Let's find a Level D Simulator, and re-create the 9/11 flights.

Originally posted by defcon5

Because he would not be the one RUNNING the simulator.

Right so the person putting that data in would be psychic then? I guess I thought a rational person would understand that I really did not care how the data got into the simulator. I wanted to know what he had been using for a day he knew none of the pertinent info for.

Anyway...why are you so worried about defending another poster? It makes the whole thing smell fishy. If you have anything to say to me, fine. If it is about WW, let him say it.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by tezzajw
So what crime would you be charged with for typing out the details of transponders, using an anonymous name, on an internet forum. Please, be specific. You've made the claim, so let's see what crime would be broken.

I have no idea, I am not an attorney. I know that if they want you for something they can always find someway to get you. Just ask Al Capone.

There we have it, people... Another perfect example of complete, utter disinformation being spread as truth.

defcon5 clearly stated that typing about transponders and alarms on the internet would result in a not-so-nice-visit from TPTB.

When I asked him what crime he would be arrested for, he stated that he doesn't know. Uh-huh... I guess you just hold out your hands and let them cuff you when they come knocking, right?

Originally posted by defcon5

No, the local FBI office would be the ones to handle something like that.

Handle what exactly? Illegal wire tapping? How exactly would the FBI get away with it if you already know they are going to do it and we all know it would be illegal for them to do so?

The only person selling BS here ATM is you.

I am afraid I have to stop you right here. Are you yet another ATSer that needs me to type in small concise sentences? Does context elude you? Are you now claiming that John Lear is not full of BS? I want to make sure I am very clear about this. If it is the latter, then I guess I misunderstood you and need to re-read and if it is the former, then I need to use simple bullet points and you did not understand this either.

I will answer all your questions as soon as I know what kind of answer you need.

Originally posted by defcon5

I have no idea, I am not an attorney. I know that if they want you for something they can always find someway to get you. Just ask Al Capone.

Thanks Tezz for highlighting this quote or I would have missed it. Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion. Just what super secret illegal spy activity did they use to gather evidence for tax evasion again? Hint: I already know the real answer, Defcon.

Originally posted by defcon5
I have no idea, I am not an attorney. I know that if they want you for something they can always find someway to get you. Just ask Al Capone.

Yeah, maybe we should alsp ask Osama Bin Laden about that too. Were they out to get him too?

I can't believe you made that quote, defcon5.

You're effectively admitting that if they want you, they'll get you. What happens if you happen to be innocent, will they still get you? What extent will they go to, before they get you?

How can some people willingly admit that the government can 'get' people, yet then follow-up with how truthful and honest the government was about the events on 9/11???

It defies logic that the government can be covert/shadowy/illegal when getting an individual, but smelling like roses when reporting about 9/11. defcon5, you keep on believing whatever you need to make you sleep at night.

reply to post by Lillydale


I think the point was to see if someone could do it on any particular day, not necessarily that particular day. There was nothing special about the weather that day anyway; there was no storm, no severe wind gusts, etc. They could set the pressure to whatever they wanted to, and as long as the alt is set accordingly it would not make any significant difference. Now if they had done it in a thunderstorm, I would agree with you, but that was not the case.

BTW I was defending his stance on the topic because you specifically asked me about it. You were trying to discredit me by discrediting him. Not working out the way you thought though, so I guess now we have to flip to another tactic.

reply to post by tezzajw


Here…Enjoy:
Sensitive Security Information (SSI)

The TSRs contain rules on administration, procedure, and security for air, land, and maritime transportation. Subchapter A, titled “Administrative and Procedural Rules,” contains Part 1520, which addresses Sensitive Security Information (SSI). The Federal Register notice on the regulations describes or defines SSI as including “information about security programs, vulnerability assessments, technical specifications of certain screening equipment and objects used to test screening equipment ... and other information.”6 This definition is spelled out in more detail in 49 C.F.R. 1520.7, which is summarized below.
! Section 1520.7(a) protects any security program “that relates to United
States mail to be transported by air.”
! Section 1520.7(b) through (d) covers security directives and information
circulars, selection criteria used in the security screening process, and
security contingency plans and/or instructions pertaining to those plans.
! Section 1520.7(e) through (g) relates to any technical specification of any
device or equipment used for security communications, screening, or
“detecting deadly or dangerous weapons,” including an “explosive,
incendiary, or destructive substance.”
! Section 1520.7(h) covers the release of information that TSA “has
determined may reveal a systemic vulnerability of the aviation system, or
a vulnerability of aviation facilities, to attack.”
! Section 1520.7(i) protects “information [released by TSA] concerning
threats against transportation.”
! Section 1520.7(j) protects “details of aviation security measures.”
! Section 1520.7(k) and (l) relates to any “information” TSA has
prohibited from disclosure under the criteria of 49 U.S.C. 40119, or any
draft, proposed, or recommended change to the information or records
identified in this section.
! Section 1520.7(m) through (p) covers locations, tests, and scores of tests
on all screening methods or equipment.
! Section 1520.7(q) protects “images and descriptions of threat images for
threat projection systems.”
! Section 1520.7(r) relates to all Department of Transportation information
on “vulnerability assessment ... irrespective of mode of transportation.”

I am sure there are other laws that apply as well. Since I am not a lawyer, I am not going to know what all they could pin you with. I am not sure why me not knowing a law would discredit anything in your mind though, they did not give us a law degree to work on aircraft. They tell you not to discuss anything that in your common sense you would deem a threat to security.

Please tell me more about how its disinformation again mr expert?
You almost done with playing your games yet?

[edit on 10/14/2009 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5
Here…Enjoy:

Finally, some evidence to support your claim. Thanks for that.

Originally posted by defcon5
They tell you not to discuss anything that in your common sense you would deem a threat to security.

A lot of people don't have common sense. Why would they be so deliberately vague with regards to security threats?

So, you've given evidence that TPTB might try to persecute the hell out of an anonymous internet poster, who may have typed some information about transponders and alarms... ...yet, the same PTB can't work well enough, after being prewarned, to stop hijackers or to actually verify that there were WMD in Iraq.

I can't reconcile those two positions to make sense.

Originally posted by Lillydale
Handle what exactly? Illegal wire tapping? How exactly would the FBI get away with it if you already know they are going to do it and we all know it would be illegal for them to do so?

Webtapping is used to monitor websites that presumably contain dangerous or sensitive materials, and the people that access them. Though it is allowed by the USA PATRIOT Act, it is considered by many a questionable practice, if not an all-out violation of civil liberties.

Originally posted by Lillydale
Are you now claiming that John Lear is not full of BS?

Originally posted by Lillydale
Tonight is one treat after another. So you post about how you are afraid the men in black will visit you for explaining where a transponder is on a plane?

Then you go on to explain how the punishment for far higher levels of inside info spreading will lead to....a successful career doing what you were successfully doing before - selling BS.

Yes, fine, I read that to mean you were accusing me of selling BS, not John Lear as you had not mentioned him up to that point, but had mentioned me several times.


[edit on 10/14/2009 by defcon5]

Originally posted by tezzajw
A lot of people don't have common sense. Why would they be so deliberately vague with regards to security threats?

Because that was pre-911, and security was not as tight then as it is now.

Originally posted by tezzajw
...yet, the same PTB can't work well enough, after being prewarned, to stop hijackers or to actually verify that there were WMD in Iraq.
I can't reconcile those two positions to make sense.

I guess that its too much for you to figure out that the laws changed as a result of 911, and now they can legally get away with things such as wiretapping. They also now consolidate intelligence, which did not occur before 911. If they had been able to legally wiretap, and if there had been all the information about the suspect consolidated into one file at the time, they might have known what was going to happen, but the laws did not exist at that time to allow it.

Didn’t I already explain this once?

Originally posted by tezzajw
I can't believe you made that quote, defcon5.

I don’t see why not, its true…

Originally posted by tezzajw
You're effectively admitting that if they want you, they'll get you. What happens if you happen to be innocent, will they still get you? What extent will they go to, before they get you?

Your assuming that people are innocent, its simply a matter of how deep they want to dig to find guilt of some type:

Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate [who has been actively involved with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - IUSB Vision Editor] calls his new book “Three Felonies a Day,” referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.
Mr. Silverglate describes several cases in which prosecutors didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand technology. This problem is compounded by a trend that has accelerated since the 1980s for prosecutors to abandon the principle that there can’t be a crime without criminal intent.
Some say that ignorance of the law is no excuse and if thats your view I suggest that you go turn yourself in immediately because you ARE guilty of something. Our government is so large and so foolish that it has creates so many laws and regulations that no one could possibly follow them all and will inadvertently violate some of them every single day.
Do you have any idea how many laws you violate when you have a garage sale?

I can't understand why anyone would think this is not a great idea.

You guys have a 1000 questions you want answers to. It is impossible to give you one answer for all your questions, so start whit one answer for one question. Then there will only be 999 left.

You can do the test in the simulator and it will always be a win-win situation for truthers. If the results would show it is impossible (or very hard) to hit the targets, you finally have a proven smoking gun. If it shows it can be done (whit relative ease) it will not prove it was not an inside job. So you really have nothing to loose. You can only gain one answer.

This test has already been done by several commercial airline pilots,
and check airmen. One of which was an ex USAF pilot.

They could not hit the towers in several tries.

The only time they could accomplish the 'mission' was to slow down to
landing speeds and even then it was difficult.

Keep in mind, these pilots have tens of thousands of hours in a 757/767!

Also noteworthy, the flight sim settings were 'near perfect'.

IE: no winds, clear day, etc.

Compare that to:

- Rookie pilot
- Never flown in type aircraft
- 150 knots over vmo
- hitting 3 of 3 targets, 1st try

Futher more, you tell me how these "terrorist" found their way to each
target without help from Air Traffic Control?

1. How do you see the Towers, or Pentagon from 30,000 feet?

2. How do you know when to start the descent to hit the target?

3. How do you know when to turn to line up with the target?

They did all of this on instinct, at over 460 knots?



You can hear actual pilots discuss this in the latest P4T presentation. It's
a real eye opener.

I'd like to read the replies from the "ATS Internet pilots" concerning the
three questions above.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by turbofan]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Yes, everyone. Find me one person that claimed to be a pilot on these threads that has NOT contradicted you.

'mkultra007'
habu
zaphod
Boone

Um...not one of them has posted on any one of the threads that I have posted on so that would mean they have not posted on any of the threads that we have crossed paths in. I did specifially say "these threads" did I not? None of those four has been posting on any of these threads.

I checked those names in the FAA airman database. None return hits for "Pilot" or any other certificate issued by the FAA.

Although, every one here, listed as certified by the FAA can be found.

weedwacker, do you have ANY pilots on your side who can be verified?

Originally posted by ValkyrieWings

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I checked those names in the FAA airman database. None return hits for "Pilot" or any other cfertificate issued by the FAA.

Although, every one here, listed as certified by the FAA can be found.

[/quote

I checked the FAA Database for those listed here, but there is no idiots' certificate issued by the FAA. That's self earned and certified by being a member of the cult.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Reheat]

Hi Reheat,

Nice post. I see you're consistent with your other posts.

By the way, have you found out where Rob Balsamo works yet so you can call his boss to try to get him fired?

Hey, I have an idea, since you think that entire list is full of idiots, why not call Jetblue CP regarding Captain Jeff Latas? After all, Jeff does contribute to most of the P4T analysis and is listed in the credits.

Be sure to give the Chief pilot at jetblue your name!

Originally posted by turbofan
This test has already been done by several commercial airline pilots,
and check airmen. One of which was an ex USAF pilot.

They could not hit the towers in several tries.

....SNIP...... for brevity

1. How do you see the Towers, or Pentagon from 30,000 feet?

2. How do you know when to start the descent to hit the target?

3. How do you know when to turn to line up with the target?

They did all of this on instinct, at over 460 knots?

You can hear actual pilots discuss this in the latest P4T presentation. It's
a real eye opener.

I'd like to read the replies from the "ATS Internet pilots" concerning the
three questions above.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by turbofan]

Excellent post.

I too would be most interested in WeedWackers et al response!

I am not a pilot..nor a "truther" but open minded.

Pilot friends AAF & Qantas... who have reluctantly discussed this with me were fascinating in their conjecture.

Part of our discussion I remember

Without a planned flight plan (unknown location) at 20km from WTC at only 400knots the novicepilots have 3 minutes to line up target, plan decent to under 1000 ft.

Imagine now being 6km away 2000ft looking at New York skyline of conjested high rises...you have less than one minute to impact.

Conclusion once first time at high speed low level... a fluke!
Two out of two... amazing!
Inexperienced pilots....unbelievable!

Over to you WW ...please pay "Turbofan" the courtesy of your considered & polite reply.

Originally posted by turbofan
You can hear actual pilots discuss this in the latest P4T presentation. It's
a real eye opener.

Let me expand on that.

You can hear actual pilots who have ACTUAL flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, all 4 of them, United 175 (N612UA), United 93 (N591UA), American 77 (N644AA) and American 11 (N334AA), discuss this topic in the P4T Latest presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Weedwacker, do you have any flight time with United or American? Any flight time in the actual airframe as does pilots from P4T? ....of which can be actually verified as 75/76 Captains?

[edit on 14-10-2009 by ValkyrieWings]

reply to post by Has2b

Without a planned flight plan (unknown location) at 20km from WTC at only 400knots the novicepilots have 3 minutes to line up target, plan decent to under 1000 ft.

Imagine now being 6km away 2000ft looking at New York skyline of conjested high rises...you have less than one minute to impact.

Its not like could not spot WTC from miles away...

The WTC towers stood 110 stories, some 1360 ft above ground, that was
over 50 stories above surrounding buildings at the World Finance Center

The WTC stood at southern tip of Manhattan where Hudson river empties
into Atlantic - American 11 followed river south to WTC. United 175
came north up coast, again using visual landmarks.

I live 15 miles west of NYC - from my neighborhood (live on ridge) can
easily pick out prominent buildings on clear day.

That day weather was very clear with no clouds or haze