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: 108
141
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

He didn't mention "tracking" a target...


I'm not certain what your native language is, but here is Balsamo's direct quote:


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


I'll ask you again - what sort of radar needs information from a flight pan to TRACK a trarget?


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


Go read, again, Balsamo's comment and tell me what sort of radar needs information from ANY sort of flight plan in order to track it.

This is the last I will talk about this particular item. Balsamo's comment about a radar needing "flight plan information" in order for it to b e"tracked" is about as stupid as the number of fake accounts he keeps signing in on here and if you choose to afford some legitimacy to his lunacy, feel free.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by backinblack

He didn't mention "tracking" a target...


I'm not certain what your native language is, but here is Balsamo's direct quote:


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


I'll ask you again - what sort of radar needs information from a flight pan to TRACK a trarget?


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


Go read, again, Balsamo's comment and tell me what sort of radar needs information from ANY sort of flight plan in order to track it.

This is the last I will talk about this particular item. Balsamo's comment about a radar needing "flight plan information" in order for it to b e"tracked" is about as stupid as the number of fake accounts he keeps signing in on here and if you choose to afford some legitimacy to his lunacy, feel free.


if radar requires a flight plan imagine all of those rouge states that must be compliant with the FAA and other powers to file a flight plan so our jet fighters can find and track their aircraft?, can you imagine during WW2 the Luftwaffe and the RAF filing all of those flight plans for their bombing raids, just so the fighters could find the bombers, give it up Rob and crawl back under the rock

Wee Mad



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by backinblack

He didn't mention "tracking" a target...


I'm not certain what your native language is, but here is Balsamo's direct quote:


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


I'll ask you again - what sort of radar needs information from a flight pan to TRACK a trarget?


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


Go read, again, Balsamo's comment and tell me what sort of radar needs information from ANY sort of flight plan in order to track it.

This is the last I will talk about this particular item. Balsamo's comment about a radar needing "flight plan information" in order for it to b e"tracked" is about as stupid as the number of fake accounts he keeps signing in on here and if you choose to afford some legitimacy to his lunacy, feel free.


Posting only part of the quote is missleading..
Wether thats due to your genuine missunderstanding or a deliberate attempt at discrediting the poster is another question..

This is what YOU posted as your proof..

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.


It is CLEARLY referring to the ability of the radar to identify the type of plane it IS tracking...

Get that??? IS TRACKING !!!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey Weedwhacker..
In relation to this high speed pass.


I emailed the NZDF site and recieved a reply...

During that pass the Boeing is travelling at 350kts. I hope this settles your debate.

Regards
Anna

Anna Sussmilch l Senior Communications Adviser, Air Force Q
Defence Communications Group

DDI: 04 496 0286 l Mobile: 021 676 338 l DTeIN: (349) 7286
NZDF website: Click here l DCG intranet site: Click here


Yes it was quite high speed but also didn't excede VMO..
So I guess it really answers nothing, though was a good show



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 



....not to mention how many times you and your socks here keep lying and calling the MARK on the graph is "made up" by RB.



But, you see...IT WAS!!! "RB" (Balsamo) merely grabbed an image from the "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge" (as I have pointed out, already in this thread). He used it inaccurately, I might add...(since the Vg diagram, as used in that book's example, is considered only appropriate for smaller, NON-Transport Category airplanes). Part 25 certification standards and depections of airplane limitations are very different, for larger airplanes.

You see, this is why REAL airline pilots just laugh at him...and his socks.

Here, it's about time to settle this...."RB" and his antics are tiresome:


Part 25 aircraft are also required to have design enhancements that allow continued safe flight after certain structural failures that would make a Part 23 aircraft unairworthy. G-loading tolerances are just one of the differences between the two aircraft design standards.


www.stickandthrottle.com...

Not sure if you are a pilot, or not. But, rather than hanging your hat on what "RB", and any of his "merry men" say, might wish to actually scout around and learn a few things.



Add in the rest of the anti-RB sock parade's refusal to respond to simple questions, inability to to countenance the implications of their argument and outright lies.


Oh, so you agree about all of the "RB" socks, then? Well...he even admitted it himself...not sure if it was in this thread, though. I'll try to find....

...oh, and that's quite the "claim", up above. Care to support it with evidence? Of anyone responding to "RB" with "outright lies"? Seems, if I recall, it was BALSAMO who claimed that many ALPA officers were members at his little club......forget about that whopper??



.... lack of an intelligent counter-argument.


??? "lack"?? This thread is chock full of intelligent, reason and undeniable facts in counter to Balsamo's bogus nonsense....and NOT ONCE did he reply in any other way, except to just re-post his same spam (canned) responses.



... all neutral readers can see and understand why.


Indeed....I am certain they can.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


where about on this youtube video shows a "power" dive ? they seem all consistent ?

Wee Mad



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 



Not ONCE have you properly responded to his challenges or refuted the evidence thats been presented with anything other than your opinion and claims its wrong.


I (and many others) have answered Balsamo countless times. HE won't engage back....doesn't alter his tactics, keeps posting the same ALREADY PROVEN WRONG claptrap.

Others have taken enverything posted by Balsamo, and shown in multiple ways, with different posts and refernces, why his assertionsa are flawed...and his response?

Yup, you guessed it. The same spam, over and over.


Tens and tens of thousands of airline pilots, all over the world....and I don't see them running to break dwn the doors, and join his little "club". Sorry, but that entire site is an aberration, and a pox on "truth". Other words, a JOKE.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


Are you truly unable to see for yourself, to grasp it, to comprehend?

I can't remember if you answered or not...about whether you are a pilot at all, and if so , how much experience?


So PLEASE EXPLAIN THE VIDEO THAT SHOWS A STEEP POWER DIVE THEN.

You can't have it both ways,,, ALL VIDEO RECORDS MUST show a consistent flight path and trajectory.


They do all show a consistent path and trajectory. For the segments of the path and trajectory that are covered within the various cameras' fields-of-view.

Where did you get the idea that the so-called "steep power dive", as you wrote it, would be included in those (mostly) tight shots of the approaching jet?? Have you seen the other wider shot, from the angle that shows a longer time frame, as the airplne approached? It is clearly descending, as it enters the frame, and grows large enough to become visible, in the scene, as camera recorded it. It levelled a bit, was only in a VERY gradual descent for the last moments...as indicated in that compilation of other angles, the very final moments before impact.

It is SO obvious, can't believe anyone has to actually write it down, to explain it.....




FACT is they don't just like the rest of the OS lie you blindly support... you know it, i know it, and the world thats analyzed all the fake footage knows it.


Oh, how hilarious!! What a claim. "fake" footage??


Yes, I have seen it all over the news, all the confirmed, solid evidenc of "faked" footage! Such an uproar of anger!
What outrage!

Oh, wait...no, actually...because there is NOTHING Inconsistent!! (except in the fevered imaginations of a few "TM" sites, still......and they are reviled by the OTHER "TM" people. Love, love the infighting!!! Makes for a good show!!)



edit on 22 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Oh, wait...no, actually...because there is NOTHING Inconsistent!! (except in the fevered imaginations of a few "TM" sites, still......and they are reviled by the OTHER "TM" people. Love, love the infighting!!! Makes for a good show!!)


You know what Weedwhacker, one thing that is a proven FACT is that people who NOW believe the Government version of events on 9.11 are well and trully in the minority..

The amount of people both in the US and other countries that are questioning the events are that day are growing rapidly..

The truth MUST come out...
I wonder what your type will have to say when it does...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


NO....again, you aren't understanding.....what you are referring to are the numerous (slanted and usually vaguely worded) polls and surveys?? Read the questions they ask...then re-evaluate what you wrote:


.....one thing that is a proven FACT is that people who NOW believe the Government version of events on 9.11 are well and trully in the minority..


SEE if any of those polls ask specific quiestions, such as "inside job", and crap like that......

The only "government version" of events that has people sensing a "cover-up" is due to what I HAVE MENTIONED dozens of times before.....it is the twisting and evasion of the events that LED UP to that day.

It is very simple.....once it had happened, the inevitable finger-pointing started. And eveyone even remotely involved immediately began to find ways to cover their butts.....thousands of different ways.

THAT is the whole of it....people who knew that, for many and varied reasons, they FAILED big time, wanted to make sure the taint of that failure fell on someone, anyone OTHER than them.

The inter-agency rivalry is unacceptable, and those people (with their egos, and hubris, and petty squabbles and personal vendettas and self-aggrandizment attitudes) KNOW that if the details of how incompetent, and schizophrenic the various Intel agencies were, it would reflect poorly on them individually.

CIA, FBI, NSA, etc etc.......they were all dysfuctional, especially in dealing with each other. "Turf Wars", that sort of thing.

THERE...that is your "conspiracy"....and, it is going to be a lot more difficult to unravel allof those details. There is, though, NOTHING to indicate any internal "collusion", in the sense that so, so many moronic so-called "truth" sites try to claim.


They dropped the ball....and, WHEN faced with the actual reality, those (also in the "government") made a valiant, valiant effort....much is just not known, nor understood....by the majority of "truthers"...because they don't read much beyond their computer screens.

There are many, many books that, when all read together, help to give a feel for the incredible ways that people adapted to a very confusing, complicated and fast-changing situation. AN unheard-of situation.

I think one of the best ones, chronicaling the aviation aspect, to include NORAD's response, is "Touching History", by author (and airline pilot) Lynn Spencer.

How many actual books have any so-called "truthers" read, besides the tripe that only supports their delusions??

Another that describes the WTC is "102 minutes"...Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn......


edit on 22 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join