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: 107
141
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

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




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FrankBarone

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, being such an "expert" on flying, you dare to criticize what I, and other large jet airplane pilots have to say? Some cheek.....


"Weedwhacker", why would any reader here take you seriously when real pilots put their names, faces and credentials on the line for all to see?


Hey Rob

How come you didn't bother to use a 757 simulator for that trial? When the Dutch TV show showed that it was perfectly possible, you lot was all up in arms that they were using a 744 simulator, and that it wasn't accurate. So what do you do, when given the opportunity to recreate it on national TV? Only the exact same thing!

ETA: Oh dear, banned already

edit on 20-1-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Hey Rob

How come you didn't bother to use a 757 simulator for that trial?
That is an excellent question, roboe. Maybe the next time Capt. Bob signs up with one of his sock puppets he will answer that question.

Also, Capt. Bob, is that simulator really in someone's garage or am I hallucinating?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 





Also, Capt. Bob, is that simulator really in someone's garage or am I hallucinating?


Priceless!

Like I said, we have a brief glimpse of the "airport somewhere" as Jesse Vantura does his voice-over narration in the video, that clip from his TV show. Wow!!! What a load of MIS-information, throughout that crap piece!

Anyway, it DOES look like a sort of garage...but, they infer it's at an airport....so< if I hold my nose I can watch the glimpses, see if I can figure out which airport.

"Rusty" Aimer has a business now, that he operates in retirement. It's an "aviation consulting" gig! Funny, to me...a guy who makes such claims, who should know better. Seems it would be detrimental to his reputation, and affect his business? Go figure.

Checking the site's home page, has a '619' area code...so, the San Diego area. (But, may be a cell phone, who knows??). When I first watched the clip, I thought of Lindburgh Field, in San Diego....just because of the area code, but not sure the skyline matches.

Since the clip shows a biz jet landing, and not an airliner, then I'll hunt around the vicinity for a match.

BTW, might be interesting to check out the CV of that guy, "Daniel"...the so-called "investigator"...where did HE come from??


edit on 20 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"Rusty" Aimer has a business now, that he operates in retirement. It's an "aviation consulting" gig! Funny, to me...a guy who makes such claims, who should know better. Seems it would be detrimental to his reputation, and affect his business? Go figure.

Ah, but does he?

www.aviationexperts.com...

All of the sudden, Rusty isn't listed on that site anymore. I guess "they" got to Aviation Experts, eh?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FrankBarone
 


simulation recreation?, i could buy a copy of a desktop simulator and show it better that this, also the guy that they had speak to Rusty, what a tube, can't you not show your utter disbelief at the lies being blown out of this guys back end better than you did?, you facial expression looks like he touched you on your ass lol.

Well weed didnt look like a D sim to me, how about you?
, looks like a couple of grand in garage somewhere
any luck finding this airfield? also this is a four engine jet, you see the four throttle leavers in his hand, funnily enough there didnt seen to be a reverse thrust pull leavers on the control, cheap set maybe ?

I can't believe these guys are still being listened to as experts in the field, what a joke. if he can't show someone with basic flight knowledge how to turn a 57 round and point it at a chosen target then hit it, he must not be much of a "Capitan" if you cant turn the aircraft and bring it towards a target, how the hell has he landed an aircraft in the past?.

Wee Mad
edit on 20/1/2011 by weemadmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FrankBarone
I would put my name on my claims here, but ATS mods keep banning my account or others you rat on who you claim are "Rob Balsamo". Perhaps it has something to do with your donations to ATS?


Claim? "Claim"??? If your idea was to obtain immortality on the interweebs by becoming the laughing stock of the digital age, you have certainly reached that lofty goal. Behold...the Truther who was so obsessed with an internet talk forum that he made 20 (and counting) sock puppets, each one banned, one after the other, because of his obnoxious web presence and his penchant for lying about things such as there are many members of the Airline Pilots Association who are members of P4T - a blatant and outright lie - and his curious penchant for wanting to continually display his aviation ignorance all over the web - namely, his claim that a radar can only track a target based on what has been put into a flight plan.

My aching side and body! See you on your next sock - for a post or two.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



namely, his claim that a radar can only track a target based on what has been put into a flight plan.

My aching side and body! See you on your next sock - for a post or two.


But didn't they LOSE contact with some of these planes for quite a while?
I heard 28 minutes mentioned about one..
If true, it says a lot about the quality of the US radar system..



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



BTW, might be interesting to check out the CV of that guy, "Daniel"...the so-called "investigator"...where did HE come from??


Odd that you ask for a CV as if that shows someone to be competent, yet we are supposed to believe your expert remarks while knowing nothing of your past has been proven.
You could be a hairdresser for all I know...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

But didn't they LOSE contact with some of these planes for quite a while?
I heard 28 minutes mentioned about one..
If true, it says a lot about the quality of the US radar system..



8 minutes and 13 seconds to be exact. From 8:56 and 9:05. In part it was to do with poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying. Weedwacker will know more on that.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by trebor451
 



namely, his claim that a radar can only track a target based on what has been put into a flight plan.

My aching side and body! See you on your next sock - for a post or two.


But didn't they LOSE contact with some of these planes for quite a while?
I heard 28 minutes mentioned about one..
If true, it says a lot about the quality of the US radar system..



Yes and your comment has absolutely nothing to do with Balsamo's idiotic and completely false claim that "a radar can only track a target based on what has been put into a flight plan."

Six Sigma's post about primary radar coverage and where exactly the aircraft was in regards to location and altitude explains why radar was lost on this aircraft for that short period of time.



edit on 20-1-2011 by trebor451 because: formatting and clarity



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



Yes and your comment has absolutely nothing to do with Balsamo's idiotic and completely false claim that "a radar can only track a target based on what has been put into a flight plan."


My comment is what it is, a statement..
You'd have to show me where anyone stated "a radar can only track a target based on what has been put into a flight plan."

That would obviously be a stupid statement as I don't think enemy aircraft, that I KNOW we can track on radar, would first lodge a flight plan.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

You'd have to show me where anyone stated "a radar can only track a target based on what has been put into a flight plan."

That would obviously be a stupid statement as I don't think enemy aircraft, that I KNOW we can track on radar, would first lodge a flight plan.


You got it! Posted by Balsamo's "TiffanyinLA" persona in this post:


Originally posted by TiffanyinLA]
Does radar positive identify an aircraft as a standard 767?

No, it only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan.


As far as your claim "That would obviously be a stupid statement..." is bang on with regards to Balsamo and his frequent visits here with his Sock du Jour.
edit on 20-1-2011 by trebor451 because: formatting



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I must confess.....ON this topic, with so much that has transpired, in the thread....

....it...may be confusing to some readers who will visit, at this point....or, at any of the many other spots where they may dip in, and start to read....

..AND, may seem, at first glance, to have become a "mud pit" of sorts...a type of arena where "He said/She said" was the order of the day.

Yes...at times, yes. That did occur. As many may note, if many tend to wander away from the (sometimes) heated discussions in these threads....this is not a " new " occurrence.

"debates" ???

What does that mean, exactly? It's a tough "row to hoe", as the saying goes.....and there are references to that phrases' origins....not all are pretty, be warned...but, I digress....

I opened this post with, I admit, a "teaser" statement...to wit: "I must confess"....

...well, my "confession" is borne upon the evidence... (still in ATS database, nothing altered...except when I "crossed the line" and got slapped, as appropriate)...ALL of my posts (except as noted) are there...and, even if I have been misinterpreted at times, and my attempt to correct were "removed" (see last refernce)...I understand why, for the 'greater good' ....which IS, for any to read this in years to come: The continuing striving for civlity and decorum, in discussion and debate.

AS TO the reference?? Again, I am very firm in my stance and confidence, based on my experience. I hold the opinion....with the same fortitude that ANYONE also holds his/her opinion.....but, facts will always trump opinion, every time.......


Finally...this is not the final definition...of "anything"....just doesn't work that way. Discussion WILL follow, no matter what has come before.....take it upon oneself to read, digest, and spurt out the crap!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by backinblack

You'd have to show me where anyone stated "a radar can only track a target based on what has been put into a flight plan."

That would obviously be a stupid statement as I don't think enemy aircraft, that I KNOW we can track on radar, would first lodge a flight plan.


You got it! Posted by Balsamo's "TiffanyinLA" persona in this post:


Originally posted by TiffanyinLA]
Does radar positive identify an aircraft as a standard 767?

No, it only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan.


As far as your claim "That would obviously be a stupid statement..." is bang on with regards to Balsamo and his frequent visits here with his Sock du Jour.
edit on 20-1-2011 by trebor451 because: formatting


Are you kidding me?????
You CAN read I hope...
That statement does NOT say the plane couldn't be tracked on radar..
It merely states the radar could NOT identify the plane as a 767..
Freakin heck, way to twist a sentence mate..

edit on 21-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



I must confess.....ON this topic, with so much that has transpired, in the thread....


WW, was that post meant to tell us something??
If so, I didn't get the memo...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Are you kidding me?????
You CAN read I hope...
That statement does NOT say the plane couldn't be tracked on radar..
It merely states the radar could NOT identify the plane as a 767..
Freakin heck, way to twist a sentence mate..

edit on 21-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


Freakin' heck, mate! Why don't YOU tell us what sort of radar system needs a "flight plan input" to "track a target"?

I don't want to get into a basic primer on radar operation, but basically it sends out electronic waves and receives those waves back after being reflected by the target (this is a simple pulse-generated radar system. Doppler or X-band or other types operate differently, but NONE of them need a "flight plan input" to track a target.

BUT...if you want to hitch your aeronautical wagon to the latest sock of someone who claims there needs to be a "flight plan input" in order to "track a target", go right ahead.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



Freakin' heck, mate! Why don't YOU tell us what sort of radar system needs a "flight plan input" to "track a target"?

The real question is, what kind of text book do YOU need to understand the English language.!!!

He didn't mention "tracking" a target...
It was "identifying" the "target" as a particular type of aircraft that he said radar couldn't do...



new topics




 
141
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join