Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

page: 14
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
We could always start a discussion over in the Debate Forum. Topic: Did an aircraft hit the Pentagon on 9/11?

I'm sure P4T/CIT wouldn't have a problem picking a position and providing supporting evidence for it.

1 rep from P4T/CIT, 1 rep from ... people with thoughts. A few of us would hafta armwrestle to see who gets to represent the thinking crowd.


A nice, moderated debate and 100% dispassionate, independent judges.

I think it'd make for a fun discussion. I'm sure the FCP crowd would love to watch a couple of new guys go at it.





posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
We could always start a discussion over in the Debate Forum. Topic: Did an aircraft hit the Pentagon on 9/11?


You should cog.

Just read forum rules and you'll be fine.

Unlike popular belief among those who make excuse for the govt story, P4T does not ban those who "disagree". They ban trolls and those who attack the person instead of the argument. Just like any other forum.

They propbably wont even "list" you if you're really civil and honest. But if they do, they will put their name to it. Unlike those who list and libel P4T members.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I think you misunderstand.

I was referring to the ATS debate forum.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Cog,

Is this you at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

You complain you will not engage over there in fear of being "listed", but it appears they already know your IP just like Boone!

Nah, i dont think its "paranoia" keeping you guys from engaging in debate over there. I think its plain old lack of confidence in your knowledge.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Just a reminder:

Please Stay On Topic...

The topic is NOT

1. Other Members
2. Who is or who is not on P4T

(If anyone wants to "Formally Debate" the topic, just U2U me)

Semper



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
We could always start a discussion over in the Debate Forum. Topic: Did an aircraft hit the Pentagon on 9/11?

Playing devil's advocate to both sides, maybe, but would it be worth rewording the debate topic to: Did Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11?

This thread is about a NOC flight path, so is it worth considering whether or not the alleged plane that allegedly flew NOC was indeed Flight AA77?

If there's a formal debate arranged, please supply the links so we won't miss it! Thanks!

[edit on 14-1-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
@tezz: It's been a fundamental component of the NoC argument that if a plane flew NoC, it did not hit the Pentagon. I didn't specifically say Flight 77 in order to confine the debate to simply the approach, the witnesses, and the impact @ the Pentagon. Given that Flight 77 disappeared from radar for a time, a debate as to the truth of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon may never reach the point of impact itself.

ATS Debate forum rules say U2U between the members initiates the beginning of the debate process, next comes the notification of a moderator (semperfortis
!).

I've thrown down the gauntlet. I'll be waiting for the U2U.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by cogburn]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Well Ed wasn't working at A-One auto even back when we interviewed him in 2006 so he is not who helped you if you even really went there at all.




I was there and I kept the receipt. Would you like to see it?

u2u me and I'll send it your way.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

I was there and I kept the receipt. Would you like to see it?

u2u me and I'll send it your way.




I believe you were there!

All you did was reveal how you were too cowardly to ask him about 9/11.

The fact that you obsess over our work literally on a daily basis yet thought you were looking one of the key witnesses in the eye and didn't say a word speaks volumes!

Naturally you stayed silent because you know we accurately reported his account of the plane crossing from south to north of Columbia Pike fatally contradicting all official reports, data, and the physical damage.

Edward Paik proves 9/11 was an inside job and you know it.

You had no legitimate reason to stop at his brother's shop because of a "check engine" light but you just had to make an effort to get physically close to this world historically significant witness while you were in the neighborhood.

Funny how you failed at even this pathetic effort yet you succeeded in fooling YOURSELF into thinking you looked Edward in the eye!

On second thought, feel free to forward over a copy of the receipt.

I'd love to see how much Shinki was able get from you in your desperate attempt to get close to his brother.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
See the clip of your animation in the top frame of my avatar to the left? Look carefully.

Now tell us again why there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses to your NoC "flyover"?



 

Off topic quote removed.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

You had no legitimate reason to stop at his brother's shop because of a "check engine" light but you just had to make an effort to get physically close to this world historically significant witness while you were in the neighborhood.


You are too funny, Craig.

Did you get the copy of the receipt?

I went to A-One because I spent two nights at the Sheraton and, as you are aware, I'm sure, their satellite parking lot is about 30 feet from Paik's shop. So instead of driving around Arlington searching for a dealership I decided to stroll over and ask if they had the diagnostic equipment.

Is that legit enough for you?

Would you like to see the hotel receipts?

How about a picture of the check engine light? The repair has been made, but I haven't made it to the dealership to have it reset.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Back in July Captain Bob extended my suspension through 2010. I wouldn't be surprised if he lifted that as a result of these discussions here.

As far as sourcing claims, you think I'm going to pass on names of friends and acquaintances and co-workers or people I talk to just so Cap't Bob can harass them the way he did Lynn Spencer? You think the guys at Andrews Flight Planning I spoke with regarding the Camp Springs departure would appreciate his harassing phone calls? You think the former Navy pilot and current Fed Ex pilot with a ton of MD-11 time (error on the 757) time who has been a close family friend since he was a junior lieutenant in my dad's squadron in the the early 70's would appreciate one of Cap't Bob's harassing phone call? No thank you. Funny how those NOTAMS on the ground stops I posted back in the summer ended up being the same exact NOTAMS on the ground stops that were released by 911 Commission Report Data FOIA release.. I don't make stuff up.

As far as a "personal attack debate style", something about being able to dish it out but not being able to take it comes to mind.

And speaking of Camp Springs - do you understand that whole departure procedure yet?

Edited to change airframe

[edit on 14-1-2009 by pinch]
 

Off topic comments removed.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Yes Pinch, we can all talk about who we know and what they do and post claims, but the facts remain, your claims are unsourced, P4T's are sourced with their real names who can be verified at faa.gov, unlike you. Paranoia on your part is no excuse especially when people on your own side such as Ron Wieck have spoken to Rob numerous times and believes him to be very civil.

You are the one who wrote up an article filled with false unsourced claims and numerous infantile personal attacks. Not P4T (which is why you again fail to source such a claim). You continued your same infantile childish attacks on the P4T forum which got you banned. You were then suspended multiple times after registering multiple socks for the same type of behavior. You registered more socks due to your obsession with P4T, and they appear to be still active.You refuse to debate P4T anymore because you have demonstrated you cannot carry on a civil debate, nor stick to topic as you demonstrate here.

As for the Camp Springs, P4T does not claim it didnt happen. Something you still fail to grasp. All they have demonstrated is that its highly unlikely due to traffic saturation during rush hour, route of flight, and statements made by the C-130 pilot and witnesses.

I know you would much rather drive this thread off topic, but please try to address the OP if you want to stick around. Since you fail to address the OP, it appears you also agree P4T math is accurate.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   



I just been browsing the P4T forum.

Pinch, if you know all those people you claim, why do you beg (from your blog no less
) to find people with the relevant experience?


Any Air Traffic Controller / FAA-Types out there?
Posted By Pinch

BLEG time! This is known as, in the blog world, a “Bleg” - or when you beg for help on something through the blog!

I have need to appropriate some of the vast knowledge and inherent smarts out of the abovementioned types. Air Traffic Controller stuff (ideally at a military field, but a civ field would work, too!) for starters.

Also, anyone who knows about FAA-procedures (administrative vice aeronautical, specifically how a "ground stop" would be issued, and more precisely how the "national ground stop" was handled back on 9/11).

You can email me (addy is wpaisley AT comcast DOT net) or leave a comment here or over at the Instapinch and I’ll get back to you.

.....

June 08, 2008



Pinch, you dont know any of those people you claim. Do you...

If you did, why do you "Bleg"?

Too funny... Busted!

Edit: fixed link, added external quote

[edit on 14-1-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
You think the former Navy pilot and current Fed Ex pilot with a ton of 757 time


A "ton" of FEX 757 time? Really?



Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:29am EDT


"The introduction of the 757 freighter to our fleet of aircraft -
one of the largest in the world--is a significant milestone for
FedEx," said David J. Bronczek, president and chief executive officer
of FedEx Express. "This new service immediately expands our reach and
capacity in the mid-Atlantic region and enhances the access our
customers have in the global marketplace."

www.reuters.com...



Just how much of a "ton" of FEX 75 time did your "buddy" get in the past 6 months? (then again, a few hundred hours is probably a "ton" to "Pinch", if he really has a friend who fly's the 75 for FEX).

Pinch, really, give it up bud. A "Ton" is what is represented by the P4T pilot group. Well, its really several "Ton's" if we want to get technical.


I knew there was something not quite right about Pinch 757 FedEx claim. I recall they just got the 757 not to long ago.. had to look it up.. .and sure enough, Pinch caught in another lie.

I can hear it now...

"Well, he flew for another carrier before with 757's!"

pleeeease...

Edit: Fixed ex tag

[edit on 14-1-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Just a quick update...

No takers for a formalized debate from P4T/CIT in a neutral setting. I guess we'll let that speak for itself.

Carry on.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by pinch
You think the former Navy pilot and current Fed Ex pilot with a ton of 757 time


A "ton" of FEX 757 time? Really?



Serves me right for posting too quickly and not checking the email, which I posted at your page back on August 4th (before you banned me). Snively flew MD-10s, not 757s. His last sentence is what drew me off:


In answer to your question...............a 757, or a 767, or an MD-11 can easily do 450 KIAS at low altitude at least once and maybe many times before it would show signs of damage and could do well beyond that if it were meant to be total destruction.


Apologies all. I need my periodic refresher from Gunnery Sergeant Washington on "attention to detail".

Your other posts are really pretty funny, Cap'n Bob - from someone admonishing me not to drag the thread off topic. Looking pretty desperate if you are reduced to multiple sequential posts attacking me while wearing your sock.

How about that Camp Springs departure! When DCA is landing from the south, what departure do ya think ADW is going to be using for a filed flight plan to the west?


[edit on 14-1-2009 by pinch]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


As usual you do not have a source for your claims.

And you are off topic.

I guess it's safe to say that pinch, like cogburn, agrees that the premise in the OP is correct and that the math presented by P4T is accurate and that a north side approach is entirely possible.

Thanks for your input fellas!





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join