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.

 

FAA or 84RADES data falsified, or both.

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AJ_Frost
 

When did i ever admit (or anyone else for that matter), that the vector was issued "post-departure" as you have falsely claimed and failed to provide direct quote? You do realize you are in voilation of ATS T&C Ik when making such false claims, right?



The vector occured in flight, that doesnt mean it was ISSUED in flight as you have falsely claimed of others.



Boone, a heading vector is a heading vector. If it were issued at your desk during a flight station clearance, in your aircraft on the ramp, or at FL350... its still a heading vector to be followed "in flight".


Now that you understand what a vector is, let's go back to the original quote.


Notice the "TL270" on the strip. That is a heading vector. Why would ATC note a heading vector if the Camp Springs One was assigned for departure and the Camp Springs already calls for 270 heading? Answer is, they wouldnt, they would only note a vector if assigned a departure which calls for vectors, The Morningside One.


Rob is claiming that Morningside One was issued because there is a heading vector to 270° noted on the flight strip. Morningside One uses a heading of 010° for departures. If GOFER06 was issued a heading of 010° for departure then the controller would've told him to turn to 270° for the left-hand turn, but that didn't happen as can be heard in the audio.

The C-130 turned to a heading of 270° without specific direction from the controller proving that "TL 270" (CAMP SPRINGS ONE) was issued prior to departure.



When the TURN occured is the reason for debate. People like you claim it happened immediately (after many of you claimed Camp Springs as fact, now you once again take govt provided data as gospel). People like this are skeptical.
Listen to the recording if you want to know how long it took the C-130 to make the turn.

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




posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Rob is claiming that Morningside One was issued because there is a heading vector to 270° noted on the flight strip.


Short Memory?

Apparently....

Boone, bottom line, You have claimed "professionals" claimed the vector was "issued post departure". You have failed to source such a quote because such a quote does not exist.

Feel free to show up in Arlington on July 11 to actually confront the people you obsess over daily from behind your screen and I'm sure they will set you straight in a NY minute.... recorded. Im sure it will be posted on the net. I recommend you bring your own recorder.

Oh... thats right. You cant make it, Just like you refused to ask Paik questions when you claimed he worked on your car.

Pleeeease.... You think ATSers are that stupid? Perhaps they are "delusional idiots" as you claimed on previous pages?

[edit on 9-6-2009 by AJ_Frost]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AJ_Frost

Pleeeease.... You think ATSers are that stupid? Perhaps they are "delusional idiots" as you claimed on previous pages?


I read that post. He was calling the delusional idiots at PFT delusional idiots.


Posted By Boone:
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.


If you read the post, he actually praises the Mods here at ATS.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AJ_Frost



Actually, Boone refers to "two delusional idiots asking questions". One being Crang Ranke CIT who is also a member of ATS.


Crang Ranke? I looked up that name here in the member directory. Didn't return anything. If, by chance you were referring to Craig Ranke, I'm afraid I can not comment on his delusional status on this forum as it will be in violation of the TOS.




Furthermore, why is Boone so obsessed over "delusional idiots"? Why are you?


You will have to ask Boone. But, from an outsider looking in, Boone is simply pointing out errors you and your friends are making on your website. (As is weedwacker and Reheat)

Me? I'm not obsessed. You can count on two hands how many no planer posts I have contributed to in the past few months.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

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

Since we're on the subject of dishonesty (and Edward Paik), and although that was already covered here at ATS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have recently posted a more thorough, referenced consideration of the Edward Paik .gifs here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edward Paik and his shop really do not have that much relevance to either FAA or 84 RADES data- perhaps sometime soon we could focus the discussion to the topic at hand...



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by AJ_Frost



Actually, Boone refers to "two delusional idiots asking questions". One being Crang Ranke CIT who is also a member of ATS.


Crang Ranke? I looked up that name here in the member directory. Didn't return anything. If, by chance you were referring to Craig Ranke, I'm afraid I can not comment on his delusional status on this forum as it will be in violation of the TOS.


Its called a typo, but i dont expect you to understand. If i continue to make such typos, please feel free to be my personal spell checker. You're good at it!




Furthermore, why is Boone so obsessed over "delusional idiots"? Why are you?

You will have to ask Boone. But, from an outsider looking in, Boone is simply pointing out errors you and your friends are making on your website. (As is weedwacker and Reheat)



Actually, i havent seen any errors pointed out by the above, They have misquoted, misinterpreted, and proven to be liars. Its in this very thread.

However...
Why hasnt Boone, Reheat or Weedwacker pointed out the blatant errors of trebor regording BUFFR intersection? Yeah, we know. Weedwacker explianed it above. He was insulted someone questioned his "credentials".


Me? I'm not obsessed. You can count on two hands how many no planer posts I have contributed to in the past few months.


So, all the other threads you contributed to in the "past few months" you respect the "troofers" who replied?

Have you revisted your "9/11 Truth - Condition Terminal" thread? No, you havent, and we know why. Most sites are now up in traffic.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Me? I'm not obsessed. You can count on two hands how many no planer posts I have contributed to in the past few months.



And your signature means what exactly?

Feel free to post the same in your sig at JREF. (although the 1,000 was already raised and office secure, but Pilots For 9/11 Truth is on their final stretch of their Fund Raiser. Im sure they thank you for the added publicity)


[edit on 9-6-2009 by AJ_Frost]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AJ_Frost
 


Amid all of those jokes you forgot two things.

1 - You did not list the logical fallacy I made. The reason for that is there was none.

2 - You did not list facts to support your argument that the RADES data and FAA data is falsified. You keep forgetting that and keep leaning on the "appeal to authority" fallacy. One might think you have nothing else to offer.

There are several pieces of factual evidence what indicate the RADES and the FAA Data is all correct. There are no anomalies in it and it all agrees with the Tribby Video (non-Government source) and Looney Photographs (non-Government source). I'm sure you realize that the witness statements would all be dismissed in that they do not agree with the physical evidence. In fact, I'd say those witnesses would never make it into a Courtroom. That's really all you have.

A TRUE expert witness would destroy all of your misinterpretations of the Clearance that you've listed in this thread.

You'd have what you've had all along, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute the existing data.

Oh, and to preempt your typical I'm obsessed with you mantra. I have a bit of spare time I'm willing to devote to this to keep you from spreading falsehoods - it's nothing more than that.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Amid all of those jokes you forgot two things.

1 - You did not list the logical fallacy I made. The reason for that is there was none.

2 - You did not list facts to support your argument that the RADES data and FAA data is falsified. You keep forgetting that and keep leaning on the "appeal to authority" fallacy. One might think you have nothing else to offer.


Actually, I posted many source links, they were removed by mods due to "off topic" and 9/11 Madness.



In fact, I'd say those witnesses would never make it into a Courtroom. That's really all you have.


Lt Col Jeff Latas. USAF Aircraft Accident Investigation Board President and Current Jetblue Capt disagrees with you.




This is very factual and deserves much attention. You did a good job on presenting your case. While watching, I put myself in a court room and listened as if this were a court case and your argument was very compelling.



Jeff


Care to confront LtCol Latas? Feel free to email pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org with your contact information. Im willing to bet you never will, just as you never will register at their site.

Again, forgive me for not reading/addressing the rest of your post. For an explanation of why, please seek Boones reply on previous pages.

Evasion of questions nor provide source of your claims regarding statements made on the CIT website about Cap'n Bob, noted. 5th time you evade. I will repeat it each time i reply to you.

You are in violation of ATS T&C 1K of making false claims. Not sure why mods havent reacted upon it.



[edit on 9-6-2009 by AJ_Frost]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Reheat, why would aviation professionals ask to put their name on the web, only to be attacked by people like you, if they didnt support such a website and its analysis?


Because they're idiots?

Speculation on my part.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AJ_Frost
 




However...
Why hasnt Boone, Reheat or Weedwacker pointed out the blatant errors of trebor regording BUFFR intersection? Yeah, we know. Weedwacker explianed it above. He was insulted...


I politely indicated that I had no interest in your little spat amongst friends. However, here you being all snide and stuff.

Poor form.

SO....one time. Ball's in your court. I read the link, re: trebor. Now, you can kindly explain to us where you see his mistake??

Is it an argument about these two SIDs??

flightaware.com...

flightaware.com...

Because, unless I read him incorrectly, he got it right.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

This bickering stops now.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

SO....one time. Ball's in your court. I read the link, re: trebor. Now, you can kindly explain to us where you see his mistake??



Requoted for weedwacker...


Originally posted by AJ_Frost
weedwacker.... Have you ever been given a clearance to a closed waypoint or intersection as claimed by trebor451?


Let me know if you also need it bolded or font sized increased.

As a summary since its clear you havent clicked the link. Trebor claims a closed intersection (BUFFR) was assigned during a clearance. Can this be done?




"Would you like to now address the fact that BUFFR was a NY Center boundary and as such was closed at the time clearance was given?"


Source

Again, and if you're still confused, trebor claims a closed intersection was assigned to an aircraft "at the time of clearance was given". Can this be done? Can ATC assign a close intersection in a clearance?

You seemed to dodge this question because i questioned your credentials. Now you are dodging it by attempting to switch the topic.

Anytime you're ready, many others are reading as well.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AJ_Frost
 



Let me know if you also need it bolded or font sized increased.


That is not necessary, but thank you for your kind offer.


As a summary since its clear you havent clicked the link.


Oh, but I have.....thrice, now. I wanted to see it explained in your words. Just a little test of your credentials, that's all.

Because...

Trebor claims a closed intersection (BUFFR) was assigned during a clearance.


In fact, trebor said the opposite, to refute the person tbhat suggested the BUFFR clearance.

trebor's post:

"Would you like to now address the fact that BUFFR was a NY Center boundary and as such was closed at the time clearance was given?"
Source



Again, and if you're still confused, trebor claims a closed intersection was assigned to an aircraft "at the time of clearance was given". Can this be done?


There is an old PSA I remember from when I was a child. "RIF": Reading Is Fundamental

It is clear that trebor is arguing against another person's assertion that the Herc was cleared to BUFFR, because NY airspace was already closed. Hence the SID to the West. He was hit back, by someone, claiming the 'rush hour traffic' into KDCA would preclude the assignment of that SID westbound; however when you read the chart and the altitude restrictions mandated it is plain that it does NOT conflct with arrivals, whether the Mount Vernon Visual, or the ILS RW 1 at DCA.


Can ATC assign a close intersection in a clearance?


There is no such thing as a "closed intersection". There IS closed airspace, however.



You seemed to dodge this question because i questioned your credentials. Now you are dodging it by attempting to switch the topic.


I'm sorry you mistook my decision to not engage with an argumentative individual as an attempt to "dodge". However, once I rose to the challenge, by asking you to demonstrate to me your grasp of the nuances, I am then accused of 'switching the topic'???


Anytime you're ready, many others are reading as well.


Oh, yes indeedy, they certainly are!! I see you've been noticed -- which is why I hesitate to conduct business with you.

Oh, and I thought I'd step out for a little dinner. Hope y'all didn't have to wait long??

But, thank you for your post, anyway.

---"Positive rate."

---"Gear up."

---"Contact Departure"

---"Good day!"



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AJ_Frost
 

Boone, bottom line, You have claimed "professionals" claimed the vector was "issued post departure". You have failed to source such a quote because such a quote does not exist.




Note the "TR 050" on VM306's flight strip above. I guess in the "professional pilot's" world at p4t this aircraft was issued Camp Springs One and then vectored to 050 prior to its attempted departure.




9:14:28
(Tape 7982 CIA, Ground Control) Word 31 verifies a turn to 270
at 3 DME after take off with, ironically, the following statement:
"Yeah, I don't want to get shot at today." [Note: A clear reference
to the requirement to stay out of P56 air space.] Source


Should I also guess that in the "professional pilot's" world at P4T WORD31 was first issued Morningside One then "vectored" to 270° 13 minutes before departure?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join