossible.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
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).

The only thing conflicting is the mistaken statements of the ANC witnesses. They were wrong. BUFFR is a non-issue.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Then why does the above list grow?

The "flat earth" society adds more members than pffft, every year. That doesn't prove they are right.

---

---

Originally posted by AJ_Frost

Reheat, The FAA.gov Airman Registry exists and Cap'n Bob as well as many who support him are listed there. Try it. Its not a "cracker jack box".

How many have questions as opposed to supporting all of the tripe you promote?

As of the end of 2006 there were approximately 600,000 pilots licensed in the US alone. The number has been declining since 1980 when there were some 827,000.

There about 60 listed as members of the organization who state that they were/are pilots of some sort. It's doesn't take 11.2 G or "hockey stick" math to determine the minuscule percentage that "supports' the lunacy.

The number of "supporters" of delusion do nothing to prove the invalidity of the 84th RADES data, the radar data, the ATC Audio, the ADW flight strip, the Tribby video and the Looney photographs all of which agree with each other.

Even with 100 times the current number of members at pfft that does nothing to refute the hard valid evidence that the C-130 flew the path the data indicates it flew.

It seems that this focus on minutiae is a sort of death spiral.

Imagine I am the instructor, sitting behind you in the Sim. Or, just an observer. Anyone who's flown a Sim knows that often, when in the hot seat, you miss little things that the casual observer, and the instructor, since they're not under pressure, will catch almost immediately.

A focus on the little, arcane details detract from the main goal: Fly The Darn Airplane!

Just some advice, hoping to suggest a recovery from Unusual Attitudes.


Think of it as CRM for ATS.


To add: I think I remember a discussion once that no matter how perfectly you may think a flight went, an unbiased observer wil always catch little errors. It's how you manage those errors that matters.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
I promote?

I didn't stutter.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Every single aviation professional listed at P4T supports P4T and list their names despite attacks from people like you.

Prove it. I am attacking opinions and beliefs, primarily yours.

There about 60 listed as members of the organization who state that they were/are pilots of some sort. It's doesn't take 11.2 G or "hockey stick" math to determine the minuscule percentage that "supports' the lunacy.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Logical Fallacy.

There is no logical fallacy, that's why you didn't name one.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
1. Many more are in other professional positions in aviation.

Oh, so now the list expands to include "guides". Muhahahahah

Your use of the word "professional" is a bit loose.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
2. P4T has been around for 3 years. ALPA (the largest airline union in the world) has roughly 9% of pilots in their membership and they been around 70 years. Does that mean 94% of pilots disagree with them?

There are many more unions than ALPA. Don't put words in my mouth, it is unbecoming of you. The organization makes no claims, just insinuations of delusions. That's why no one of consequence pays attention to what you have to say. You have accomplished nothing. The "twoof" movement is dead. You just don't realize it yet.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Conflicts remain between all the data (govt controlled and distributed by an individual known for making grave errors) and witnesses, the pilot statements, Clearance.. .etc.

There are no conflicts other than those you invent. L/C O'Briens' statement is just general enough to give you that "inch" for you to misinterpret it. There is no conflict at all.

There is nothing conflicting about the clearance at all. It's as plain as day that he was to turn to 270 degrees and the Tower controller even mentioned it again, just in case you missed it the first time. That's what the radar shows and that's what the ATC tapes shows. ALL of the data agrees and none of it agrees with you.

The ANC witness statements are the ONLY thing that conflicts and that is the weakest form of any of the evidence. They are simply wrong.

Your "appeal to authority" of the membership of a delusional organization is not working to refute all of the data which supports the known FACTS.

FACTS, you need FACTS. Your "appeals to authority" have expired and are not supporting your case.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Reheat]