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.

 

New FDR Decode

page: 89
12
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 


ThomK has covered it very nicely, I refer back to his three-part post, as a response that you made to me.


I can't follow you in these arenas weedwacker. I think the only people who can do it are over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth and perhaps turbofan; he could certainly follow you better than I ever could regarding these technical issues at any rate. I decided to post again at PFT again after all. Rob Balsamo referred me to a thread over there where you apparently posted. Lots of technical stuff on both sides. I'm just plain lost with all of this stuff, and I told him so.


And since Balsamo bans everyone who disagrees with him, you have guaranteed yourself another (year?) (2 years?) (decade?) of delusion.

Congratulations.

Nice to see your interests in critically examining all the evidence.

You don't NEED to be a pilot to come to the right conclusion. Any more than you need to be an auto mechanic to decide whether an auto shop is competent. Or to be a brain surgeon to decide whether or not to believe your surgeon when he tells you that you have a tumor.

You need an epistemology.

You need to learn to ask the right questions. Of the right people.

You need to learn the difference between skepticism and cynicism and hucksterism.

Tom




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 



Rob Balsamo referred me to a thread over there where you apparently posted.


Errrmmmm......

I was following an exchange by a member over there named "767captain" in the thread about the NYC crashes, I think.

Suddenly, the name on all of his/her posts changed...to 'weedwhacker'.

Robby made some sort of threat, about changing the person's screenname. It is there somewhere in their exchanges...(unless he's later/modified or deleted something...who knows??? He doesn't seem to have the level of integrity that ATS admins have, that's for sure. And, no...that is not an incredibly loud sucking sound you just heard...).

Apparently he feels threatened by lil' ole' me, even when I'm not around!!!


Thought about posting over there, but oh, well. Maybe I should find a new email provider, since the P4T site won't allow people register if they use Gmail....wonder why that is? Well, not missing anything, I can feel certain about that. All the fun is here, anyways....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Originally posted by scott3x
I'm just plain lost with all of this stuff, and I told him so.


It's OK to have a learning curve. Of course, once you mentioned to RB that you were 'lost'...guessing it just means it's a lot to digest, in order to understand better...he knew that he had you, because he's able to tell you just about anything, and you have no way to verify it.

Correction: You had no way to verify it. Now you do.




[edit on 17 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk


Well, you've got a problem and not enough brainpower to figure a way thru it, apparently.


Well that was clever and productive.


I'll tell you this: ANY pilot can immediately identify those who are, and those who are not, pilots.


Then I guess WW is not a pilot since I personally witnessed a pilot say they very much doubted that he was. According to you, he must be right.


It is not simply a matter of "do they agree with me".


um...ok...did I say it was?


Balsamo clearly was a pilot.
So were Stubblebine, Bowman & Lear.
Even tho they say massively stupid, massively incorrect things about flying.

Nor is the determinant, as Robby likes to imply, "if you get one question wrong, you're a fraud". Pilots get some details wrong all the time. Mostly trivial inconsequential ones. Sometimes big important ones.

(Like the Delta 767 pilots a while ago who forgot that runways are bordered in white lights and taxi ways are bordered in blue ones ... and landed on the taxi way in Atlanta. Ooops. Say "sayonara" to your job.)

Weed IS a pilot. It is obvious.


Because pilots make errors, it is obvious that WW is a pilot? I do not get the connection at all here.


I have every confidence that you'll choose not to believe me.


Then why did you bother to post?


Now ask me if I give a rip about your adolescent hissy fits ...

LoL.

TomK


Wow. I would love to see one of these adolescent hissy fits. Does it feel good to just say random things that are not true just because they might derail the integrity of someone else if the masses were stupid enough to just believe what they hear even if it is contradicted by all evidence?

I see two people have already jumped up to wave a star yelling "I am stupid enough to just hear things that are not supported by facts and go along with it as long as it is insulting to someone I do not agree with" (add your own southern accent.)

I am not sure what hissy fits you are talking about but telling me what little brainpower I have seem pretty adolescent if you ask me. Did you think that was being mature?

So to sum up. Pilots do stupid things so it is obvious that WW is a pilot. Any pilot can easily identify any other pilot even apparently over an internet forum and even though pilots on here have said WW does not seem like a real pilot to them thus using your own standard to disprove your premise you choose to ignore the logic of that and say it anyway. I have not enough brainpower for this and I throw adolescent hissy fits. You know I will not believe you and you do not care what I have in response but you felt the need to post this post telling me that you know it will do nothing to change my mind and that you do not care for how I respond.

Thanks Alice, when is tea?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Are you being obtuse on purpose??

Twisting the words of ThomK, again and again. No need for examples, the evidence is there and obvious. maybe that's not being obtuse...might be another description for it, though.


Then I guess WW is not a pilot since I personally witnessed a pilot say they very much doubted that he was.


"Personally witnessed"???

Do you mean this mysterious anonymous 'pilot' that you know? What did he do again? A bush pilot from Alaska or something?

Based on which of my ramblings, exactly, did this glorious aviation professional draw his 'conclusions', hmmmm?

What are his certificates? (Private? Commercial? ATP?)

His ratings...ASEL? ASEL? Instrument? (If he's an ATP, then the instrument rating is moot, as it's implied).

His experience? Total time? Types of equipment flown???

Does he post here? Have anything to contribute?

And, finally...would you even be able to tell the difference, between what I say, and what he says, and whether he or I were right or wrong????

Are you that qualified?



[edit on 17 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by thomk
Well, you've got a problem and not enough brainpower to figure a way thru it, apparently.


Well that was clever and productive.


I'll settle for "accurate".


Originally posted by Lillydale

...blah, blah, blah...

I do not get the connection at all here.


Yeah, I know.


Originally posted by Lillydale
Wow. I would love to see one of these adolescent hissy fits.


This one is typical.

LoL.


Tom



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Are you being obtuse on purpose??

Twisting the words of ThomK, again and again. No need for examples, the evidence is there and obvious. maybe that's not being obtuse...might be another description for it, though.


What exactly did I twist? His words are all there. Nothing was edited or taken out of context. I believe you are accusing me of something I did not do. Is this the tactic? I eagerly await this list of hissy fits and word twisting or the apologies for just making things up.



Then I guess WW is not a pilot since I personally witnessed a pilot say they very much doubted that he was.


"Personally witnessed"???


Do you have a better word for actively engaging in threads while people claiming to be pilots have said you are not a pilot.


Do you mean this mysterious anonymous 'pilot' that you know? What did he do again? A bush pilot from Alaska or something?


I do not remember. As I have stated, I really do not know if any of them were real pilots either. I am just using thommy standards of any pilot can recognize any pilot and that is why you must actually be a pilot. It did not make sense to me either but I am willing to play on your playground if you need that to win whatever argument you are making.



Based on which of my ramblings, exactly, did this glorious aviation professional draw his 'conclusions', hmmmm?


I also do not remember but you were active in the discussion. It was around the same time I pointed out how many of your answers in a row went paragraph after paragraph past the info being sought out and just read like some textbook pages that really added nothing to the discussion as well as had no relevance to anything being discussed but you did hold this info up as some kind of proof of your 'pilotness.' You got all whiny and spent many a post after that remarking how 'some people' complain you give too much information so you are trying to keep it tight. Remember? I can dig it all up if I must.


What are his certificates? (Private? Commercial? ATP?)

His ratings...ASEL? ASEL? Instrument? (If he's an ATP, then the instrument rating is moot, as it's implied).

His experience? Total time? Types of equipment flown???

Does he post here? Have anything to contribute?


Well I guess memory is not really your strong point as he addressed all of that himself when he was posting here. You know back when he asked you some simple questions to prove you were a pilot and you suddenly lost interest in that thread? Remember? I guess not. I do not remember these things, not do I care. For all I know, he simply read more than you. I am not the one that claimed you must be a pilot because any pilot can recognize a pilot. I am not sure what thommy meant by that but if that is the standard then hey.


And, finally...would you even be able to tell the difference, between what I say, and what he says, and whether he or I were right or wrong????

Are you that qualified?


Not at all. What I am qualified to do is spot someone who is not telling the truth. He was smart enough to keep pretty quiet. I certainly never claimed any such thing. Maybe you need to try something special. This may hurt and I am guessing from what I see here that it will be a huge effort but...try reading what you are responding to. I already stated more than once that I had no real reason to believe anyone else I spoke of was actually a real pilot either. You could have saved yourself a great deal of time by not bothering with that argument at all if you just read the posts you were replying to.

[edit on 12/17/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by thomk
Well, you've got a problem and not enough brainpower to figure a way thru it, apparently.


Well that was clever and productive.


I'll settle for "accurate".


Originally posted by Lillydale

...blah, blah, blah...

I do not get the connection at all here.


Yeah, I know.


Originally posted by Lillydale
Wow. I would love to see one of these adolescent hissy fits.


This one is typical.

LoL.


Tom


What a fabulous post. First you insult me and then ramble on about nothing in particular and when I point out you are just being insulting and ask you to clear up what you are trying to say...you just insult me more and that is all? So what was the point? Why are you here? If you were here about the truth of 9/11, then you would have had something to say. Only a troll would be wasting posts to do nothing more than insult people they do not agree with. What a sad pathetic tactic.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
What a fabulous post. First you insult me and then ramble on about nothing in particular and when I point out you are just being insulting and ask you to clear up what you are trying to say...you just insult me more and that is all? So what was the point? Why are you here? If you were here about the truth of 9/11, then you would have had something to say. Only a troll would be wasting posts to do nothing more than insult people they do not agree with. What a sad pathetic tactic.


Hey kid,

I've been posting here for the better about 2 months. I've been posting on one topic after another.

You came on about 3 days ago, and simply started giving snark to everyone you addressed.

And now you start whining when you get some back.

Time to pull on your big-boy pants.

If you want to address the issues related to 9/11, be my guest. If you want to simply whine like a little girl, be my guest.

No skin off of my nose either way...

Tom

PS. I said that "pilots could recognize the posts of other pilots."
I did not say that "pilots will always tell the truth about who they think are pilots".
Those would be a whole bunch of different words strung together in different order.
Therefore they have a different meaning.

See how easy that is...?


You are not a pilot, so you can't do this. You have to figure out a different way to do that. This does not take a lot of brainpower to do. And yet, you seem to be stumped regarding how to do this.

Not a good sign, but it is based on your own admissions.



[edit on 17-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Hey kid,

I've been posting here for the better about 2 months. I've been posting on one topic after another.

You came on about 3 days ago, and simply started giving snark to everyone you addressed.


Gosh, I hate to point this out but your registration date is 10 days old. Mine is 3 months old. Care to explain?

I also hate to point out that over 60 posts on a total of 4 threads is one topic after another?

I really want to know what makes you think I have been posting for 3 days? Did you even look at my post history? Today is the first I have seen of you and my posts are allllllllllllllllll over the place.



And now you start whining when you get some back.


I am not whining about getting anything back. I have no problem with snark. What I have a problem with is false accusations and empty posts. I may be obnoxious but I do it while making a point and you can have a good time trying to find me making false accusations. I am still waiting for the two made against me to be cleared up here. You have offered nothing but personal attacks so far. Give me some substance with it.


Time to pull on your big-boy pants.


I prefer dresses as they make me feel pretty. You keep your big boy pants ok. I wear adult clothes.


If you want to address the issues related to 9/11, be my guest. If you want to simply whine like a little girl, be my guest.


Uh...then what is this post all about? Are you complaining about me whining or telling me it is ok? Seriously honey. You need to check yourself. I am not sure how you think I just showed up and interrupted your party but I believe a glance at our posting history will confirm the stories our registration dates tell.


No skin off of my nose either way...


So you really do not care but you took the time to share your feelings anyway? You want to make sure that I know, you do not disapprove but you did have feelings and you had to take the time to let them out. Would you like to borrow one of my dresses? I wear adult clothes but I am sure I have some big girl dresses left over from childhood.


Tom

PS. I said that "pilots could recognize the posts of other pilots."
I did not say that "pilots will always tell the truth about who they think are pilots".


Thanks for clearing up absolutely nothing there. I never said you said the second one but we all know that without it, the first one is pretty worthless.


Those would be a whole bunch of different words strung together in different order.
Therefore they have a different meaning.


Very good. Would you like a treat? Rocky Road? Butterfinger? Those certainly are different words. You did not say them. I did not say you said them. What are you talking about?


See how easy that is...?


What? Saying random things for no reason? I know it is easy. I said I did not believe WW was a pilot. I did not say rabbits secretly control my mind at night and cause me to commit serial robberies of hair salons. See how easy that is?



You are not a pilot, so you can't do this. You have to figure out a different way to do that. This does not take a lot of brainpower to do. And yet, you seem to be stumped regarding how to do this.


Dooooo what?


Not a good sign, but it is based on your own admissions.


It is not a good sign that I am not a pilot?

Please kids, do not drink and post.

[edit on 12/17/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


Originally posted by scott3x

Off the top of my head:
1- The impossible pull up (the 10g one).
2- The evidence that the FDR data given would imply that the plane didn't follow the official story flight path.
3- His conclusion that CIT's North of Citgo flight path witnesses are correct.


The FDR shows 2.2 maximum G force and if you calculate the G force required using reality and physics you get about 1.7 Gs needed. And the last few seconds average out to 1.6 to 1.7 G. Real science beats Balsamo's waving hands make up numbers. Even the DNA proves p4t math is a complete failure.

Take the final true track heading from the FDR of 61.5 degrees it is exactly the path of knocked down lampposts. Exactly. Why not plot it on GE and see.

The FDR has 61.5 degrees in the last seconds, here is the path going right over the lamppost and impacting at the Pentagon. Proof from the FDR 77 impacts. Don't need it, the DNA is undisputed, and the aircraft parts are undisputed. No one has ever presented one piece of evidence the DNA is false, or the parts are false. All that has happen is people make up false information and imply some fantasy ideas.

All the witnesses p4t and CIT base their delusional NoC on believe Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. All the witnesses in the video point to the real flight path which knocked down the lampposts. There is no way from their positions they can draw the ground track of a plane they saw 5 years after the fact, or even on the very day. The NoC path is a delusion made up by CIT not based on facts. The witnesses actually support 77 impacting the Pentagon if you understand how to interpret witness statements and take them in the field. After 5 years the witness statements are worthless, and it is very funny some of their witnesses actually saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and they were up close, right next to the impact. Talk about failure and cherry picking witness statements, and throwing out the FDR, RADAR data, DNA, and tons of aircraft parts. Not to mention the exact damage a 757 at 483 KIAS would make was found and studied by real structural engineers who put in in writing. Not to mention the exact size fuel fireball the fuel on 77 would make in a 483 KIAS impact. Gee, you have to ignore all the physical evidence to even start to believe the moronic delusion of a flyover or NoC.

CIT and p4t members who came up with the fantasy NoC and flyover scam are not trained investigators which you can see in their own videos. The methods of determining G force are based on fantasy initial conditions are not supported with evidence.

This tree was hit by 77, it also lines up with the final heading of 61.5 degrees. You have to throw out most of the witness statements who saw Flight 77 knockdown lampposts and impact the Pentagon to believe the failed ideas of p4t and CIT. Plus all the physical evidence like this photo. Real evidence prove 77 impacted, nonsense supports the NoC flyover fantasy. Good luck



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by thomk
Hey kid,

I've been posting here for the better about 2 months. I've been posting on one topic after another.

You came on about 3 days ago, and simply started giving snark to everyone you addressed.


Gosh, I hate to point this out but your registration date is 10 days old. Mine is 3 months old. Care to explain?


Your first post on this thread is on page 82.
Mine is on page 9.
You're the noob here.


Originally posted by Lillydale
Did you even look at my post history?


I couldn't possibly care less about your posting history.
Or your posting future.

I don't have time for trolls, so off to "ignore" you go...

C'ya.

LoL.


Tom



[edit on 17-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Your first post on this thread is on page 82.
Mine is on page 9.
You're the noob here.



So how does that explain you posting for three months when you have only been registered for 10 days? I myself would love to understand how that makes any kind of sense. I am fairy certain Lilly did not think you meant just this thread. You claimed to be posting on topic after topic so it just made sense that by 'here' you meant ats and not just this thread. I believe you got caught in your own little fib. Can you please explain how you have been posting for 3 months with a 10 day old membership? I would just like to know if you have anything honest to say or if you are a troll that deserves to be on ignore.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by thomk
Your first post on this thread is on page 82.
Mine is on page 9.
You're the noob here.



So how does that explain you posting for three months when you have only been registered for 10 days? I myself would love to understand how that makes any kind of sense. I am fairy certain Lilly did not think you meant just this thread. You claimed to be posting on topic after topic so it just made sense that by 'here' you meant ats and not just this thread. I believe you got caught in your own little fib. Can you please explain how you have been posting for 3 months with a 10 day old membership? I would just like to know if you have anything honest to say or if you are a troll that deserves to be on ignore.


I didn't say "I've been posting on thread after thread".

I said "I've been posting on topic after topic". I meant on this thread.

Go back to page 9. Look at the posts & see if you can figure it out. It ain't complicated.

And this conversation is over. Talk about the issues, or talk to someone else.

Cheers.

Tom



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
i've been sitting back reading for the past few days; there is more attacking
than debating and it really sucks. Too bad we all can't get along a little
better and get back into the groove.

Having said that, I'll do some attacking of my own. I see Mr. Balsamo
continues to slander my name on his forum. Apparently I'm some sort
of "joke" suddenly since confronting him about his latest FLT DECK DOOR
error?

Hmmm...isn't it funny how he suddenly thinks I'm a joke, but put my
name on two of "his" video presentations?

Kinda funny that I (someone whom never set foot in the cockpit of a 757) had to tell him
(a pilot) the ADC was responsible for recording the Pressure Altitude Data
and not some STBY Aneroid Altimeter!

Funny that he (a pilot) couldn't identify an authentic 757 pitot-static diagram which I supplied from a credible source.

Strange that he had no clue about the door wiring and circuit function
for his latest theory, even after my attempts to teach him via e-mail.

Gee Imagine that, Turbofan is suddenly the bad guy because I don't
want any part of "the other organization". Turbofan suddenly doesn't
know anything? Turbofan is a "traitor"?

Turbo doesn't have any "buddies" at "the other forum" because he can't
be trusted? Who went public with private info again? Can someone
please remind me?

Why am I at fault for declining support of a bad theory?

Typical excuses I guess.

Now Warren and few others have bailed due to the fact that FLT DECK
DOOR can't be proven and he's freaking out on his forum with a list of
items that don't "add up".


Mr. Balsamo

These are the facts:

1. The NTSB claims the data they are providing through the FOIA is from N644AA. This claim has not been proven - Fact.
2. The Data provided by the NTSB does not support the govt story in several instances and the list is growing - Fact and proven.
3. The NTSB Flight Path Study conclusions conflict with the data Warren has provided - Fact and Proven.
4. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment on the growing mountain of conflicting information/data they provide. - Fact and Proven.
5. More forthcoming.

These are the claims which remain to be proven by those who make excuse for the govt story, in order for them to hold onto their impact theory.

1. Proof that the data provided came from N644AA.
2. Proof that the Flight Deck Door was open in flight for a hijack to take place.
3. The Pressure Altitude, required by the FAA, and confirmed by the NTSB, must be proven to be in error in excess of 120+ feet.
4. Proof of the object from which Radar altitude is measuring.
5. Proof a 757 can be precisely maneuvered at more than 110 knots over its max operating limit to hit a target with a 33' margin for error by a pilot who cannot control a 172 at 65 knots.
5. Proof that more than 13 independently corroborated and verified witnesses are mistaken all in the same manner.
6. Attempt to get the NTSB to amend their Flight Path Study and admit their possible error of not being able to decode a complete FDR data set, perhaps setting in motion a complete audit of every Flight Path Study and Final Report the NTSB has produced and drawn conclusions based on Flight Data. Amend regulation as necessary.
7. Proof/Positive ID that N644AA is responsible for the damage at the Pentagon.



Mr. Balsamo wont ever admit he's wrong. He still can't provide proof of
his claim, and he obviously to this day cannot produce the documentation.

Maybe he'll delagate one of his virtual 'friends' to find the flight docs he
was supposed to have (and studied) before making the press release.


[edit on 18-12-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
i've been sitting back reading for the past few days; there is more attacking than debating and it really sucks. Too bad we all can't get along a little better and get back into the groove.


Darn, I find myself agreeing with you a lot lately. The thread was very constructive for awhile, but now it has gone into chaos.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomk

I didn't say "I've been posting on thread after thread".

I said "I've been posting on topic after topic". I meant on this thread.


That is pretty interesting since this thread is about ONE topic only. Why are you littering one thread with so many other topics? The truth is, you have posted on one topic and one topic only - 9/11. 4 threads, all on 9/11. If you honestly think that you have been hitting a variety of topics all in just this one thread then how about you point them all out so we can have the mods remove all of that off topic nonsense since each thread is about one particular topic.


Go back to page 9. Look at the posts & see if you can figure it out. It ain't complicated.


Figure out what? How it is that you have been registered for 11 days now and are on a whole 4 threads and yet claim to have been here for 3 months and covering all kinds of topics? Sorry but page 9 does not help any of that make any sense.


And this conversation is over. Talk about the issues, or talk to someone else.

Cheers.

Tom


Yeah, I would imagine you would want to end this as quickly as possible before trying to explain how someone who has been registered for 10 days can claim to be a 3 month long poster. I was hoping you could explain how you manage to cover so many topics in one thread without being off topic in a thread about ONE topic. I was hoping you could explain how you squeazed 3 months out of 10 days. I was hoping you could explain how it is you are not completely full of BS. I guess we have yet another OS supporter to add to the list of people that need to lie to make their case.

If you ever decide to tackle honesty, give us a shout. I would be more than happy to hear anything you have to say when you decide to try and be honest. Maybe some OS could convince me how wrong I am if they could try to argue their case without lying, spinning the truth, or just rambling nonsense until people give up and go away.

Now, I would love to discuss the topic. Can you tell me what it is? I would guess by the title that it is new FDR code data but according to you, there are several topics in this thread so please, tell me which ones are all included as on topic and let's discuss them all.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x

There are many pilots who are quite impressed with PFT's work. I wouldn't be surprised if a few engineers were as well.


Like weed said, define "many", please. A dozen or even two dozen is about as far from "many" as can be when you count up the number of licensed pilots, private and commercial, in the world.



I haven't found a PFT video that I haven't been impressed with.


I know I'll be echoing other comments, but they need to be said.

if you believe PfT videos are of high quality and technically correct, you are way too easily impressed with bells and whistles and shiny things that sparkle and make pleasant sounds.

And reading your latest posts over on PfT, looks like you're fixin' to be tossed under the bus again. Bobby doesn't like people who don't suck his digital toes, in a metaphorical manner of speaking. Why you attribute *any* legitimacy or credence to those people is beyond me. You deserve what you get.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451



if you believe PfT videos are of high quality and technically correct, you are way too easily impressed with bells and whistles and shiny things that sparkle and make pleasant sounds.


I have not watched any P4T videos. Can you explain what it is that is factually incorrect about them?



[edit on 12/18/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



I have not watched any P4T videos. Can you explain what it is that is factually incorrect about them?


May I please comment on this?

It is difficult for me to grasp the logic there. A person admits she has not seen the videos, then asks someone else to explain what is factually incorrect in the videos that she hasn't yet seen?


Was this a typo?

Well...onward, since when and if someone watches them, errrr....not sure that a discussion about them is right for this thread, except inasmuch as sometimes their nonsense (in the videos) relates to the FDR decode...the OLD one, the one that wasn't done correctly, that was 'massaged' in order to further their fantasies....

I believe the gist of the vids, snippets at least, are available...certainly the PTB over there wish to withhold most, just releasing teasers, so that they can hopefully induce people to buy the DVDs.

My suggestion: Caveat Emptor.

Wasting a few bucks is a personal decision, but I just don't recommend it.

However, if anyone wishes to take a bullet for a higher cause, than no one will complain.....



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 



I have not watched any P4T videos. Can you explain what it is that is factually incorrect about them?


May I please comment on this?

It is difficult for me to grasp the logic there. A person admits she has not seen the videos, then asks someone else to explain what is factually incorrect in the videos that she hasn't yet seen?


Was this a typo?


Did you read what I replied to? I was replying directly to the statement that the videos they offer are NOT TECHNICALLY CORRECT. If a group calling themselves X4T is putting out videos with false information, then I am a little curious as to what that false information would be.

What is so hard for you to understand?

Why do I need to see them before I can ask someone to clarify what it is they claim is incorrect about them? If anything, it would save me the trouble of bothering to watch them, right?

Seeing as how I was clearing asking someone else to explain to me what they meant by what they said, I have no idea what your confusion is. Also seeing as how you decided to use you complete inability to read what you are replying to as an excuse to just be rude because you do not understand clear English, I really do not feel I need to read anything you have to say on the topic. Let me know when you can follow along and not be a jerk because you are so easily lost and then maybe what you have to say will be worth reading.



[edit on 12/18/09 by Lillydale]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join