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.

 

UA 175 - Pilots Discuss WTC Attack

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Then why are you here?


According to you and others, there's nothing to debate...so why bother?




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by trebor451
 


Then why are you here?

According to you and others, there's nothing to debate...so why bother?


To counter the BS that you people pump out.

Its really a kind of entertainment, though, seeing how messed up you PfT people are and what sort of snake oil and misinformation you keep trying to put out.

The almost religious fervor you attach to this is downright hilarious. Seeing you flog the *same* arguments like the Camp Springs 1 departure and the claims that the C-130 flew right along the hairy edge of P-56 (by vectors) and that Andrews wouldn't use Camp Springs 1 in the morning because of "rush hour traffic into DCA" and the NOTAM situation regarding the ground stop and the association you have with CIT when they claim an aircraft flew north of the Citgo, did a honking big bank so it could be "50 to less than 100 feet" over South parking like their *star witness* Roosevelt Robert's says then banks *again* around to the Mall side of the pentagon, ALL without being seen by anyone other than Roberts - and then hear you people say that is perfectly normal (!!) is the absolute height of intellectual hilarity.

And you people take yourselves so seriously - *that* is really the funniest part. Like you actually think people listen to you.

That is why I am here, in any event. Not to try and stop you from taking over the world - you people are doing that very nicely yourselves - but to show the infinitesimal part of the world that reads these ATS posts what sorts of fools you are.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by trebor451
 


Then why are you here?

According to you and others, there's nothing to debate...so why bother?


To counter the BS that you people pump out.


The BS is on both sides of this fence, Sir. You are trying to push the opinion of an individual who makes money off of Cessna rentals over that of a legitimate flight school as "proof" that Hanjour was a good enough pilot. Your argument is that a single individual working a rinky-dink airport out in Olney is a better judge of flight skills than an entire company who could be sued if they put out "bad" pilots. They failed him for a reason.

So instead of taking a more appropriate approach and asking: Why would this company fail him, and are we sure it was Hanjour flying? And perhaps taking a more logical, non-emotional supposition that maybe it was another, more experienced pilot flying that day, you leap to: Well, this Israeli dude who rented him a Cessna thought he was pretty darn good

Is that not likewise ridiculous?

Balance is someone like me for whom the jury is still out presenting a counter here and there to people like you. Check my other posts I even found someone to corroborate Weedwacker. I just want some balance and a modicum of dignity in these threads.


Its really a kind of entertainment, though, seeing how messed up you PfT people are and what sort of snake oil and misinformation you keep trying to put out.


And it is really quite annoying for the rest of us non-dogmatics reading posts without zero information in them, just ad hominem attacks and ridiculous snarking. Some of us want the information presented so that we might use our own reasoning.


The almost religious fervor you attach to this is downright hilarious.


Go back and read your own posts. Dogmatic, aggressive, and with the appearance of defensiveness. If you "knew" you were right you would be far more easy going. Your resorting to criticizing the person over the argument would cost you a debate if this were in an academic setting.


Seeing you flog the *same* arguments like the Camp Springs 1 departure and the claims that the C-130 flew right along the hairy edge of P-56 (by vectors) and that Andrews wouldn't use Camp Springs 1 in the morning because of "rush hour traffic into DCA" and the NOTAM situation regarding the ground stop and the association you have with CIT when they claim an aircraft flew north of the Citgo, did a honking big bank so it could be "50 to less than 100 feet" over South parking like their *star witness* Roosevelt Robert's says then banks *again* around to the Mall side of the pentagon, ALL without being seen by anyone other than Roberts - and then hear you people say that is perfectly normal (!!) is the absolute height of intellectual hilarity.


As are run on sentences...


And you people take yourselves so seriously - *that* is really the funniest part. Like you actually think people listen to you.


Do you go back and read your posts before you click SUBMIT? This is a case of Mr Pot calling Mr Kettle "black".


That is why I am here, in any event. Not to try and stop you from taking over the world - you people are doing that very nicely yourselves - but to show the infinitesimal part of the world that reads these ATS posts what sorts of fools you are.


It would appear to the observer that you are here to "fight". Weedwacker is able to bring specifics to the table in a way that appears forthright and without rancor. I am not seeing the same level of courtesy to other posters from you. Now, you may snap and bare your teeth at me, but considering that I've already been told that I'm "worse than a rapist" for judging Polanski too harshly you would find it quite the waste of time to snark me. I'm pretty self-confident.

My request is that everyone elevate the debate to one of true intellectual discourse and less ad hominem fallacies.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori
My request is that everyone elevate the debate to one of true intellectual discourse and less ad hominem fallacies.



Mr. A Fortini,

If you choose to argue in support of the "facts" as presented by the PfT crowd, by all means - please do and do so with gusto and fervor.

However, do not expect "intellectual discourse" from me. There is nothing intellectual about the PfT "facts". If you choose to accept that snake oil and
BS, I wish you well.

The fact that you addressed not *one* of my list of absolutely absurd positions taken by these people - rather, you complained about a "run on sentence" - is evidence enough that discussions with you would be fruitless and a total waste of time.

What DO you think about their claims of Gopher 06's departure? What DO you think about their claim of the Camp Springs 1 published departure out of Andrews with regards to Reagan National? What DO you think about their claims of the Pentagon having surface to air missiles when the Pentagon has never had surface to air missiles on site prior to 9/11/09? What DO you think about the PfT claims that flying those 767 into the WTC was so complicated that long-time many-multi-thousand hour career airline pilots say THEY couldn't do it?

Please. Help us out here. What do YOU think about those issues?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by A Fortiori
My request is that everyone elevate the debate to one of true intellectual discourse and less ad hominem fallacies.



Mr. A Fortini,


That's "Ms"




If you choose to argue in support of the "facts" as presented by the PfT crowd, by all means - please do and do so with gusto and fervor.


Why thank you for allowing me to do so, Skeptic Overlord. I do so appreciate the opportunity to post here and have an opinion.


However, do not expect "intellectual discourse" from me.


I certainly do not expect that!


There is nothing intellectual about the PfT "facts". If you choose to accept that snake oil and BS, I wish you well.


Interesting that you chose to ignore the fact that I stated that I believe the planes were flown into the buildings by people who believed they were committing jihad. I just happen to also believe that they were allowed to.


The fact that you addressed not *one* of my list of absolutely absurd positions taken by these people - rather, you complained about a "run on sentence" - is evidence enough that discussions with you would be fruitless and a total waste of time.


Of course, asking someone to post comprehensively is a sin. If you want to be understood please be understandable, and don't shoot the messenger for pointing it out. There is a reason why your high school English teacher subtracted points for run on sentences. It forces the reader through a labyrinth of fragments to get to the point. Don't shoot the messenger.


What DO you think about their claims of the Pentagon having surface to air missiles when the Pentagon has never had surface to air missiles on site prior to 9/11/09?


*sighs*

How do you know this? One would suspect that they would be the world's most inept military were they to advertise their strategic defenses, would one not? At Dahlgren a Navy Captain once joked: "Submarines? We have no submarines." Just because the military doesn't advertise something does not mean they do not have it. Why should you know if they have STA or GTA? And if you did know it conclusively then the appropriate place to broadcast it would not be on a web board.


What DO you think about the PfT claims that flying those 767 into the WTC was so complicated that long-time many-multi-thousand hour career airline pilots say THEY couldn't do it?


Well, my pilot friend, whom I believe over anonymous Internet strangers believes that the only "suspect" flight is the Pentagon; that the twin towers were an "easy hit". He was pointed to a video of a "roll" that he feels was "accidental", or if not, then they were very good pilots, but he is going for "accidental".



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451Its really a kind of entertainment, though, seeing how messed up you PfT people are and what sort of snake oil and misinformation you keep trying to put out.


I guess it's not as funny as Mackey and the boys trying to figure out
the FDR.

Did you find out what kind of bird knocked out the main power suppply
yet Treb?


Tweet, tweet!


Bonus Question: What are the odds/probability of 13 people who never
met drawing the same flight path of a plane that they never saw?




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

The BS is on both sides of this fence, Sir. You are trying to push the opinion of an individual who makes money off of Cessna rentals over that of a legitimate flight school as "proof" that Hanjour was a good enough pilot. Your argument is that a single individual working a rinky-dink airport out in Olney is a better judge of flight skills than an entire company who could be sued if they put out "bad" pilots. They failed him for a reason.


The flight school that failed him also makes money by renting Cessnas, they make even more money if they rent Cessnas with instructors in them.

Claiming monetary gain as the reason why Shalev rented Hani the airplane is equally, if not more so, applicable as to why Bernard failed him.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

The BS is on both sides of this fence, Sir. You are trying to push the opinion of an individual who makes money off of Cessna rentals over that of a legitimate flight school as "proof" that Hanjour was a good enough pilot. Your argument is that a single individual working a rinky-dink airport out in Olney is a better judge of flight skills than an entire company who could be sued if they put out "bad" pilots. They failed him for a reason.


The flight school that failed him also makes money by renting Cessnas, they make even more money if they rent Cessnas with instructors in them.

Claiming monetary gain as the reason why Shalev rented Hani the airplane is equally, if not more so, applicable as to why Bernard failed him.


Perhaps my argument was not clear. I am not claiming "monetary gain". I am stating that Mr Shalev was not instructing him in "jets". He okay'd him for flying Cessnas, an easy to fly plane by all accounts.

Allow me to phrase it another way. Would my ability to drive a car in any state grant me an automatic CDL? No. Could I drive a motorcyle? No. Must I go to school and have hours completed to get those special licenses? Yes. Is a vehicle instructor qualified to judge motorcycle credentials the same as a motorcycle instructor? If you can drive a motorcycle can you drive a commercial vehicle?

Do you see where I am going with this? Mr Shalev was not his "jet" instructor.

Moreover, I hear all about how easy it is to fly a jet on these threads, so if it is that easy...why all the required hours before receiving your license, why not simulator hours?

I asked my pilot friend and his answer was: There is no substitute for flying. He got his private pilot's in high school and went on from there, and he still said there is a huge difference between a light aircraft like a cessna and a jet.

This was my only point. I think you are reading too much in.

I've stated that I believe some jihadist flew into the Pentagon. I'm just not sure which one.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Allow me to phrase it another way. Would my ability to drive a car in any state grant me an automatic CDL? No. Could I drive a motorcyle? No. Must I go to school and have hours completed to get those special licenses? Yes. Is a vehicle instructor qualified to judge motorcycle credentials the same as a motorcycle instructor? If you can drive a motorcycle can you drive a commercial vehicle?


Would the absence of a CDL preclude your ability to negotiate corners and operate the brakes or accelerator of an 18 wheeler if you were to assume the controls while driving down the interstate?

The basic principles of flying are the same whether you are in a 757 or a Cessna 172. Hanjour had no need to learn all the intricacies of safely flying an aircraft as complex as a 757 when all he wanted to do was take over control, return to Washington DC, and crash into a building.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Allow me to phrase it another way. Would my ability to drive a car in any state grant me an automatic CDL? No. Could I drive a motorcyle? No. Must I go to school and have hours completed to get those special licenses? Yes. Is a vehicle instructor qualified to judge motorcycle credentials the same as a motorcycle instructor? If you can drive a motorcycle can you drive a commercial vehicle?



Would the absence of a CDL preclude your ability to negotiate corners and operate the brakes or accelerator of an 18 wheeler if you were to assume the controls while driving down the interstate?


Umm, the absence of a CDL because I failed the school and test would mean that I failed to navigate the 18 wheeler appropriately. I've seen people who have driven them for years have difficulty on tight corners. I could barely navigate the U-Haul and that was small enough that it didn't require it.


The basic principles of flying are the same whether you are in a 757 or a Cessna 172.
Same with driving. The principles are the same. However (and the DOD driving school will tell you this, too) the smaller cars like the Mini Cooper are easier to handle then trucks or minivans because of their smaller size. They are far easier to control and better on corners.


Hanjour had no need to learn all the intricacies of safely flying an aircraft as complex as a 757 when all he wanted to do was take over control, return to Washington DC, and crash into a building.


In theory, I'm sure that is exactly how one who intended to commit jihad felt.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

That's "Ms"


Please accept my apologies.

What DO you think about their claims of the Pentagon having surface to air missiles when the Pentagon has never had surface to air missiles on site prior to 9/11/09?



How do you know this? One would suspect that they would be the world's most inept military were they to advertise their strategic defenses, would one not? At Dahlgren a Navy Captain once joked: "Submarines? We have no submarines." Just because the military doesn't advertise something does not mean they do not have it. Why should you know if they have STA or GTA? And if you did know it conclusively then the appropriate place to broadcast it would not be on a web board.


I'll address this point (out of the number you posted) for brevity's sake.

Anyone who has done any research on the Pentagon or the history of the Pentagon would easily know, and this has been and will remain unclassified because there is no reason to classify such a simple and basic fact.

With the exception possibly of occasional armed forces day displays or technology demonstrators, the Pentagon has never had surface to air missiles on location - never had, prior to 9/11. Mobile HUMVEE-mounted Chaparral (AIM-9 based) units were in the parking lot the afternoon of 9/11, but they stayed there only until more permanent SAM sites were established in a defensive perimeter, two of which I've seen - one unit a bit over a mile away at Fort Meyer and another nearly 3 and a half miles away at the Navy Yard. I would venture a guess that there is another unit placed to the north, and one very likely down south. This is in keeping with standard air-defense tactics, techniques and procedures where you place the majority of and your most capable systems of your air defenses away from your defended point so that any damaged air threats do not end up impacting your defended point. Terminal or close-in defense systems are last ditch and assume that some damage could be expected from a damaged incoming airborne threat (see close in weapons systems in use on US navy ships and as a land-based anti-mortar weapon in SW Asia).

The defense of the Pentagon and, indeed, nearly every other military base in the US lay in its location. Can you tell me the only time the US mainland has *ever* been hit by an enemy or an unfriendly weapon? Ever?

The Pentagon has over 25,000 people working there every day, with parking lots full of people constantly coming and going and a major mall and residential area in the very vicinity and Reagan National Airport a mere 1 mile away with aircraft passing within a half mile of the building many times a day on the down-river approach into DCA or on departure to the north out of DCA.

Designing an surface-to-air shot doctrine and engagement scenario where all those variable and environments are taken account of for a threat that hadn't happened (with boots on the ground) since 1814 and has *never* even been threatened *ever* in the context we are speaking of (missiles) would be, to say the least, problematic. The closest the Pentagon EVER had to being involved with an anti-missile system was the old Nike-Hercules system of the 60's and early 70's, and the three closest (of 13 in the Wash-Balt area) Nike/Hercules sites were in about a 15-mile arc away in Lorton, Fairfax and Herndon. These site, originally designed to protect the DC area from Soviet nuclear missiles (as silly as that seems) were deactivated in the early 70's.

As far as your comment "...the appropriate place to broadcast it would not be on a web board." goes, this is not news. It is common historical knowledge. Anyone versed even casually (or, to put it bluntly, anyone taking the time to educate themselves before opining on it) on surface-to-air defenses in general and regarding the Pentagon in particular could learn these. SAM systems are expensive and a bear to keep up, especially when you do not have the ability to fire the weapon in a maintenance or upkeep test regime. Looking back at Gulf War 1 when Patriot missiles were fired against incoming SCUD missiles should be evidence enough that the launch of these things are a huge deal and make lots of noise and smoke.

There weren't any to "stand down" and that makes April Gallop's lawsuit stupid to begin with and PfT's support of it even more stupid, given the military people they have on their club roster (although, I'm not surprised at that last point. The military people PfT claim as "subject matter experts" fall into the "Every vocation has its share of idiots who have otherwise mastered the technical and professional minutia to excel in said vocation" category. Simply being an a) pilot or a b) military pilot does not insulate these people from exhibiting their stupidity in other fields. It just adds more fuel to the "anyone can be a pilot, regardless how stupid you are" fire.

Edited to add:

In other posts you seem to adhere to the "They all lie" meme, which would lead me to believe that you either think the above information I passed is a "lie" or that those who *would* know if such a surface-to-air capability is secretly buried in the Pentagon grounds or somewhere nearby would be lying to maintain the clandestine or covert capability.

There have been no shortage of spies over the years working for foreign governments who have had access to or worked inside the Pentagon rings. Ron Pelton, Jonathan Pollard, Larry Franklin, Gregg Bergersen (tied to passing air defense secrets to the Chinese), the John Walker spy club....I could go on.

Many of these convictions resulted in formerly classified data being brought out into the open during the trials. The decision to declassify certain data to aid in the conviction of a traitor like those named above is always a decision that merits strong debate and discussion - specifically if the good of a stronger case outweighs the bad of a now-declassified capability or information.

I would submit that at some point over the years, especially once the Soviet Union disappeared and much of the stolen data became open source, any sort of secret or covert anti-missile capability at the Pentagon would have come out. If it *were* there, it definitely would have been actionable intelligence worthy of shipping over to the enemy/bad guy/whomever.

The fact this was never spy fodder is yet more evidence this capability never existed.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Bumped so its not forgotten.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

OP posted by turbofan
Have a listen to the link below. This is Ralph Kolstad who also contributed to the latest P4T presentation.

Ralph has 23,000 hours flight time, 27 years in the airlines, B757/767 for 13 years mostly as international captain, 20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, participated in TopGun twice, is also a civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds.

noliesradio.org...

Official Trailer of latest Pilots for 911 Truth Presentation

www.youtube.com...


Yes indeed; not forgotten.

Professional Pilots Rob Balsamo and FAA Authorized Flight Examiner/Check Airman Dan Govatos discuss the difficulty of the WTC attacks as well as attempts to duplicate the attack in an Airline Simulator on tnrlive.com.






posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Does it bother you in the least that of the millions of pilots out there...


I am trying to decide what bothers me most;
1. People pulling arbitrary stats out of their ass.
2. The same people actually believing said stats.
3. Other people believing those stats.

I'll work on what bothers me least later.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
That's a typical reply. I wonder if 929+ Architects impresses him?

AE911 is on track to gather at least 1000 professionals before year end.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by turbofan
Have a listen to the link below. This is Ralph Kolstad who also contributed to the
latest P4T presentation.

Ralph has 23,000 hours flight time, 27 years in the airlines, B757/767 for 13 years mostly as international captain, 20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, participated in TopGun twice, is also a civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds.


noliesradio.org...

Official Trailer of latest Pilots for 911 Truth Presentation

www.youtube.com...


Does it bother you in the least that of the millions of pilots out there, just these handful THINK it is impossible. Just something to think about. If it really was as obvious as these folks say then I would think you would have heard from more than what - a half dozen self proclaimed "experts"?


That's not true. Look at this list of hundreds of pilots who agree with Kolstad:

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

FYI, most pilots are afraid to talk about this due to fear of losing their job. Most don't have the time to research it too. If they saw a good 9/11 film though, they'd probably question the official story too. Most Americans don't even know about Building 7, cause the mainstream media won't give this any attention.

Just because someone doesn't talk about this doesn't mean they agree with the official story. Most of us are programmed to think that authority is truth and never question it, or they don't know what else to think.

See these three clips from the film "Zero An Investigation into 9/11". It was shown all over Europe and Russia and convinced everyone who saw it that 9/11 was an inside job. These clips are compelling, riveting and engaging.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
If these pilots are correct, then the only explanation that fits all the data is that the planes that hit the WTC were military planes or drones, possibly remote controlled. Right?

What other explanation could there be?

And what happened to the people on those flights? Were they landed and shot? Or were they shills?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 



Right?


NO....wrong. The (very, very few actual) pilots at places like "PilotsFor9/11Truth" say these things for some reason, and it is NOT in order to seek any "truths"...


If these pilots are correct, then the only explanation that fits all the data is that the planes that hit the WTC were military planes or drones, possibly remote controlled. Right?


Nope.

As I've already expounded on another thread, on this topic today, I'll be brief: American 11 and United 175 were both stock, regular passenger airline Boeing 767-200s. We have VERY CLEAR PICTURES of United 175! Since so many cameras were turned and focused on the WTC Towers after AA 11 hit.

Further, if anyone would bother to research properly into the REAL details, the transponder on UAL 175 was still 'squawking' (rather than turning it to 'STBY', the hijacker terrorist merely changed its squawk code...so it was still giving out data to radars that scanned it, including Mode C altitude data).

AND, since so much "reliance" is being placed on these pilots (who are talking smack, apparently) the "remote control" scenario is even MORE outrageously impossible...since it's these same (very small handful) of pilots who claim it would have been "impossible" for a human at the controls onboard...that makes it tens of times more difficult, IF by "remote control"...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd like to add...for those who may not have been around, or were not aware, the OP of this thread, turbofan, has had a change of heart regarding many aspects of the events of 9/11, especially as he had been led to believe by the charlatans at the group "PilotsFor9/11Truth".

I am not attempting to speak for him here; merely pointing out what I have seen transpire, and it is a compliment to turbofan that, at least it seems from the view on this side, it appears he has had the fortitude to actively question what he had once taken as "gospel"...there seems to be chance for all to cut through much of the BS that surrounds this topic...

[edit on 28 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Once again , for what it's worth ... take it or leave it :

www.aerospaceweb.org...

And don't expect me to argue about it , one way or the other , take it to the expert , and argue with him .



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This seems to me to be a very feeble area for truthers to take issue with.

All the terrorist pilots had received flight training and surely crashing into huge buildings would not have stretched their skills. If it would, why is there not a great groundswell of protest from the aviation community ?

I flew a plane once, which someone else had taken off for me, and while I would not have wished to try and land it I would never have imagined that crashing into a huge target would have been such a problem.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join