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.

 

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 100
141
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Going back to that video, and focusing on the bogus "demonstration". Everyone, please watch the whole thing.

Any pilots in the audience will see it for the joke that it is, and how it was set-up to fail....by Rusty Aimer's "coaching" all the way. (If he had just SHUT UP, would have been far more interesting).

I want the non-pilots to watch very carefully, and compare to the ACTUAL profile ("profile" is a term to describe the ground track and flight path, and the airspeeds, altitudes, headings, pitch attitudes and bank angles....in a flowing manner, from start to end).

Compare the known profile from the American 77 DFDR, to what was shown in that nonsense "demonstration".

Complete fabrication, and disingenuous to the max.

Special bonus points if you non-pilots catch the moron Aimer in a lie....it has to do with "feeling" G-forces.



Oh, and an additional bonus if someone knows what kind of Sim that actually is, and where it's located. I will be watching closely, looking for clues (since I didn't see any credits for it).




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"Capt." Aimer is retired by now, as I understand. From AMERICAN AIRLINES.


Wrong again.

aviationexperts.com...

Click it weedwhacker. What type of uniform is that? Where is your picture in uniform?

If your credibility hasn't been thoroughly discredited by now, it certainly is... now.

I don't blame you for remaining here at ATS instead of confronting real pilots.
edit on 1-1-2011 by foxyakareheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Going back to that video, and focusing on the bogus "demonstration".


Replying to your own posts. Nice......



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by foxyakareheat
 


Yes, you're right. It's hard to keep the characters straight, there are some from United (and the checkered history, as Aimer has, and as is noted in his "bio"). WoW!!! Pretty unstable, for a "career" airline pilot!!!


Click it weedwhacker. What type of uniform is that?


So, Aimer ( I WAS correct, he's retired ), but from UAL, not AAL.....which one of the crockery spinners is from American, again? NVM, can look it up.....

SO...Aimer, ex RETIRED United. Yeah, that the UAL uniform....in the picture in THAT LINK!! But, in the Jesse Ventura video??


Nice try, to discredit me, but .... shoot yourself in the foot much?


Where is your picture in uniform?


Oh, you can't be serious?? Proves nothing.

For comparison, for laypersons (since really only other [pilots pay very close attention to the uniforms), here's a proper United Airlines Captain shirt, tie and epaulets example (sans uniform coat and hat):



STILL looks nothing like that get-up Aimer is wearing....stuff you can buy from just about any online Pilot Supply Store.

And, I know the stores where you can buy uniforms for any airline, too. THAT is where those of us who don't have generous uniform pieces replacement allowances built into our Union contracts purchase them.......


(PS....Aimer's history? Fascinating, I may be back with some commentary on that, glad to have seen how unstable he was.....)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by foxyakareheat
 


Yes, you're right. It's hard to keep the characters straight, there are some from United (and the checkered history, as Aimer has, and as is noted in his "bio"). WoW!!! Pretty unstable, for a "career" airline pilot!!!


Click it weedwhacker. What type of uniform is that?


So, Aimer ( I WAS correct, he's retired ), but from UAL, not AAL.....which one of the crockery spinners is from American, again? NVM, can look it up.....

SO...Aimer, ex RETIRED United. Yeah, that the UAL uniform....in the picture in THAT LINK!! But, in the Jesse Ventura video??


Nice try, to discredit me, but .... shoot yourself in the foot much?


Where is your picture in uniform?


Oh, you can't be serious?? Proves nothing.

For comparison, for laypersons (since really only other [pilots pay very close attention to the uniforms), here's a proper United Airlines Captain shirt, tie and epaulets example (sans uniform coat and hat):



STILL looks nothing like that get-up Aimer is wearing....stuff you can buy from just about any online Pilot Supply Store.

And, I know the stores where you can buy uniforms for any airline, too. THAT is where those of us who don't have generous uniform pieces replacement allowances built into our Union contracts purchase them.......


(PS....Aimer's history? Fascinating, I may be back with some commentary on that, glad to have seen how unstable he was.....)








Wow, weedwhacker claiming Rusty Aimer is a fake.

You have sunk to an all new low weedwhacker.

Weedwhacker, anytime you wish to confront Capt Rusty Aimer, his number is above at aviationexperts.com.

But i have a feeling you would rather remain here and libel him from your anonymous screename.

I'll be sure to let him know though. Maybe ATS mods might actually take a notice when a real United Airlines Capt exposes you as the fraud you are and the reason you never put your name behind your claims.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by foxyakareheat
 


Although yet another Rob Balsamo "agent" identity is banned, it is imperative to address the false accusations, and in doing so, illustrate the commonly-seen tactics that are pervasive from the side that represent the unsupportable claims, and twisted propaganda, that is part-and-parcel of the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" Modus Operandi....:


Wow, weedwhacker claiming Rusty Aimer is a fake.



Example #1. Taking everything I wrote, and then making up an entirely new meaning, and putting words in my mouth, so to speak.

A "fake"? The man himself? The uniform he chose to wear, for his "big moment" on the Jesse Ventura show...that was my criticism.


You have sunk to an all new low weedwhacker.


Quite. Quite.

Speaking of "lows".....what would be the best way to describe the FAKE and disingenuously presented "demonstration" that was featured on the Jesse Ventura show? Oh, right...you can't answer directly...not under that name, at any rate. Well, then I leave it as an open question, guess it's rhetorical, but out there for others to contemplate, as they decide for themselves the veracity and tactics of Ventura, Balsamo and Aimer......



Weedwhacker, anytime you wish to confront Capt Rusty Aimer, his number is above at aviationexperts.com.


Well, my new cell-phone plan just kicked in....I have plenty of minutes. Would LOVE to ream him a new place to sit.....I am guessing there is a line forming??



Maybe ATS mods might actually take a notice when a real United Airlines Capt exposes you as the fraud you are and the reason you never put your name behind your claims.


I repeat that for posterity.

And, for the benefit of the ATS Staff members who have worked at the same airline I did, and know all about me.

My contributions to this Forum stand on their own, to the limits of the ability to convey through a keyboard, in blog style.

Nearly two years ago, now, I had floated the suggestion that it would be useful, for ATS, to mount a video series (similar to some they've done previously, on topic of UFOs and such) involving some members, a full-motion Level D simulator, and a video camera.....it was thought to be "unnecessary", since the consensus really is that the "impossible maneuvers" BS is good and dead.

Seems that there are but a tiny handful who still cling to this ridiculous claim.....and many of them do so, apparently, based on having been fed FALSE "facts" about the circumstances of the flight profiles to begin with.

Instances like this crockery, as OP of this thread, are examples of the continued spreading of innuendo and nonsense.

The recent Jesse Ventura video merely repeats, in a manner that was calculated to "fail", so as to suggest those who perpetuate this baloney are "correct". It's all about their egos.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by foxyakareheatput your name behind your claims.


You won't find ONE single (sane) pilot willing to to identify him/herself in here, the loonie factor is just to high.

People have been stalked in the past.

Btw, weed is the real deal, you're not, get some help.

edit on 1-1-2011 by C46driver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by C46driver

You won't find ONE single (sane) pilot willing to to identify him/herself in here,


actually thats a lie. since Rob seems to be the only real pilot with the guts to do so.


Originally posted by C46driver
the loonie factor is just to high.


You got that right...as evidenced in this very thread by the many pseudo-pilots, loons and trolls (hint hint) pretending to have any real aviation knowledge whatsoever that refuse to address the facts and evidence and instead have chosen character assassination and discussing identities because they can't (hint hint)


Originally posted by C46driver
People have been stalked in the past.


another classic diversionary disinfo tactic


Originally posted by C46driver
Btw, weed is the real deal, you're not, get some help.

edit on 1-1-2011 by C46driver because: (no reason given)


So then you must a weedwacker sock?



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 



actually thats a lie. since Rob seems to be the only real pilot with the guts to do so.

Is there anyway to objectively test the sanity of this "Rob"?


You got that right...as evidenced in this very thread by the many pseudo-pilots, loons and trolls (hint hint) pretending to have any real aviation knowledge whatsoever that refuse to address the facts and evidence and instead have chosen character assassination and discussing identities because they can't (hint hint)

Sorry, but in lieu of any real facts or evidence or any coherent argument or theory then the only thing left to really examine is the so-called author. In this case we have a poster desparate to make some kind of case but not capable of doing anything more than cutting and pasting the same message over and over and over again. What is it called when you do the same thing over and over and over and expect different results?


another classic diversionary disinfo tactic

Yes, lets not let reality divert out attention from the exploration of fantasy.


So then you must a weedwacker sock?

Kettle and pot.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I apologise in advance for drifting off topic, but I'd like to voice some preliminary thoughts in terms of ATS politics and its membership policy:

(i) I don't know if Balsamo is creating new accounts here everytime he gets banned. But even if he is, then that does not count as sock puppeteering.

Sock puppets are a cheap tactic reserved for trolls who wish to garner false support for and from themselves using several different accounts concurrently. There is a distinction (although I suppose one could make the choice to ignore that distinction).

(ii) On the other hand, it seems to me that there are certain individuals who post here with effective immunity. This is a rather comfortable chair to be sitting in when leveling cheap accusations against people who happen to be repeating the same questions asked by Rob Balsamo. As far as I'm concerned, his questions are valid, and banning him or anyone who asked those same questions will not render them invalid. If my account is deleted for echoing Balsamo's concerns, then that is more of a reflection on ATS and its policy than it is on me.

Let's be honest - anyone can be dismissed from this forum on any number of technicalities, if the moderator is looking for an excuse. Conversely, infringements can be conveniently overlooked or justified if the offender is on favourable terms with the moderator.

In any case, the substance behind the argument is more important than the person behind the argument.

I appreciate Weedwhacker taking the time to respond to my post on page 91. In spite of his comments regarding engine thrust, airframe lifespan, fuel-efficiency and long range cruise scenarios, I remain unconvinced that the speeds achieved by UAL 175 were (i) at all usual or precedented under the documented conditions and (ii) do not warrant closer scrutiny.

The official safety parameters set by Boeing are clear. We can expect a standard issue 767-200 to survive speeds in excess of 360 knots at 700 feet only when all the necessary stars are in perfect alignment. Otherwise, we should consider 510 knots at 700 feet an anomaly which needs to be tested empirically, investigated carefully, and explained scientifically before we can dismiss it as a non-issue.

In my opinion, the standard of proof demanded by hooper in terms of an official supporting statement to this effect from Boeing is unrealistic. Boeing's silence on this issue is their chosen course of action (or inaction), and if MrHerbert had the clout or jurisdiction to forcefully extract a statement from Boeing, then he would have done it.

However, if hooper feels that Boeing's official position is at all different from what is indicated in their own safety guidelines, it seems to me that the onus is on HIM to prove THAT, and not for MrHerbert or anyone else to prove the opposite.

Still, Boeing's lack of transparency is itself cause for concern, although perhaps not altogether unexpected.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lachstockn2
I apologise in advance for drifting off topic, but I'd like to voice some preliminary thoughts in terms of ATS politics and its membership policy:

(i) I don't know if Balsamo is creating new accounts here everytime he gets banned. But even if he is, then that does not count as sock puppeteering.

Sock puppets are a cheap tactic reserved for trolls who wish to garner false support for and from themselves using several different accounts concurrently. There is a distinction (although I suppose one could make the choice to ignore that distinction).

(ii) On the other hand, it seems to me that there are certain individuals who post here with effective immunity. This is a rather comfortable chair to be sitting in when leveling cheap accusations against people who happen to be repeating the same questions asked by Rob Balsamo. As far as I'm concerned, his questions are valid, and banning him or anyone who asked those same questions will not render them invalid. If my account is deleted for echoing Balsamo's concerns, then that is more of a reflection on ATS and its policy than it is on me.

Let's be honest - anyone can be dismissed from this forum on any number of technicalities, if the moderator is looking for an excuse. Conversely, infringements can be conveniently overlooked or justified if the offender is on favourable terms with the moderator.

In any case, the substance behind the argument is more important than the person behind the argument.

I appreciate Weedwhacker taking the time to respond to my post on page 91. In spite of his comments regarding engine thrust, airframe lifespan, fuel-efficiency and long range cruise scenarios, I remain unconvinced that the speeds achieved by UAL 175 were (i) at all usual or precedented under the documented conditions and (ii) do not warrant closer scrutiny.

The official safety parameters set by Boeing are clear. We can expect a standard issue 767-200 to survive speeds in excess of 360 knots at 700 feet only when all the necessary stars are in perfect alignment. Otherwise, we should consider 510 knots at 700 feet an anomaly which needs to be tested empirically, investigated carefully, and explained scientifically before we can dismiss it as a non-issue.

In my opinion, the standard of proof demanded by hooper in terms of an official supporting statement to this effect from Boeing is unrealistic. Boeing's silence on this issue is their chosen course of action (or inaction), and if MrHerbert had the clout or jurisdiction to forcefully extract a statement from Boeing, then he would have done it.

However, if hooper feels that Boeing's official position is at all different from what is indicated in their own safety guidelines, it seems to me that the onus is on HIM to prove THAT, and not for MrHerbert or anyone else to prove the opposite.

Still, Boeing's lack of transparency is itself cause for concern, although perhaps not altogether unexpected.


well put together!
Thank you for your participation and content



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by lord9

Originally posted by C46driveractually thats a lie. since Rob seems to be the only real pilot with the guts to do so.


Hi mr Balsamo, how bout we set up a sim session in a Level D full motion B757/767?
I'm rated on both.

If you're interested, send me an PM



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by C46driver
 



Lord9 is the (un)famous capt. Balsamo.

OT: Do you fly the 46? Fly Joe's airplanes?

edit on 9-1-2011 by Ivar_Karlsen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by C46driver
 


Lord9 is the (un)famous capt. Balsamo.

OT: Do you fly the 46? Fly Joe's airplanes?

edit on 9-1-2011 by Ivar_Karlsen because: (no reason given)



I'm flattered i've been able to convince you i'm someone in a class of such excellence in aviation whose evidence and data has so elequently schooled all the pseudo-pilots in this thread and non-pilots like yourself who have yet to offer any intelligent arguments other than personal attacks and disinfo to disprove him after 100 pages... except i'm not; something i could prove if it was worth my time and not so pathetic of an issue.

but thank you anyway


Now how about addressing the evidence and presenting some of your own instead of focusing on who i'm am to hide the fact you can't.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

edit on 23-1-2011 by alien because: ...post removed - sock a/c banned...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
actually thats a lie. since Rob seems to be the only real pilot with the guts to do so.

Is there anyway to objectively test the sanity of this "Rob"?


why are you so concerned about Rob other than the obvious that he's schooled you and you've
been unable to disprove his evidence and arguments?
(oh and thats a rhetorical question in case you didn't see the sarcasm).

I think the ones that need to be tested though, are those who derail, obfuscate, focus posters
names, and post personal attacks rather than present intelligent arguments.

thats the true insanity in a forum supposedly designed to seek truth and discuss the facts and evidence.


Originally posted by hooper
in lieu of any real facts or evidence or any coherent argument or theory then the only thing left to really examine is the so-called author.


So then you're saying we should start examining you and others who have no facts or evidence to prove or disprove what you claim?


Originally posted by hooper
In this case we have a poster desparate to make some kind of case but not capable of doing anything more than cutting and pasting the same message over and over and over again.


Which is something people like you keep claiming but for some reason aren't able to offer any evidence to support it. And as one poster said:

the substance behind the argument is more important than the person behind the argument.


You can claim all you want til your blue in the face (as you've been doing) that the poster is desperate, and repeats his argument over and over in response to those ignoring his argument and evidence over and over, but the fact is unless you can disprove it with any evidence or argument, anything you claim is just that and makes anything you have to say on the subject, worthless. In which case, why are you here? If you have no evidence to prove your claims or disprove his claims, you're wasting bandwidth, employing classic disinfo tactics, and fitting the definition of trolling.


Originally posted by hooper
What is it called when you do the same thing over and over and over and expect different results?


So then you're admitting your posts and others who keep posting the same debunked questions over and over, are insane?

why won't you discuss what you claim is bs? If his argument is fallacious, why is it no one including you can show any evidence to support what you claim?


So then you must a weedwacker sock?
Kettle and pot.


so you don't deny it?

edit on 12-1-2011 by lord9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


I cannot help but notice that Warren Stutt, for a long time treated with respect at P4T, is now not very popular.

Is that because his research of AA 77's FDR, together with Frank Legge, has reached the obvious and inevitable conclusion that AA 77 impacted the Pentagon ? and CIT's flyover theory is dead ? not that it had much life prior.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


I do believe you have your "idol worship" priorities misapplied:


I'm flattered i've been able to convince you i'm someone in a class of such excellence in aviation whose evidence and data has so elequently schooled all the pseudo-pilots in this thread ...



The continued "evidence and data" that you refer to, as submitted by (if NOT "Rob Balsamo", is still the same style, manner and 'talking points' as professed by Mr. Balsamo's cliquish website, the "PilotsFor9/11Truth". The rhetoric seen there is exactly the same as was spammed, countless time, here. Oh, and it is disingenuously fallacious, and distorted).

The various "ATS usernames" that have returned, time and again, as "new" users, to only copy/paste the identical false claims and "information"? Each time the details have been picked apart, shown to be erroneous, and each time IGNORED by the various "individuals" who utilized those "ATS usernames."


I will refer you to several pages of exchange, when the "ATS user" TiffanyInLA --- several pages back --- with Forum Moderator defcon5, is clear evidence of the tactics employed by that "individual", using that "ATS username". Followed on by a litany of "copy-cats".......


It is also important to note.....the "P4T" website is a haven for the "same thinkers" only. In other words, toe their "party line" on nonsense and baloney, do not dare to offer up suggestions that conflict with their preconceived (erroneous) claims...or else, you are not welcome. Period. That site exists for one purpose, and one purpose only: To perpetuate and capitalize (read profit from) the continued ignorance and gross misinformation regarding the events of 9/11....and the disingenuous tactics of the "P4T" clique are unmistakable, to those of us with ACTUAL real-world airline and airplane experience. Notwithstanding the mere handful of others, such as "Rusty" Aimer, and "Rotten" Ralph Kolstad....only they know their personal motivations to distort the truth, and lie through their teeth at every turn.

Isn't it very telling that there are JUST a handful of those sorts?? Out of tens of THOUSANDS of real pilots --- who vehemently disagree with, and (in my case) are disgusted by their antics??



edit on 12 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


lord9 signed up on 12/21/10 has made 40+ posts all in this thread and one other no planer threads at the Pentagon.

Starphire signed up today and instantly jumps on the Balsamo Bangwagon. (a very small wagon!)

Rob is now talking to himself in here? Rob, I understand unemployment is tough on you, but dude you need help.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by lord9
 


lord9 signed up on 12/21/10 has made 40+ posts all in this thread and one other no planer threads at the Pentagon.

Starphire signed up today and instantly jumps on the Balsamo Bangwagon. (a very small wagon!)

Rob is now talking to himself in here? Rob, I understand unemployment is tough on you, but dude you need help.


your paranoia and desperation is getting worse and worse Sigma... I guess thats what happens when you've lost all arguments.


Yet another post that ignores mods warnings, evades the evidence thats proven the OS and plane theorists claims to be a lie, and parrots the same disinfo, ad homs and evasions that Weed and several others here repeat over and over to cover up the fact they've can't disprove the facts and evidence.

So If anyone appears to be using socks, its you... which can only mean that the likelyhood you're a sock of Weed and others or vice verse, is extremely high.

Because I and others defend, support or post their arguments and evidence, that proves i'm them?


Then by your own logic, you're admitting those who support the OS and attack the arguments from those against you, are SOCKS. 2 funny.

But again, if it was worth my time, i'd bother disproving what you claim... now since you CLAIM i'm Rob Balsamo and associated with him or p4t, why don't we set up a challenge to test your claims... I have no problem submitting to such a challenge about identities which you think is so important... failure to accept this challenge (which could be set up by mods), is by default an admission using this identity crusade of yours is nothing more than a diversion to cover up the fact you have no evidence to disprove the evidence Mr Balsamo and others have presented.

Got it Weed?



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 97  98  99    101  102  103 >>

log in

join