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: 15
141
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I am continually amazed that someone would think that the same rhetoric that has gone nowhere in the last nine years is now all of a sudden going to start a revolution. But you never know. There's one born every minute, right?




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(snipped long rants)


1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.


Been over this countless times --- YES it does.


And yet weedwhacker provides no sources for his claims.

weedwhacker, please show us how the data provided by the NTSB = impact when the last altitude is 480' MSL 1 second prior to the "impact time" calculated by the NTSB as 09:37:45, and the Pentagon only get's up to 77' MSL.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You want proof - got the best "parts numbers" proof you can get


You do? Really?

Wow, great! Post the list.

Where did you get data? Seems you didn't read this link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I'll assume those are the craft involved in flights 11 and 175.


So, "assumptions" are good enough for War? Killing innocent civilians? Babies? Patriots Act? Military Commissions Act? etc etc?

tons of people disagree with you.

Click here

patriotsquestion911.com...

Thank you for letting us know that all your "evidence" is based on a logical fallacy of "it has to be true what the govt told me, because it hasn't been proven false", and assumption.

Hooper, do you still believe in Santa Claus because no one has been able to prove he does not exist?





[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   


Please provide proof that the damage at the WTC was caused by N612UA and N334AA


Debris from N612UA





N612UA




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



You do? Really?

Wow, great! Post the list.

Where did you get data? Seems you didn't read this link.


Hey - nice quote mining there!! Could've sworn there was more to that sentence when I wrote it. But I'm not suprised, kind of par for the course for the folks from cit and Pffft. By the way - what's your goal for hits over at Pffft? I can't help but notice you always provide a nice little link, maybe next time do a little cut and paste so people don't have to wonder all over the internet - but then how else you going to get your spam out there.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Do these people don't have such ability? (note the bold)


I don't know becuase other than flaunting their credentials, they says absolutely nothing else. If these people genuinely are involved in investigations into crash site forensics, then their positions entitle them to have access to exactly this information. Did they ever actually bother to ask or are they simply whining that noone gave it to them on a silver platter?

I'm also noticing all of these people are military and /or retired investigators. Is it always standard practice to allow military investigators to review civilian crash data or retired personnel to have access to material pertinent to current investigations, or are they simply highlighting this one individual instance out of all the cases where they're not allowed to see any more information? Serial numbers aren't anything they hand out on the internet like cookie recipes, you know.

I don't know and they're not here for me to ask, but since you're here, I'll ask you.


Please quote where I claimed "all witnesses are disinformation agents".


In your rebuttal to my statement that hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon, you posted a link to someone stating (and I quote) "Some witnesses are genuine and some are not. Some are real people with real lives who were confused and convinced by the attacks in New York while some are deep cover opertives or assets implicitly planting bogus information to make us chase our tails or delicately dancing between ambigous statements."

If this isn't what you subscribe to then why are you using such paranoid drivel as a resource?


The rest of your post is typical information overload and off topic.


The "rest of my post" is an easily verifiable eyewitness acount who specifically saw the plane impact the Pentagon, which makes your "the planes could't have hit the Pentagon" claims toothless, particulay since they were there and you weren't. That certainly sounds relevent to me.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne


Debris from N612UA




You're kidding, right?

A picture from photobucket account with some stripes on a mangled piece of metal = N612UA?

Is it evidence of a standard 767? - No.

But, if that convinces you as positive identification for N612UA, I guess everyone has their standards before they will accept what the govt has told them.

I'm afraid numerous Highly Trained Aircraft Accident Investigators are gonna need more than that.

By the way, what is your original source for those photos?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



So, "assumptions" are good enough for War? Killing innocent civilians? Babies? Patriots Act? Military Commissions Act? etc etc?


The "assumption" I made was that the aircraft ID numbers that YOU stated were the aircraft involved in flight 11 and 175. I was assuming YOU weren't lying about the ID numbers, you right, poor assumption on my part.


tons of people disagree with you.


But even tons more agree with me. I'll stick with them.


Click here


No thank you.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I don't know becuase other than flaunting their credentials, they says absolutely nothing else. If these people genuinely are involved in investigations into crash site forensics, then their positions entitle them to have access to exactly this information. Did they ever actually bother to ask or are they simply whining that noone gave it to them on a silver platter?




They have said plenty, you just haven't looked.

Latas has been interviewed many times and has given several presentations.

Nelson wrote many articles and has given many interviews.

Harley is a journalist and instructs Aircraft Accident Investigation at one of the worlds premier aviation Universities.

The list goes on....

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have contacted the FBI and the NTSB. They refuse to provide information which could support OS, such as parts, videos from the Pentagon, etc. The data/information they have provided, conflicts with their story. They refuse to comment.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



I'm afraid numerous Highly Trained Aircraft Accident Investigators are gonna need more than that.


Hey - by the way - exactly what is that "numerous" you keep refering to? 1? 3? 6? 10? Out of what - 20,000?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Pilots For 9/11 Truth have contacted the FBI and the NTSB. They refuse to provide information which could support OS, such as parts, videos from the Pentagon, etc.


So they refused to send you things that don't exist, huh? How dare they! By the way, did you notice how I quoted your entire sentence? Its really easy and not quite as deceptive. Now, if you want to quote just part of a sentence but still try to play fair than try some of these..... That will tell the audience that there is more to the statement should they want to go check.


The data/information they have provided, conflicts with their story. They refuse to comment.


They refuse to comment to what? You're baseless accusations of lying? Im shocked, I tell you, just shocked!!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
But even tons more agree with me. I'll stick with them.


The polls prove you wrong..

Only 16% seem to be on your side..

Click

furthermore, you have not one verified pilot on your side claiming aircraft control was possible or "easy" at the speeds reported for the reported hijackers and the reported standard aircraft.

Precedent, Boeing and data also prove you wrong.


Click here



No thank you.



Ignorance is bliss I suppose.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper



Pilots For 9/11 Truth have contacted the FBI and the NTSB. They refuse to provide information which could support OS, such as parts, videos from the Pentagon, etc.


So they refused to send you things that don't exist, huh?


Aircraft parts did not exist at the Pentagon nor the WTC sites?

I think you may find many that disagree with you.

Again Hooper, can you please provide positive identification for an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was controllable?

Are you willing to do it?

Why do you, weedwacker, trebor, et al continually avoid these questions?

Remember, logical fallacies do';t count in the real world, again - unless of course you think Santa Claus still brings people of the world presents in one night of the year because no one has proven it wrong and NORAD has tracked him.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



The polls prove you wrong..

Only 16% seem to be on your side..


Lets call this response 1B. Polls that indicate people may think someone in that administration might have been engaged in a little C.Y.A. does not indicate popular support for conspiracy fantasies. Think I'm wrong - call the press - if you're right they'll have to jump all over your ground breaking revelations. Go ahead. Simply email them your links. If 84% of Americans think no plane hit the Pentagon then this will be a slam dunk. Can't wait for the press conference - what will you be wearing?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



furthermore, you have not one verified pilot on your side claiming aircraft control was possible or "easy" at the speeds reported for the reported hijackers and the reported standard aircraft.

Precedent, Boeing and data also prove you wrong.


Oh, now its possible or easy? How much do those goalposts weigh? Funny, I got the NTSB saying that's how fast the plane was going and that the plane hit the building. I'll stick with those guys - and by the way - Boening doesn't agree with you.


Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


No, spam is annoying.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Think I'm wrong - call the press - if you're right they'll have to jump all over your ground breaking revelations.


Please quote my "ground breaking revelations".

Thanks.

As for the "press", why have they promoted an animation of the Pentagon Attack fabricated by a DOD contractor which wasn't based on any flight data whatsoever, yet ignored the animation provided by the National Transportation Safety Board?

Here's a hint -



t almost goes without saying that when a major aviation accident occurs, just the fact that "Black Box" data has been released to the public makes mainstream news, not to mention content and analysis. Recently, the Flight Data Recorder information claimed to be from American 77 (AA77, Pentagon) and United 93 (UA93, Shanksville, PA) has been released to the public via the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). Mainstream Media (and some alternative media) has not reported even the release of this information for such a high profile event. Why? It is interesting to note, CNN has reported an animation made by an independent researcher regarding the events at the Pentagon. The animation supports the government story of an aircraft impact with the pentagon. However, it is not based on any flight data. Why does CNN/Mainstream Media cover an animation based on zero flight data, but does not cover even the release of government provided flight data or the animation constructed and released by The National Transportation Safety Board? Perhaps someone doesn't want to raise curiosity of the content?

Read more here -
Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Aircraft parts did not exist at the Pentagon nor the WTC sites?

I think you may find many that disagree with you.


No, I was responding to the section that was bold[.b], the non-existant videos from the Pentagon. But you know that. You are starting to look a little silly dodging and evading.


Again Hooper, can you please provide positive identification for an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was controllable?


Flight 11. Proven. Hands down. The burden is on you now to prove it didn't hit the building, nobody died onboard and that it was anything other than a standard plane. The burden is yours. Go for it! Put that legion of aviation experts over at Pffft to work. Write the paper, do the calculations, organize the scenario. I'll be waiting.


Remember, logical fallacies do';t count in the real world, again - unless of course you think Santa Claus still brings people of the world presents in one night of the year because no one has proven it wrong and NORAD has tracked him


In the real world 9/11 is settled. Don't believe me, check for your self.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


So, again, if, as you contend 84% of Americans think 9/11 was this great big magic show put on by the US Gov't then why isn't the press, any press, all over this - is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you are slightly misjudging the public sentiment re: your fantasies?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, I was responding to the section that was bold[.b], the non-existant videos from the Pentagon. But you know that. You are starting to look a little silly dodging and evading.



The Suppression of Video Footage of the Pentagon Attack

(snip)
# January 26, 2005: The DOD advises Judicial Watch, Inc. that it possesses a videotape responsive to the December 15, 2004 request but declines to produce the videotape, citing U.S.C 552(b)(7)(A).
# March 8, 2005: Bingham's attorney files a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stating that the FBI is in violation of the FOIA for "failing to adequately respond to plaintiff's FOIA request, including failing to adequately search for and release records that the plaintiff believes the agency is in possession of, and for failing to timely respond to the plaintiff's administrative appeal."
# April 18, 2005: The DOJ files a response to Bingham's March 8 lawsuit denying the plaintiff's request and asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
# April 19, 2005: District Judge Paul L. Friedman orders the defendants to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the case brought by Bingham on or before June 21, 2005.
# June 10, 2005: The DOD denies Judicial Watch's administrative appeal, claiming that the video is exempt as part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.
# August 1, 2005: Jeffrey D. Kahn, an attorney for the DOJ's Civil Division files a 23-page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Scans of the document are posted on Flight77.info.
# August 29, 2005: Hodes files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and a STATEMENT OF FACT ON WHICH THERE EXIST A GENUINE ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED in response to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment.
# September 9, 2005: Kahn files a REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
# September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.
# September 26, 2005: Hodes files a request seeking "copies of 85 videotapes in the possession of the FBI described in the declaration of Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire dated September 7, 2005.


More here -
911research.wtc7.net...



Again Hooper, can you please provide positive identification for an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was controllable?


Flight 11. Proven. Hands down.


The REPORTED "Flight 11" speed data is only 65 knots over Vmo, not 150. Do your research.

Hooper, you don't even know which aircraft go with which set of data.


(and just saying a flight number on ATS is not "positive identification")

How old are you hooper if you don't mind me asking? Just curious if I'm was arguing with a 15 yr old.

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


So, again, if, as you contend 84% of Americans think 9/11 was this great big magic show put on by the US Gov't then why isn't the press, any press, all over this - is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you are slightly misjudging the public sentiment re: your fantasies?


Please quote where I contend "84% of Americans think 9/11 was this great big magic show put on by the US Gov't".

Thanks.

What I did say is that only 16% are on your side. 16% blindly believe the govt story. Even less spend their days and nights on the computer defending it, as do you.

Zero percent of verified pilots support your claim that aircraft are "easily" controlled at 150 knots over Vmo.

The rest of us want answers.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join