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: 61
141
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The point is that aircraft CAN exceed their maximums, and CAN survive the experience.


... with the experience of a Capt who had this...


Captain Ho had passed his last two simulator proficiency checks on February 2 and November 5, 1984, and he passed his last route check on April 14, 1984. The captain had flown 15,494 hours, 3748 of which were in Boeing 747 airplanes. During the last 90 days, 30 days, and 24 hours before the accident he had flown 254 hours, 82 hours, and zero hours, respectively.


Are you saying the "hijacker" pilot of UA175 had similar experience?

You still have yet to provide an NTSB source for your original claim that China 006 "exceeded the speed of sound". (which by the way, is roughly only 30 knots over manufacturers set limits for the 747SP, the fastest 747 in the 747 fleet).

Defcon5, when you will provide an NTSB source of your original source claims?
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: fixed tags




posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
We'll get to the rest of your post when you find "exceeding the speed of sound" in the above NTSB report.

Want to argue the point with Wikipedia?
en.wikipedia.org...

Although Concorde and the Tu-144 were the first aircraft to carry commercial passengers at supersonic speeds, they were not the first or only commercial airliners to break the sound barrier. On 21 August 1961, a Douglas DC-8 broke the sound barrier at Mach 1.012 or 1,240 km/h (776.2 mph) while in a controlled dive through 41,088 feet (12,510 m). The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing.[15] A China Airlines 747 almost certainly broke the sound barrier in an unplanned descent from 41,000 ft (12,500 m) to 9,500 ft (2,900 m) after an in-flight upset on 19 February 1985. It also reached over 5g.[16]


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


"The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing"

Read - The aircraft was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits.

It is in my list of evidence (thanks for bringing it up again by the way...)

Score remains after SIXTY-ONE pages.


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, Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
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


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...



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
"The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing"

Wait you are reading about the previous incident, let me narrow this down to the pertinent part:
en.wikipedia.org...

A China Airlines 747 almost certainly broke the sound barrier in an unplanned descent from 41,000 ft (12,500 m) to 9,500 ft (2,900 m) after an in-flight upset on 19 February 1985. It also reached over 5g.[16]


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
"The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing"

Wait you are reading about the previous incident, let me narrow this down to the pertinent part:
en.wikipedia.org...

A China Airlines 747 almost certainly broke the sound barrier in an unplanned descent from 41,000 ft (12,500 m) to 9,500 ft (2,900 m) after an in-flight upset on 19 February 1985. It also reached over 5g.[16]


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Did you read footnote 16 from wiki?

I clicked it. This is what it says -


The flight from Taipei to about 300 nmi northwest of San Francisco was uneventful and the airplane was flying at about 41,000 feet mean sea level when the No. 4 engine lost power. During the attempt to recover and restore normal power on the No. 4 engine, the airplane rolled to the right, nosed over, and entered an uncontrollable descent. The captain was unable to restore the airplane to stable flight until it had descended to 9,500 feet. After the captain stabilized the airplane, he elected to divert to San Francisco International Airport, where a safe landing was made. Although the airplane suffered major structural damage during the upset, descent, and subsequent recovery, only two persons among the 274 passengers and crew on board were injured seriously.
The maximum vertical acceleration forces recorded during the descent were 4.8Gs and 5.1Gs as the airplane descended through 30,552 feet and 19,083 feet, respectively.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The captain’s preoccupation with an inflight malfunction and his failure to monitor properly the airplane’s flight instruments which resulted in his losing control of the airplane. Contributing to the accident was the captain’s over-reliance on the autopilot after the loss of thrust on the no. 4 engine."


Source - aviation-safety.net...

Please let us know where it says the aircraft "exceed the sound barrier" in the NTSB report as this is all I could find.




- The captain, first officer, and flight engineer said that they did not hear the overspeed aural warning and that the stall warning stickshaker did not activate at any time during the descent.

- As the airplane emerged from the clouds at about 11,000 feet it was, according to the captain, accelerating through 180 KIAS

- The first sustained data loss occurred at 1015:23 as the airplane was descending through 30,132 feet at 296 KIAS


- . At 1017:13, when the Group 1 synchros began displaying correct data, the airplane was at 9,577 feet and climbing and the airspeed was 221 KIAS

- During that 8-second period, the airplane descended from 14,541 feet to 13,950 feet and the airspeed increased from 87 KIAS to 110 KIAS

- the Safety Board believes that it was highly unlikely that the airplane ever achieved the necessary 250 KIAS to permit a successful airstart on engines Nos. 1, 2, and 3...



Source - www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de...



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


The numbers you stated above are from when the flame out occurred and the aircraft was decreasing in speed. The actual speed attained by the aircraft in the descent was not recorded because it exceeded the instruments ability to record it:
NTSB Report

Recorder Data Losses.--The examination of the DFDR readout disclosed a number of periods where data were lost. These data losses were the result of the vibration and the sustained vertical acceleration forces (Gs) exerted on the recorder during the descent. Some of these data were retrieved through the use of recovery techniques, but the accuracy of these recovered data is suspect. In addition, anomalies in the recorded altitude and airspeed values appeared early in the descent because the descent rate of the airplane had exceeded the maximum tracking capability of the airplane's digital air data computer (DADC). Specific details are discussed below.

So the airspeed values exceeded the maximum tracking capability of the airplane's digital air data computer...
and…

Between 1016:08 and 1016:14, and between 1016:23 and 1017:12 during the descent, the synchro parameters for altitude (two synchros), indicated airspeed, heading, pitch, and roll displayed erroneous data.


Between 1015:23 and 1017:15, the airplane descended from 30,132 feet to 9,577 feet. During this period, except for some short 3- to 7-second intervals of accurate data, the data recorded by the DFDR were, as stated earlier, either unreliable or erroneous. For example, during the final minute of the descent, the Group 1 synchros were displaying erroneous data.

Then from here:
airliners that have gone supersonic and survived

After about 30 seconds the aircraft made a wing-over and rolled completely, descending rapidly at up to 60° down-angle and losing about 30,000 feet in less than two minutes. Speeds exceeded the airframe's maximum mach number of 0.92 (92% of the speed of sound) on two occasions, and strong gee forces were felt for several minutes, up to a maximum of about five gees.

Which matches what the pilot stated:

The captain said that the airplane exceeded Vmo twice and also decelerated below 100 KIAS during the dive.

So enough obfuscating already, even if the aircraft didn’t exceed its VMO, which is unlikely as even the pilot admits he did, it at the very least exceeded its G rating and staying in flyable condition.

I also find it amusing that all of the sudden the NTSB is the only source that you will accept information from. If that is the case shouldn’t it also be the expert trusted source for the 911 flights?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The numbers you stated above are from when the flame out occurred and the aircraft was decreasing in speed.


Wrong. Read again. I'll bold the parts you missed.




- The captain, first officer, and flight engineer said that they did not hear the overspeed aural warning and that the stall warning stickshaker did not activate at any time during the descent.

- As the airplane emerged from the clouds at about 11,000 feet it was, according to the captain, accelerating through 180 KIAS

- The first sustained data loss occurred at 1015:23 as the airplane was descending through 30,132 feet at 296 KIAS


- . At 1017:13, when the Group 1 synchros began displaying correct data, the airplane was at 9,577 feet and climbing and the airspeed was 221 KIAS

- During that 8-second period, the airplane descended from 14,541 feet to 13,950 feet and the airspeed increased from 87 KIAS to 110 KIAS

- the Safety Board believes that it was highly unlikely that the airplane ever achieved the necessary 250 KIAS to permit a successful airstart on engines Nos. 1, 2, and 3...





The actual speed attained by the aircraft in the descent was not recorded because it exceeded the instruments ability to record it:
NTSB Report

Recorder Data Losses.--The examination of the DFDR readout disclosed a number of periods where data were lost. These data losses were the result of the vibration and the sustained vertical acceleration forces (Gs) exerted on the recorder during the descent. Some of these data were retrieved through the use of recovery techniques, but the accuracy of these recovered data is suspect. In addition, anomalies in the recorded altitude and airspeed values appeared early in the descent because the descent rate of the airplane had exceeded the maximum tracking capability of the airplane's digital air data computer (DADC). Specific details are discussed below.


Thank you for once again proving your claims of "exceeding the sound barrier" are based on pure speculation. Not data.
..
and…


Then from here:
airliners that have gone supersonic and survived

After about 30 seconds the aircraft made a wing-over and rolled completely, descending rapidly at up to 60° down-angle and losing about 30,000 feet in less than two minutes. Speeds exceeded the airframe's maximum mach number of 0.92 (92% of the speed of sound) on two occasions, and strong gee forces were felt for several minutes, up to a maximum of about five gees.


Clearly you didn't read this? -


The first sustained data loss occurred at 1015:23 as the airplane was descending through 30,132 feet at 296 KIAS 7/ and the vertical acceleration values approached 5 Gs..


In other words defcon, you have no data to confirm "Speeds exceeded the airframe's maximum mach number of 0.92 (92% of the speed of sound) on two occasions, and strong gee forces were felt for several minutes, up to a maximum of about five gees."

By the way, what credible source references aircraft G loading as "gee's".

Perhaps someone who is a big fan of the "Bee Gee's"?

err- it appears to be someone who names himself, "archiewood".

Great source you got there defcon. Almost as good as your last who talks about turboprops.


I digress.




Which matches what the pilot stated:

The captain said that the airplane exceeded Vmo twice and also decelerated below 100 KIAS during the dive.


This is still not evidence the aircraft "exceeded the sound barrier" nor that it exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots.

Let us know when you get some evidence.

And again, even if you should by some miracle find a credible source for such a claim, "exceeding the sound barrier" is only 30 knots over Vmo for the 747SP. You still have another 120 to go.

Do you know what the "SP" stands for in the 747SP?

Do you know how to calculate an equivalent airspeed? Do you even know what EAS is?



So enough obfuscating already, even if the aircraft didn’t exceed its VMO, which is unlikely as even the pilot admits he did, it at the very least exceeded its G rating and staying in flyable condition.


According to weedwhacker, a claimed 767 pilot who refuses to put his name to his claims as does the numerous other American and United Airlines 757/767 Capts he calls "whack-jobs" - a "A COMBINATION of the very high and excessive airspeeds, AND the excessive G forces begin to impinge on structural integrity, more and more and more"

He is right of course, but you are missing a very valid part of the equation in your example.

In other words defcon, do you think the same 747SP could have remained in control at Vmo+150 and at 5 G?

At 2 G? At 1 G?

Click here to listen to what real verified aviation professionals have to say about that....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then click here to see what Boeing and the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics have to say -

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I also find it amusing that all of the sudden the NTSB is the only source that you will accept information from.


Wrong again defcon. Click here and read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let us know when you get a credible source other than your speculation.
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: fixed tags



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

The captain said that the airplane exceeded Vmo twice and also decelerated below 100 KIAS during the dive.


And now the full sentence....


Although the captain said that the airplane exceeded Vmo twice and also decelerated below 100 KIAS during the dive, all three crew members said that they did not hear the overspeed warning and that the stall warning stickshaker did not activate.


Nice try defcon5.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

Everyone outside the truth movement, including the pilot at the controls himself, seems to agree that the plane exceeded its design spec maximums. I wonder why that is? Maybe because it does not agree with the facts that P4T are presenting? Now you want quotes from the NTSB, your arch enemy, from whom you will not believe anything that they state in relation to 911?

You only want that because you know that they did not have the flight recorder data, and that is what they base their report on. Additionally KIAS is Indicated, it is not True Airspeed, and if the data recorders were not reading the correct KIAS then obviously the KIAS was reading in error. If the airflow over the pitot-static system was not flowing correctly due to the angle of attack of the aircraft disrupting the airflow over the sensors, then the KIAS is not going to read correctly anyway.

I mean if the aircraft didn’t exceed its design specs why was it damaged and shed parts after all? You want this to go both ways, first you want to state that it did exceed its specs and suffered catastrophic failure, now when its been pointed out that it did not suffer catastrophic failure you want to minimize the fact that it exceeded its design specs. Why not admit that its all about fitting the facts to your theories rather then basing your theories on facts?

…However…

Lets just skip all that for now and concentrate on the fact that the aircraft exceeded its G-Limit rating of 2.5G’s. Pulling too many G’s is far more stressful on an aircrafts structure then exceeding its VMO anyway. It is confirmed in the NTSB report that the G's were recorded in excess of 5G's, more then 2.5G above the Max G-Load that the aircrafts design specs state.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLAAccording to weedwhacker, a claimed 767 pilot who refuses to put his name to his claims

I am pretty sure (I can check on it to make sure), that Weedwhacker has in the past submitted his information to the administration of ATS, and was confirmed to be who he claims to be. It matters little to me because I know he is who he claims as we worked on the same airlines, along with another moderator who was on a flight crew with that company as well. However, soliciting members for personal information on ATS is a major no-no.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

Everyone outside the truth movement, including the pilot at the controls himself, seems to agree that the plane exceeded its design spec maximums.


See the post above yours.

If you are going to change the sentence each time you post, I have no desire to read your posts.

That is why I stopped reading this current post of yours as you deceptively changed the sentence of your external quote to suit your bias.

You deleted a word, you capitalized where there was no capitalization (as if it were the start of the sentence), and you added a period (as if it were the end of the sentence), where there was a comma and much more to add in context.

Tisk tisk defcon5. Is this what we are to expect from the mods at ATS?
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo, clarity
extra DIV



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

Both quotes state the same thing, that the captain admitted that he broke VMO twice. The rest of your quote is speculation on the NTSB’s part based on instrumentation that they fully admit was reading in error at the time of the dive.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Why not add to it this then:

The Safety Board cannot explain why the stall warning stickshaker did not activate, or if it did activate, why it was not felt or heard by the flightcrew.

They are admitting that the aircraft possibly exceeded VMO, but cannot explain why the systems did not activate.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/24/2010 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

Both quotes state the same thing, that the captain admitted that he broke VMO twice. The rest of your quote is speculation on the NTSB’s part based on instrumentation that they fully admit was reading in error at the time of the dive.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




The Captain was struggling to keep the airplane and it's passengers alive. How reliable are his direct readings of the ASI?

That is why there are aural warnings. Which no one on deck heard.

Again, let us know when you have some evidence that he exceeded Vmo by 150 knots. So far, all the evidence contradicts your theory.

Defcon5, I questioned why you did not provide a source link to an external quote of yours when you as a mod should know better. Ok, fine, you say you made a mistake.

Now you fabricate/change a sentence to have a completely different meaning out of context.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Or perhaps you are more familiar with....


...fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again....


Source - politicalhumor.about.com...

(notice when I quote externally, I quote exactly what is quoted and source it thoroughly, without excuse).

Defcon, let us know when you have some actual credible evidence and data for your claims. You have failed ever since you came here.
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo, clarity



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Defcon5, I questioned why you did not provide a source link to an external quote of yours when you as a mod should know better. Ok, fine, you say you made a mistake.

Because for many years we didn’t have to as long as it was in [ex] quote tags, adding links to that is a new rule. It really does not matter though, you found the link on your own, and if you had asked for one I would have happily looked it up myself.

But then again, you are taking this off topic because you simply don’t want to answer the questions I posted above and are using this as an excuse to avoid them.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Now you fabricate/change a sentence to have a completely different meaning out of context.

No, I trimmed it to the pertinent part, my spell checker automatically adds caps, simple spelling corrections (sometimes incorrectly
), and punctuation. Nothing in what you posted changes the fact of what I stated, “the pilot admitted that he exceeded VMO twice, as well as almost stalling out the aircraft”. If I don’t trim to the pertinent parts you have already shown me that you will happily read, then try and incorporate all kinds of stuff that have nothing to do with what I am explaining, even after I have bolded the text out so you can find it. You have done this twice already by mentioning completely different aircraft that had nothing to do with China Air (a test aircraft and a turbo prop).


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Defcon, let us know when you have some actual credible evidence and data for your claims. You have failed ever since you came here.

Just going to dodge that post above, eh? I guess you really don’t want to answer those questions then?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



edit on 10/24/2010 by defcon5 because: smiley error




posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
No, I trimmed it to the pertinent part, my spell checker automatically adds caps, simple spelling corrections (sometimes incorrectly
),


So, when you quote externally, you put it through a "spell checker"? You correct the spelling of your sources? Why?

What exact "spell checker" do you use?

Usually when honest researchers quote from an external source and there is a broken sentence or a misspelled word, they use "...." or [sic].

Integrity in publishing is an issue here.

You don't know this and you are a mod for ATS?

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read.
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
The rest of your post I didn't bother to read.
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity


Holy jeez. Stop attacking the person and address the questions already. You are sounding like an ignorant fool with statements like that. (please forgive my use of "ignorant fool" and the off-topic nature of this post)
edit on 24-10-2010 by Varemia because: edited out tart, as I did a google search and found it to be more offensive than I originally thought. Apologies!

edit on 24-10-2010 by Varemia because: Fixed a spelling error in my edit line



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
So, when you quote externally, you put it through a "spell checker"?

I paste everything into an external document when I type then paste it back into the reply box to post it. Even members quotes.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Integrity in publishing is an issue here.
You don't know this and you are a mod for ATS?

I guess that is why I am not a professional publisher, and no they failed to give me a professional level writing exam upon making me a moderator.

This is going off topic though, now lets get back to the topic at hand please (which is not my writing abilities).

…So first you were telling us about how the China Air Flight was proof that an aircraft could not exceed its design specs without suffering catastrophic failure. Now that its been pointed out that it did not suffer catastrophic failure you want to deny that it exceeded its design specs…

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
The rest of your post I didn't bother to read.
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity


Holy jeez. Stop attacking the person and address the questions already. You are sounding like an ignorant tart with statements like that. (please forgive my use of the word tart and the off-topic nature of this post)


What questions?

One question that has been avoided is the fact that China Air 006 "exceeded the speed of sound".

Let us know when you find some data to support such a claim.

Let's recap -

defcon5 comes to this thread and claims China Air 006 "exceeded the speeds of sound".. He fails to provide a source for his external quote.

I fiind the source and the same source claims "a tail fell of a turboprop airline". under the same narrative. A link is never provided to suggest it is different than the original narrative.

His original source goes on to state DC-8 anomalies and provides a link. Suggesting his source is now speaking of a different event.

defcon5 claims he "forgot to add a source link".

I go on to study numerous sources, including the NTSB and wiki sources he posted. None of which support the claim that the aircraft "exceeded the sound barrier".

defcon5 provides quotes out of context by actually changing the external quotes, by omitting pertinent words, capitalizing others, and changing punctuation.

defcon5 blames it on his "spell checker" as if he actually puts external quotes through a spell checker to correct spelling of his sources.

C'mon folks. How many times are you going to buy into such blatant deception?

Again - let us know when you find evidence for your arguments.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
So, when you quote externally, you put it through a "spell checker"?

I paste everything into an external document when I type then paste it back into the reply box to post it. Even members quotes.


You didn't answer my question.

Which "spell checker" exactly do you use?

And why do you feel the need to spell check sources when you can easily use [sic]?

You can see me use it on perhaps every page of this thread. extra DIV



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Why do you always refer to yourself as WE? Are you some kind of Queen?



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Why do you always refer to yourself as WE? Are you some kind of Queen?


I clicked on the link that you replied to, there is no reference to "we".

read again -

What questions?

One question that has been avoided is the fact that China Air 006 "exceeded the speed of sound".

Let us know when you find some data to support such a claim.

Let's recap -

defcon5 comes to this thread and claims China Air 006 "exceeded the speeds of sound".. He fails to provide a source for his external quote.

I fiind the source and the same source claims "a tail fell of a turboprop airline". under the same narrative. A link is never provided to suggest it is different than the original narrative.

His original source goes on to state DC-8 anomalies and provides a link. Suggesting his source is now speaking of a different event.

defcon5 claims he "forgot to add a source link".

I go on to study numerous sources, including the NTSB and wiki sources he posted. None of which support the claim that the aircraft "exceeded the sound barrier".

defcon5 provides quotes out of context by actually changing the external quotes, by omitting pertinent words, capitalizing others, and changing punctuation.

defcon5 blames it on his "spell checker" as if he actually puts external quotes through a spell checker to correct spelling of his sources.

C'mon folks. How many times are you going to buy into such blatant deception?

Again - let us know when you find evidence for your arguments.


With that said, I do refer to "us" in the context of "let us know when you find evidence for your arguments.".

Perhaps you don't require evidence, but many of the readers do, including me. Those who blindly support the OS have failed for more than 61 pages.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
141
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join