9/11 Survivors, and Daniel Sanjata Speak w/ WAC engage JC residents Q&A *Updated*

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
No, far from it.

I appreciate, only from a technical writer's standpoint, your ability to obfuscate, but that's about it.

"Lillydale", your expertise seems to exist and consist ONLY in the application as the antogonist.

Are you a writer, too???

Because, that's the only conclusion I can draw, based on the responses so far.

OR, an attorney-in-practice-mode, or someyhing, whatever....

Either way, your contributions do NOT help in the discourse --- in fact, they impede progress.

Chew on that, you worthy opponent!!!!!

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

EDIT because I type, with a cra# keyboard, and don't spell-check before the "POST button is pressed....

Oy,. Vey!! (and I'm not even Jewish!!!)!!!


[edit on 21 January 2010 by weedwhacker]
 


I AM a pilot. I happen to also write.

Gee....is that such a difficult concept to fathom???

(HINT: Pick up a copy of just about any aviation magazine, sometime!!!)

Second hint: (AND I won't give a name, its not me, but a certain PILOT who flies for my AIRLINE is an actual monthly CONTRIBUTOR to an AVIATION MAGAZINE!!!)

Bulletin!!!!

Surprised???

Well, so was I!!!!!!

(but, not so mcuh, becuase once I realized that HE could do it, then I realized..."So Could I!!!)


I guess since this is still considered on topic as well as the grammatical mess above it, then they are still open for response.

Just because you know a person who flies and writes does not mean all people that just want to be a "Technical Writer" can be. For one thing, it is a real title for a real job, not just something you decide to be. Second of all, they have to understand how the English language works and that would include things like the placement of punctuation surrounding quotation marks and so on and so forth. I could go in depth but we have seen that is considered off topic.

The point is that if you want to be considered credible, you have to not blatantly post lies. I thought ATS had a rule about this it is apparently not all that stringent.

I had my doubts that someone trying to explain their expertise on flying was a pilot and made them known. It seemed important as input from pilots would be of great help in just about any 9/11 thread not specific to collapse mechanism. I felt that was important. When that same person attempts to accuse me of lies and misdirection while proclaiming they are also a "Technical Writer" proceeds to share with us a 4th grade understanding of the English language, I feel that speaks to credibility as well.

Perhaps not everyone knows this. Technical writers have to go to school to become technical writers. You do not just sit in your basement and whip up instruction manuals a'la J.K. Rowling. This is a specific discipline.

If ATS posters are going to tell us what they do and then act in a manner that casts a large shadow of doubt on that, it seems important to highlight. When those doubts also have a great number of "trust me cuz I know" posts leaning on them within a given subject, such as this, it also needs to be highlighted.

I would love to get back on topic. If questioning people's credibility is off topic, then fine. People saying "trust me and here is why" should also be off topic.

[edit on 1/21/10 by Lillydale]

[edit on 1/21/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I found a video of Rodriguez using explosions and rumblings in the same sentence. for those who were trying to debunk with how he pronounced it, or worded it. here is the video.

I think this video was during or a few days after 9/11/2001.

FFWD to 9:55.



Still think he is lying?

EDIT: Video, and fixed time.

[edit on 1/23/2010 by ugie1028]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I AM a pilot. I happen to also write.


Just because you are a pilot does not make you an expert on the inner workings of a plane.

Pilots are trained to fly and listen to their instruments, but most pilots do not know the the actual workings of thier plane.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Try a couple of years after. Interesting that he is called a custodial manager though.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


You are very, very wrong...


...but most pilots do not know the the actual workings of thier plane.


Pilots, by the nature of the training, know a HECK of a lot more about the machines they entrust their lives to...

...than, say your average driver of an automobile.

We HAVE to know, more than you seem to understand, in your seeming arrogance and apparent disdain you have for pilots.

We just make it look easy, because we KNOW more than you....



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Pilots, by the nature of the training, know a HECK of a lot more about the machines they entrust their lives to...


WRONG,

I have never seen a pilot of an airliner change a tire or do any servicing or work to thier aicrraft because they do not know how, they do not know the workings of the aircraft only how to fly the plane.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Oh, come on!!!!

We don't do maintenance, as a general rule, because we have YOU people to do it for us!!!


Doesn't mean we don't know how.

Sheesh, when I was a teenager, for gosh's sakes, I learned how to do very simple airplane maintenance. Without possesing an A&P, but under the 'supervision' of a licensed A&P, I could perform very basic things, removing wheels, packing the bearings, changing brake pads, removing/replaciing cowlings, wheel pants....just to name a few things.

AT AN AIRLINE, there are other rules, not only the delineation of duties, but UNION rules as well.

SOME airlines' UNION rules are so strict, a pilot cannot even change a light bulb in the instrument panel without a 'grievance' being filed by a UNION member, usually the IAM. (Of course, we do, we just don't admit it it, sometimes. I mean, why ELSE is there a "Spare Bulbs" container mounted in the cockpit????)

No sir, pilots DO know a lot more, we just don't always let on, or go on, about it.....and of course, NOT all pilots have the same skill sets, or levels of past experience, so you are partially correct there....we are all different individuals.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No sir, pilots DO know a lot more, we just don't always let on, or go on, about it.....and of course, NOT all pilots have the same skill sets, or levels of past experience, so you are partially correct there....we are all different individuals.


As a rule most pilots DO NOT know the inner workings of a plane, just how to fly it.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I have asked pilots what is a pneudraulic system on thier plane and so far not one could answer the question.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
I have asked pilots what is a pneudraulic system on thier plane and so far not one could answer the question.


And you, of course, have reports and tapes of these interviews for our review, because as you well know, if you don't then you are lying.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And you, of course, have reports and tapes of these interviews for our review, because as you well know, if you don't then you are lying.


If you like i can go back and pull the postings. I unlike most people on here can show evidence of what i post.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
And you, of course, have reports and tapes of these interviews for our review, because as you well know, if you don't then you are lying.


If you like i can go back and pull the postings. I unlike most people on here can show evidence of what i post.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by REMISNE]


And these postings include first hand interviews with all pilots and transcripts, right? I don't care if you have made the same statement before, according to your standards if you don't have direct evidence then you are lying.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And these postings include first hand interviews with all pilots and transcripts, right? I don't care if you have made the same statement before, according to your standards if you don't have direct evidence then you are lying.


I asked the same question above to other pilots and they could not answer.

That is the direct evidence that they do not not know the inner workings ofthier planes.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
And these postings include first hand interviews with all pilots and transcripts, right? I don't care if you have made the same statement before, according to your standards if you don't have direct evidence then you are lying.


I asked the same question above to other pilots and they could not answer.

That is the direct evidence that they do not not know the inner workings ofthier planes.


Yes, but according to your standard unless you can present evidence to that affect you are lying.

Or are you now willing to accept that when an FBI agent says they found this or that at this scene or another, but you don't have the phyiscal evidence in your hand or a certified copy of the report, that they may not be lying?



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



I have asked pilots what is a pneudraulic system on thier plane...


Well....huh?

IF that was the "word" you used, it was something you either made up, or was designed as a clever combination word, but it is NOT representative of actual airplane systems.

"pneu" is the French-language-based (possibly derived from earlier languages) prefix to indicate an air system, and "draulic" is just the end component of the word "hydraulic".

EVERY pilot, advanced enough in experience, can describe their pneumatic and hydraulic systems....for each and every airplane they are current and trained and qualified on (and, as in everything, we have to periodically "bone up" on the specific details, as part of our recurrent training requirements. Physicians, and other professions, may refer to this as 'continuing education'....).

Your attempt to "Stump the Chumps" (pilots) by employing the word "pneudraulic" shows a certain sense of humor, and a smug arrogance that (apparently) you find amusing.

That word (pneudraulic) actually has a definition, although it is NOT...I repeat, NOT part of the normal pilot's lexicon of known airplane-related terms...


pneudraulic

adjective: of or pertaining to a mechanism involving both pneumatic and hydraulic action.



Please, please tell us WHAT mechanism you know of, on WHICH airplane that fulfills that definition. AND, explain WHY this mechanism cannot be defined as existing as a subset of each, whether pneumatic or hydraulic.



NO, wait!! I'll answer for you....

I know...you're likely describing an accumulator, aren't you???!!!???

Clever.

But, it's based on trickery, and nomenclature. AND a particular way of looking at a device, that MAY be described to YOU, at one point in your life, by that term...but not everyone sees it the same way. YET we all know the function, how it works, etc.

So, playing little head games is not funny, at least not to me.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please, please tell us WHAT mechanism you know of, on WHICH airplane that fulfills that definition. AND, explain WHY this mechanism cannot be defined as existing as a subset of each, whether pneumatic or hydraulic.


Gee you do not even know that your landing gear struts are pneudraulic. The top half of the strut is pneumatic the bottom half is hydraulic.

Thanks for showing us that you do not know the workings of your plane.




[edit on 29-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Bumped


Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please, please tell us WHAT mechanism you know of, on WHICH airplane that fulfills that definition. AND, explain WHY this mechanism cannot be defined as existing as a subset of each, whether pneumatic or hydraulic.


Gee you do not even know that your landing gear struts are pneudraulic. The top half of the strut is pneumatic the bottom half is hydraulic.

Thanks for showing us that you do not know the workings of your plane.



[edit on 1-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Bumped


Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please, please tell us WHAT mechanism you know of, on WHICH airplane that fulfills that definition. AND, explain WHY this mechanism cannot be defined as existing as a subset of each, whether pneumatic or hydraulic.


Gee you do not even know that your landing gear struts are pneudraulic. The top half of the strut is pneumatic the bottom half is hydraulic.

Thanks for showing us that you do not know the workings of your plane.
[edit on 1-2-2010 by REMISNE]


By the way, did you ever present evidence that you asked this question of any pilots? Because if you don't have the evidence to back up what you are saying then I must assume that you are.....



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Dodge and incomplete quoting from my post --- NOTED.

Clever little words lke "pneudraulic", not normally part of any pilot's lexicon, only serve to display a continued fascination with semantic word tricks, and word play.

Now, remind us all again what any of that has to do with this Daniel Sanjata guy?





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join