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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

In case you did not know the landing gear is a main system on a plane and the landing gear struts are known as pneudraulic to the majority of people who work around planes.

You just keep showing your lack of knowledge of the inner workings of a plane.

reply to post by REMISNE


I'd just like you to know how totally incorrect that statement is.

To a pilot.

We don't work "around" them, we work IN them...

....but, this is the LAST time I will be baited, because it's gone on long enough.

...and this might get deleted, anyhow. Take it up in another thread, if you can find an appropriate forum topic for such a silly claim.

(PS....if you want to get technical, an automobile's shock absorber could also be consdered "pneudraulic"...but, again, go down to your local auto mechanic and ask HIM about it...and wait for the blank stare).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TOPIC:

So anyway, could someone please explain to me why Daniel Sanjata and the WAC have any real relevance, when compared to the vast majority of OTHER 9/11 survivors who likely don't speak up, either because they disagree with Mr. Sanjata and the WAC, and don't want to associate with them, or reluctant to invite the ridicule that even trying to talk about them might entail.

(I had trouble watching, after the first few minutes of Part 1...not technical problems, just wondering why anyone would waste their time. So, anyone who has SEEN all two hundred parts, with a synopsis??? Thanks).

Let me re-phrase that question:

How many 9/11 survivors exist?

AND, why aren't every single one of them onboard with the WAC, and its goals??

Not to be argumentative, but IF Mr. Sanjata, et al, have a valid set of points to make, why are their voices not joined by hundreds and hundreds of others??

(And, before the topic of the various "professionals" who "question" events --- again, a very very small minority --- most of those people were NOT there, and are merely Monday-morning quarterbacking. Which, it would seem, is the best way to describe just about all of these "truthers" as well....)





[edit on 2 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'd just like you to know how totally incorrect that statement is.

To a pilot.

We don't work "around" them, we work IN them...

Thanks agian for proving my point.

reply to post by REMISNE


"sigh"

You know very well what I meant!!!!

(EDIT here, deleted the rest, because I would have gotten flamed for, once again, defending my honor from someone who has a history of baiting tactics, and steering repeatedly off topic in personal attacks.)

[edit on 2 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
most of those people were NOT there, and are merely Monday-morning quarterbacking.

You mean like NIST did since they did not have any steel from the WTC buildings to test?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT, WE write up the squawks, and tell YOU what to fix (assuming you're a mechanic...and not just a ramper).

Well i was a crew chief in the Air Force and told pilots would they could and could not write up on MY PLANE.

reply to post by REMISNE




"your" plane ??

I rest my case!!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"your" plane ??

I rest my case!!!!!

Thanks again for showing you do not know what you are talking about.

A crew chief gets thier name on the side of a plane, SO THAT PLANE IS THIERS.

They only let the pilots borrow it for a while.

reply to post by REMISNE


I've never been in the military.

So, I have a different mindset about "WHOSE" airplane it is...an airline captain signs the dispatch release, and HE is responsible for everything with that flight (and that airplane).

(More correctly, the Dispatcher shares some responsbility, but the Captain's signature just means that he agrees with the Dispatcher, and responsibility becomes the lion's share on him, from then on...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
to add: During the flight, the Dispatcher is required to be involved, in what's called 'flight following' capacity. WE cannot alter the basics of our dispatch release without joint consultation, unless we excercise Captain's Emergency Authority...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Military mindsets might be different (though I wish a USAF pilot would come in and tell us more...)


SO --- back to 'what's-his-name' that is the topic of this thread, and that multi-part nearly unwatchable series of YT clips, from his "speech"....

Anyone who can describe, in nutshell???

Thanks.



[edit on 5 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, I have a different mindset about "WHOSE" airplane it is...an airline captain signs the dispatch release, and HE is responsible for everything with that flight (and that airplane).

In the Air Force the crew chief is resonsible for everything with the aircraft from preflight, throughflight, and postfligt inspections to strapping in pilots, starting up engines and doing flight control checks.

Also the crew chief is responsible for debriefing pilots when they return from flight to find if thier were any problems and if so oversee work done.

reply to post by REMISNE


That's what I thought....

Please explain to all of us, since we're on this subject, just exactly HOW you, the 'crew chief', start the engines???

Because, UNLESS you are onboard, all you can do is signal to the pilots, when "prompted" by them, usually, that they are 'clear to start'.

The PILOTS start the engines!!! And, you know this...mechanics (in civilian airline world) also know how to start engines...some are even certfied to TAXI the airplane...and that also entails knowing how to use the radio, on Ramp Control, or Ground Control (depending on airport and facility design...)

Funny...know HOW those taxi-certified mechanics leran??? Yup!! In one of our simulators!! The very same Level-D visual quality that WE use!

(I am sure the military has better tech....in fact, I know that some fighter sims are way more advanced, in ability to simulate Gs, and probably supremely better visuals....but ours are good enough to satisfy FAA to qualify a pilot in 'new' -- to him -- equipment completely. FIRST time that pilot touches the real airplane is on a live revenue flight, with passengers. ALL approved by FAA, with airline curriculum training standarsd, and state-of-the-art simulators...)

Any more questions/challenges to what I know?

But, please, not here in this thread. I fear we may have tested the patience of some quite enough, by now....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please explain to all of us, since we're on this subject, just exactly HOW you, the 'crew chief', start the engines???

Because, UNLESS you are onboard, all you can do is signal to the pilots, when "prompted" by them, usually, that they are 'clear to start'.

Actally on a plane like an F-4 the crew chief does more of the actual work to start the engine.

An F-4 must be supplied with electricl power fom an external source (ran by the crew chief). The air is supplied by an external source (ran by the crew chief) to turn the turbines, all the pilot does (knows how to do) is push a button when the turbines get up to speed.

Then the crew chief must go through check of all fligt controls with the pilot.

reply to post by REMISNE


An F-4 doesn't have an APU...most fighters, by design, especially the 1960s era, would not waste the space, nor the weight penalty....for the luxury of such a device. You, sir, are a bit out of touch, I'm afraid....

Certainly you served well in your capacity, in your era....

(BTW, my good friend, a (now deceased) Alaska Airlines Captain is ex-USAF, and survived 'Nam while flying the F-4.....he managed to be one of the "good" ones to make the transition to civilian flying without displaying the arrogance that is normally thought as 'typical' of some military pilots...)

(OK...ALL pilots have that image, I admit....even *gasp* me!)

Since I've always been civilian, and worked hard on the way up...I judged my ex-military comrades not on where they came from, but on how they behaved, and how well they flew...

I can safely say that, notwhithstanding any person's background in aviation, simply BEING a military (or ex-military) pilot does NOT immediately convey any sort of "god-like" status or credibility on them.

I have about 20,000 hours total time (I stopped counting, just estimated after 15,000....and any pilot who has ever applied for a Medical knows what I mean.....)

But, AGAIN......

WHO is Daniel Sanjata??? I mean, I don't wish to have to watch ten episodes of boring YouTube videos, while he talks to an audience of about twenty people!!!

What did Mr. Sanjata have to say --- in a nutshell? Please???


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

typos --- as usual




[edit on 7 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
An F-4 doesn't have an APU...most fighters, by design, especially the 1960s era, would not waste the space, nor the weight penalty....for the luxury of such a device.

Excepct for around the F-15 era, then they started putting a APU in the plane.

So just admit that the crew chief had to know more about the workings of the plane then a pilot.

Certainly you served well in your capacity, in your era....

Well thanks for admtting that. I served in the early 80's

I have about 20,000 hours total time (I stopped counting, just estimated after 15,000

So you have about as many hours as John Lear. Do you have all the certificates that he has?

[edit on 7-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


LOL! LOL!

So you have about as many hours as John Lear. Do you have all the certificates that he has?

No. LOL!!! But, of course I am not the famous son of a famous airplane (and other things) desiginer, now am I???

But, thank you for comparing me to Capt. Lear..(or, actually....DARN you for that!!!! )

Let me try this again...Captain John Lear, formerly the FMSE of ATS, and 'Conspiracy Master' of ATS, is certainly an accomplished individual. He IS IN THE record books!!!

I grant that. I acknowledge his PAST expertise, his ability to wish to DO something, to make a NAME for himself...he apparently felt a NEED to live UP to his NAME....

No doubt, is there, that his NAME lent him some oof the FUNDING to allow him to accomplish many of those feats????

Again, no disrespect intended....Capt Lear was a Check Airman at his (not a major airline)....again, no disrespect...but I have met quite MANY check airman at MY (MAJOR airline) that I have not been impressed with...most of them are in what we call 'management' (which means they are politically seeking a "higher office", outside of 'normal' flying duties...)

....OK...not "most" of them..."some" of them....but we can tell the 'good' ones from the '(bad-word)' ones...

Most of them are "just-like-us", doing their jobs, alternating between the desk duties and the occasional flying duties, (and enjoying a bump in salary, as a result)...ALL hoping to climb that Corparate ladder, though....some do it with honor and integrity, some don't...that is the differnece, and THOSE who are not honoroable get noticed, by us you fly the line. Some don't care, because THEY hope that management will see them for the 'suck-ups' that they are, and promote them....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Let me try this again...Captain John Lear, formerly the FMSE of ATS, and 'Conspiracy Master' of ATS, is certainly an accomplished individual. He IS IN THE record books!!!

I grant that. I acknowledge his PAST expertise, his ability to wish to DO something, to make a NAME for himself...he apparently felt a NEED to live UP to his NAME....

So you would agree then that he knows what he is talking about when comes to aviation?