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: 47
141
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787...This fighter jet -not Flight 77- is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen making a steep, high-speed 270-degree descent before disappearing from the radar. [When a plane flies low enough to go undetected, it is said to be "under the radar."] Military pilots -like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to report on the Pentagon’s damage- are trained to fly 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 270-degree maneuver on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was...


The ATCO at DCA specifically stated

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

Note the last two words. Given that Hani Hanjours mission was to fly a plane into the Pentagon, I don't think flying safely was of any particular concern to him.




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

The ATCO at DCA specifically stated

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

Note the last two words. Given that Hani Hanjours mission was to fly a plane into the Pentagon, I don't think flying safely was of any particular concern to him.


That specific point has been one of the biggest illogical fallacies (phrase used on purpose) of the Truther world and it demonstrates better than anything that they really don't understand what went on that day. Tiffany and Captain Bob Balsamo will go blue in the face quoting speed restrictions and speed limits and structural limitations and all when a hijacker, bent on crashing an aircraft into a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper (something the Pilots club say they couldn't do) would care less about speed restrictions and speed limits and structural limitations. Expecting Hani and Atta and the others to adhere to Boeing speed restrictions is really absurd and, again, is one of the best indications that these Truthers, both aeronautical and otherwise, don't really understand the events of the day.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787

the militay were remote contrlled.
where did the real passengers on the real jets disappear to?



Take this up with Captain Bob Balsamo and Tiffany. They are the ones who claim the incredibly talented and experienced and bajillion-flight-hour pilots of their club couldn't even hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper with a 767.

If they couldn't do it with their awe-inspiring qualifications and credentials and pilot skills, explain how a "remote controlled" aircraft could hit such an impossible-to-hit target?

Captain Bob Balsamo and Tiffany should be well versed in answering your question since he is indeed a radio-control model aircraft pilot and she parrots everything he says, to the letter.


edit on 22-9-2010 by trebor451 because: accuracy



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 



The 270 degree descending turn was a fighter pilot at 937.


Well, certainly it's possible that one of the scrambled fighters made some sort of "270-degree turn" at some point during that day, maybe even somewhere near the Pentagon AFTER it arrived (well after American 77 had impacted at, as you said, 09:37).

Problem for your "logic" and your scenarios is, that it's wrong. Flat wrong.

AAL 77 was tracked as it approached, and was only positively tagged (they gave it, the primary target that was spotted, the tag "LOOK" to identify it on radar screens). It was ~4 minutes from impact when found on radar. Remember, the transponder was "off" (really, there is no "off"...it is a setting labelled "Standby").

This was American 77, seen to fly that approach towards the Pentagon, then the descending (somewhat more than) 270-degree turn to the right, to follow with what apparently was a line-up with Columbia Pike (major thoroughfare in DC suburbs, in Arlington and Falls Church, Virginia) which co-incidentally is directly in line with the impact on the side of the Pentagon that was hit.

Further, there is the Minnesota ANG crew in their C-130 that had just departed from Andrews AFB, and were in position during their departure procedure to actually SEE American 77, when asked to look for it by ATC. (Washington TRACON, commonly called "departure control" in parlance...when departing. "Approach control" when arriving).

Finally, all one has to do is watch the NTSB recreation video of taken from AAL 77's DFDR information to see the actual bank angles, heading changes, pitch attitudes and airspeed during the entire final sequence up to the end of recording.

I watch it, and see NOTHING unusual in terms of airplane attitudes, nor airspeed. During the turn. Never anything steeper than 45 degrees (something you are unlikely to ever experience as a passenger on a normal airline flight. We are tasked with never exceeding 30 degrees of bank...modern airplanes "nag" us with automated warnings when we reach 35 degrees....and 25 is considered "maximum" for normal operations, for passenger comfort reasons).

The airspeed in the descending turn is normal, with exception that in US airspace 250 knots is the legal "maximum" airspeed below 10,000 feet (unless aircraft weight is such that the minimum "clean wing" speed is higher....few airplanes qualify in that regard). So, seeing those speeds (between 280-310 kts) in a 30 degree descending turn? Perfectly normal. In fact, when operating outside the 12-mile limit, even IF below 10,000 feet the 250 knot limit doesn't apply. Flown very fast, very low multiple times, especially out in the Pacific, over water. Also, many arrivals from the Caribbean area, into the New York area, have ATC requirements to descend (way too, for fuel burn reasons) early out over the Atlantic. Again, we keep the speed up, only slowing when the 12-mile limit approaches. (Back when they had flight progress screens on, in the cabins, some of you who were paying attention may have noticed).

Sorry, but IF you're getting your opinions and information from the "PilotsFor9/11Truth", then I'm afraid you're getting a skewed view........





edit on 22 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



...... since he is indeed a radio-control model aircraft pilot .....


Well, so am I!!!

It's not a bad thing....damned expensive hobby, though. Of course, IF the inference is that Balsamo ONLY knows R/C, it's wrong. But, I don't think that was your attempt there.....

However, since I do have experience with the difficulty of remote flying (I could tally up all my crashed models...boo hoo...) I find this notion of "remote controlled" Boeing 767s performing at such high velocities in the manner seen on 9/11 perfectly ridiculous. There is no substitute for the physical presence in the airplane, when controlling it. If you are relying only on sight, and no other senses, you are diminished.

Of course, in terms of UAV technology, it has improved tremendously in the last ten years or so.....but, again, in vehicles that are designed FROM THE BEGINNING to be unmanned and remote controlled. NOT "retro-fitted" in some manner.

AND, these aircraft fly SLOOOOOOOOOOWLY.......plenty of time for human reaction, at the slower speeds, when limited by the lack of sensory perception such as vestibular motion, g-forces, sound and tactile input.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by trebor451
 



...... since he is indeed a radio-control model aircraft pilot .....


Well, so am I!!


No pejorative intended! Simply pointing out Captain Bob Balsamo's extensive, wide-ranging, varied and utilitarian experience in this area. After all, claiming a 90-ton 757 traveling at 750 fps should perform exactly like a 10 lb RC aircraft travelingat 20 fps when it crashes he is obviously an expert in these matters - just ask Tiffany.

Sent from my Droid- its painful posting from this.


edit on 22-9-2010 by trebor451 because: clarity



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
We are now up to FORTY-SEVEN pages and the score remains -

Evidence for my argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8, all suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits.
Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...)



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS ("It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150") -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0


I'll add yet another question which is continually evaded by those who blindly support anything the govt tells them -

When will Trebor (spell it backwards and you will understand the obsession of this person, but then again, you can just tell from his posts with whom he is obsessed), weedwhacker, and/or their blind supporters, debate Robert Balsamo and the Pilots For 9/11 Truth on air?

Again -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."

By the way Trebor, do you know the memory item for a FLCS failure in a F-16?

According to your posts, clearly you don't.

Here's a hint trebor - some aircraft cannot be controlled by a human unless computer assisted. Do you know why that is?

Dwain Deets - NASA Flight Director who designs high performance flight control systems for aircraft, does.

Again - if your posts are any indication, you haven't a clue, because like William "Pinch" Paisley, you probably don't have the aptitude to make it to the front seat, let alone be certified by the FAA. It's also clear you and weedwhacker do not understand a V-G Diagram can be plotted when the V-Speeds are known. It's no surprise you both attempt to ridicule pilots with much more experience than you, from your comfy corner of the net here on ATS.



Read more from Dwain Deets and what he has to say about the reported speeds here -

Click



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
For everyone who STILL thinks this OP has any merit (and the continued posting of misinformation by others) please do yourselves, and the Board, a big favor.

Watch (or at least, listen) to this C-Span presentation. REAL pilots and REAL air traffic controllers.

Instead of listening to some wannabe know-nothings who are just making noise, and trying to keep attention pointed their way, by claiming they have "credentials".....

It is just under three hours long, but well worth your attention: C-SPAN Panel Discussion On 9/11 and Aviation



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Instead of listening to some wannabe know-nothings who are just making noise, and trying to keep attention pointed their way, by claiming they have "credentials".....


These are "wannabe know-nothing"s weedwhacker?

patriotsquestion911.com...

Let me guess, their uniforms are all photoshopped as well?




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
For everyone who STILL thinks this OP has any merit (and the continued posting of misinformation by others) please do yourselves, and the Board, a big favor.

Watch (or at least, listen) to this C-Span presentation. REAL pilots and REAL air traffic controllers.

Instead of listening to some wannabe know-nothings who are just making noise, and trying to keep attention pointed their way, by claiming they have "credentials".....

It is just under three hours long, but well worth your attention: C-SPAN Panel Discussion On 9/11 and Aviation


Good link, Weed. I've met Lynn a couple of times at 9/11 events here in DC. Captain Bob Balsamo accused her of fabricating some of the information in her book and information she researched for it - specifically the NOTAMS that were issued for the ground stops that Lynn received directly from the FAA. That is pretty much par for the Pilot's club course - someone doesn't agree with Captain Bob Balsamo's version of events so he accuses them of lying or not having credentials/experience/whatever to be able to talk about these issues - unlike the pilot members of his club who claim they could not hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 fot wide skyscraper with a 767 at 450 knots.

Lynn Spencer is absolutely the salt of the earth and when you read her book and take a look at the research that was done for it, you quickly realize it blows anything that the Pilot's club has ever done completely out of the water. Its a big reason why Lynn is moderating a discussion on 9/11 at the University of Texas televised by C-SPAN and Captain Bob Balsamo is arguing with people on an internet chat board. Its why her book is a best seller and Captain Bob Balsamo is still hawking ball caps and women's tank tops with his PfT logo on the Internet. Its why peopel like Capt. John H. Prater, President, Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l endorsed Spencer's book and, hasn't *cough cough* endorsed Captain Bob Balsamo's version of the events.

Speaking of which...Stanish's letter to ALPA back in 2006....what was the response to that - if you'd like to share.


edit on 22-9-2010 by trebor451 because: add links



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Captain Bob Balsamo accused her of fabricating some of the information in her book and information she researched for it - specifically the NOTAMS that were issued for the ground stops that Lynn received directly from the FAA. That is pretty much par for the Pilot's club course - someone doesn't agree with Captain Bob Balsamo's version of events so he accuses them of lying or not having credentials/experience/whatever to be able to talk about these issues -


You make claims about Captain Rob Balsamo, yet you always fail to source them. Why is that trebor?

Is it because you been caught too many times quoting out of context?


unlike the pilot members of his club who claim they could not hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 fot[sic] wide skyscraper with a 767 at 450 knots.


510 knots according to the NTSB. But don't let data stand in the way of your blind support of the OS.

Yes, many Core members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth who are able to land on Carriers, have attended Top Gun (twice), have thousands of hours in the 757/767, and are certified as FAA Check Airmen, had trouble hitting a target at over 500 knots with a 25' margin for error, in an aircraft limited to 360 knots. But I suppose you wouldn't understand this as I assume you never made it to the front seat either, just like William "Pinch" Paisley.


Lynn Spencer is absolutely the salt of the earth and when you read her book and take a look at the research that was done for it, you quickly realize it blows anything that the Pilot's club has ever done completely out of the water. Its a big reason why Lynn is moderating a discussion on 9/11 at the University of Texas televised by C-SPAN and Captain Bob Balsamo is arguing with people on an internet chat board. Its why her book is a best seller and Captain Bob Balsamo is still hawking ball caps and string strapped nighties with his PfT logo on the Internet. Its why peopel[sic] like Capt. John H. Prater, President, Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l endorsed Spencer's book and, hasn't *cough cough* endorsed Captain Bob Balsamo's version of the events.


I guess those who receive more publicity are telling the truth? If that were the case, why isn't Nazi Germany still in power and the Jews still being exterminated?.

So, I guess Lynn Spencer and Capt Prater feel a 767 can pull G's at Vmo+150 and remain controllable?

Great, got a source? It will be the first you offer in over 47 pages.

I'm guessing you don't.




edit on 22-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



NO, the "wannabe" is in regards to Balsamo. Please stop twisting intent.

I'm well aware that there are always a few crackpots in every profession and discipline. Heck, we used to have a B-747 Captain who would talk to his dead father ---- who he thought was sitting on the jumpseat. But, a guy like that? As long as he's a good stick, well....what can you do??? He passed checkrides, kept a medical, passed line checks....and didn't act crazy in any other way. Not enough to disqualify him. SO.....what can you do? Laugh, feel sorry, whatever. He's retired, anyhow, by now. (Retired, just like the guy who, in the 1970s, used to drive his convertible around and around at LAX, in uniform, with hat ON...tied down with twine so it wouldn't blow off....to pick up women).

Then there's the inevitable borderline incompetent, male AND female. Women who happen to be shaky get to play that gender card.....or, like one I know of, the fact that her Daddy is a big-shot lawyer, and the implied threat. She's the one that, years ago, couldn't do a steep turn worth a darn in the Sim. (Not that it's required in normal flying, but it IS part of the curriculum, and is a demonstrated skill, among others, that must be checked off the list).

So, seeing that THAT was going to haunt her, she took an aggressive approach and claimed a back injury from having to do the maneuver.....from "all that effort" pulling on the control column in the simulator!!! :shk:

Of course, she had doctors to sign off on that "injury" as well.....just two anecdotes to illustrate that, as I started this post saying, there are some clunkers in every outfit, no matter where you go in life.

(BTW, this same person? Hundreds of other personal recollections related about her, by colleagues. A running joke, of sorts).

Now, lest everyone get nervous, keep in mind that Cockpit Resource Management techniques, implemented since, oh, the early 1990s, have contributed to a lot of improvement in HOW flight decks function --- and in concert with better training, more attention to these jokers, and increased peer pressure, you can see the dramatic drop in avoidable pilot errors that lead to accidents. Consider the statistics.....

I mentioned another profession a few pages back....medicine. I know a few doctors, and THEY too have stories about certain individuals...colleagues that are fully qualified, Board Certified and all....but if one of their mothers were to need an operation?? They are selective about who they choose to perform it.


This is why I chuckle at the "list", that oft-repeated list. Most of those people's MAIN reason, it seems --- when you read up in their comments --- are mostly concerned about the "9/11 Commission Report" that was published, and what is seen as a less-than-thorough investigation there.

I've never disagreed that there were political shenanigans involved....because of the extreme incompetence and disorganization and dysfunction of the various agencies responsible for the Intel. Collating it, and recognizing and responding to impending, or brewing, threats. THAT is the real "conspiracy" here....NOT some sort of pre-planned "inside jobby job" nonsense.

And, I'll wager that the majority of those on any of those various petitions (appeals to authority) are involved for that reason. However, their participation is mis-used by a select few. Shame, really.

Oh, and I noticed that Captain Lear is still prominently displayed near the top of the roster (a roster, BTW, that has a lot of cross-pollination, and thus, inflated numbers. AND, at just a casual glance at the "Aviation Professionals" name list, a few Flight Attendants?? And a whole bunch of Private Pilots??).


So, Lear and his "space weapons" and "holograms" is still taken seriously by these various "truth" groups??

Funny, because I know of many so-called "truthers" here at ATS who bristle angrily at any mention of "no planes"....which is exactly what "holograms" and "space weapons" advocates purport.

So, delusional people exist. Sad, but indeed it's true.


Now....THIS thread was really about the guy from...was it the Netherlands (??) making claims about "real" pilots, and their alleged inability to hit buildings, when re-creating the events in a simulator. Odd, that thousands and thousands of others CAN, in similar re-creations....and NONE of them come out to join any of these silly "truth" groups. Why is that? Anyone know? It really isn't about the speed of UAL 175, and that aspect was hijacked a long time ago, in this thread. AND, I am not innocent of contributing to that piracy, sorry to say.

Last note on that, the speed: It is certainly reasonable to assume that ABSENT the events of 9/11, had someone been asked, theoretically, "Can a Boeing 767-200 exceed Vmo by 100+ knots?" The charts would be pulled out, people would scratch their heads, and guess "Probably not....but, there ARE these other historical cases...." Sure, in a dive, with gravity assisting....but the speed could not be sustained for long, and some peripheral damage might occur....and as long as it doesn't pull many G's.

"But, WHY would you want to do that?" would have been a good question....and the reason no one thought of it seriously, before.

Point is...IT HAPPENED! It was observed. Measured. Recorded. Saying it's "impossible" after the fact is why I think there is something else afoot, here. Some other agenda.....

Perhaps if we examine (discounting, for the moment, the psychological aspects) the motivations behind these few thousand (at most) individuals who "join" these organizations, we'd be on the way to uncovering some REAL "truths". Maybe...........



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NO, the "wannabe" is in regards to Balsamo. Please stop twisting intent.


And yet Balsamo can be verified as a Corporate Chief pilot, and Captain at faa.gov.

Can you?

weedwhacker, you are the one twisting words. You claimed the pilots referenced in the OP and throughout this thread are "wannabe know-nothings". Balsamo wasn't even listed in the OP, yet you spin your reply to include Balsamo when given a link to real pilots. One can only conlude you also have an unhealthy obsession with Balsamo.

The fact remains, Balsamo is not a "wannabe" nor a "know-nothing". He is a demonstrated pilot who has taught many students. He is also a hero who has grown an organization of highly respected members of the aviation community standing up to govt lies, many of which have more experience than Balsamo, as Balsamo is still a pretty young guy. How did he get so many Heavy Jet Capts to speak out.

Click here to see them all and watch it grow.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Does Rusty Aimer speak to his dead father in the jumpseat?


weedwhacker, fool no one.


I'm well aware that there are always a few crackpots in every profession and discipline. Heck, we used to have a B-747 Captain who would talk to his dead father ---- who he thought was sitting on the jumpseat. But, a guy like that? As long as he's a good stick, well....what can you do??? He passed checkrides, kept a medical,


And yet you refuse to provide a name,

weedwhacker, I think a pilot who talks to his dead father in the jumpseat would voilate FAR part 67 for a First Class Medial regarding Mental Stability. Do you disagree?

Do you know what FAR Part 67 requires for a First Class? Clearly not.

Unless of course the Capt was "talking" to his dead father in a jokingly manner, in which you took literally.

Seems plausible you would believe something as literal if your past posts are any indication, especially since you feel a V-G cannot be plotted when the V-speeds are known.





[snip irrelevant rant]


It is certainly reasonable to assume that ABSENT the events of 9/11, had someone been asked, theoretically, "Can a Boeing 767-200 exceed Vmo by 100+ knots?"


Correction - Vmo+150 according to NTSB.

Why do those who blindly support the OS seem to always have to be reminded of the data?


The charts would be pulled out, people would scratch their heads, and guess "Probably not....but, there ARE these other historical cases...." Sure, in a dive, with gravity assisting....but the speed could not be sustained for long, and some peripheral damage might occur....and as long as it doesn't pull many G's.


Yes, we are still waiting for you to source your claims at "UA175" did not pull any G's and spent only a few seconds at 510+ knots. Which is Vmo+150 (not Vmo+100 as you erroneously posted above).



Point is...IT HAPPENED! It was observed. Measured. Recorded. Saying it's "impossible" after the fact is why I think there is something else afoot, here. Some other agenda.....


"It Happened" because that is what your govt told you and you blindly support it.

Again -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."

You have repeatedly failed for more than 47 pages.


Perhaps if we examine (discounting, for the moment, the psychological aspects) the motivations behind these few thousand (at most) individuals who "join" these organizations, we'd be on the way to uncovering some REAL "truths". Maybe...........


Yes, there were a "few thousand" who challenged those who blindly supported the notion that the earth was flat, once upon a time.

Fortunately for the rest of us the list of those opposed grew, and truth prevailed.

weedwhacker, do you still think the earth is flat because that is what your govt told you once upon a time?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 

where did the real passengers on the real jets disappear to?

There was a post on this forum probably a couple years ago now, that dealt with this question.
The passenger manifest for flight 93 were people who worked for various companies under contract with the military. They habitually make false identities, not people with assumed names, but assumed people, to pad the bills with false expenses for the purpose of funneling money into black operations.
So all the people on the planes were made up people, or at least that one, with some exceptions I would assume, for people who they wanted to disappear for one reason or another and this gave them a cover story.
Of course this is just what I read on this forum a long time ago, but it sounded as plausible as any other theory to me.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, and I noticed that Captain Lear is still prominently displayed near the top of the roster (a roster, BTW, that has a lot of cross-pollination, and thus, inflated numbers. AND, at just a casual glance at the "Aviation Professionals" name list, a few Flight Attendants?? And a whole bunch of Private Pilots??).

So, Lear and his "space weapons" and "holograms" is still taken seriously by these various "truth" groups??
Funny, because I know of many so-called "truthers" here at ATS who bristle angrily at any mention of "no planes"....which is exactly what "holograms" and "space weapons" advocates purport.

weedwhacker, what are you trying to imply with those comments?

Have you ever listened to this interview between John Lear and Rob Balsamo? It's just under 20 minutes, not even the length of a sitcom episode on TV.

At 9:50
RB: "So you won't be a spokesperson on any major media for Pilots for Truth?"
JL: "No, absolutely not."

At 10:20
RB: "If we were to determine that the speeds are impossible, as an organisation, based on physics, maths and aerodynamics, does that automatically validate No Plane Theory?"
JL: "No, it just means that the speed is impossible."

At 10:45
RB: "There's people out there that seem to think that by saying the speeds are impossible on these aircraft, that it automatically validates No Plane Theory. It certainly does not."


weedwhacker, the interview clears up the misconceptions that some people have with Lear's endorsement of P4T. Lear supports the work of P4T in their efforts to try and discover the truth.

weedwhacker, you wouldn't be one of those people who always gets it the wrong way around, by thinking that P4T endorse John Lear's work, would you? Disinfo much?


edit on 22-9-2010 by tezzajw because: minor grammar



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by trebor451
 



...... since he is indeed a radio-control model aircraft pilot .....


Well, so am I!!!

It's not a bad thing....damned expensive hobby, though. Of course, IF the inference is that Balsamo ONLY knows R/C, it's wrong. But, I don't think that was your attempt there.....

However, since I do have experience with the difficulty of remote flying (I could tally up all my crashed models...boo hoo...) I find this notion of "remote controlled" Boeing 767s performing at such high velocities in the manner seen on 9/11 perfectly ridiculous. There is no substitute for the physical presence in the airplane, when controlling it. If you are relying only on sight, and no other senses, you are diminished.

Of course, in terms of UAV technology, it has improved tremendously in the last ten years or so.....but, again, in vehicles that are designed FROM THE BEGINNING to be unmanned and remote controlled. NOT "retro-fitted" in some manner.

AND, these aircraft fly SLOOOOOOOOOOWLY.......plenty of time for human reaction, at the slower speeds, when limited by the lack of sensory perception such as vestibular motion, g-forces, sound and tactile input.



Well since I fly UAVs for a living I can tell you that the two methods of communication with them is either line of sight or satellite. The vast majority is line of sight and I see that as a very hard method to use in this case, so satellite communication would be what they would need to use and that opens up a whole another ball of wax.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Of course this is just what I read on this forum a long time ago, but it sounded as plausible as any other theory to me.


Well there are real people connections with everyone missing...talk to their parents, friends etc and see if they wanted to disappear. This is kind of what I been talking about when you see a theory like this that you posted and it all looks good until you see he variables involved and then it spins out of control...the variables in this case is the lives those people lived and all the people who knew them.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

. . .all the people who knew them.
Do you have personal experience with this?
The story that goes along with this theory is about how the health authorities decided to send some workers to LAX to serve as grief counselors for the family members of the passengers, who were expected to be showing up at the airport. No one showed up.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join