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: 63
141
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


No need to selectively quote, in order to show the lack of logic and simply hilarious claims made in this long (and head-scratcher of a) post. This sentence just about sums it up, though....and displays the utter worthlessness of ANY and ALL of the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" so-called "arguments", or "analyses".....:


It is almost 10 times easier to hit the bulls-eye playing darts than it is to hit the WTC with a 767


I very eagerly invite everyone to have a long, hard look at the mess of an attempt to make "her" point (
), and to compare it to the style of "debate" undertaken, as a rule, at the "P4T" club.

I don't think it's necessary to show just HOW badly that analogy fails, miserably...nor WHY. ATS members are far too intelligent to be fooled by such simple-minded shenanigans. It DOES deserve an "honorable mention" in the "Hall of Fame" (shame?),though....certainly is way on up there as one of the most inane I've read in a long time (and, that's saying something).

I realize that "Tiff", here, isn't an airline pilot --- and, I doubt whether "she" has any other flying experience, save what's out there for home PCs. Yet, "she" has completely been taken up by the "P4T" cult --- for, that is all that group amounts to. I truly feel a little sorry, for "her"....and if ONLY "she" would care to pay better attention to those of us who are NOT delusional (unlike the handful of loons at the "club"), then we might be able to save "her"....with facts, not fantasies.


It is disturbingly ironic (and chilling, to see the sort of mind control tactics the "P4T" have apparently employed) that a phrase such as "People who blindly believe what their Government tells them..." keeps being repeated, when in fact, the few poor souls who have fallen for this cult group are Blindly believing whatever the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" are telling them.... :shk:

So, we must try to help those in need, those who have (through no fault of their own, only from a temporary ignorance)....help them to see the sham for what it truly is. AND, to "deny" that ignorance, through better education.

(And, please....for any current cult members, whatever you do, IF you are offered a Dixie cup full of Kool-Aid, DO NOT DRINK!!! Jim Jones is dead, but the ideas of cults, and cult leaders, unfortunately still exist, all around the world, in many different forms....)




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



....to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error...


Please enlighten us on how you know exactly where they were aiming.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I have to note that the analogy is also flawed. Hitting a dart board implies an initial thrust and a perfect aim. Flying a plane into something involves being at the controls the entire time. Even if they only had 3-5 seconds to aim it properly, the could still make last minute adjustments. Maybe you've forgotten that the second plane hit at an angle on the side of the building? It almost missed, but pulled an angle and managed to get the building. Plus, for the second plane, the element of surprise was gone. People were on alert, though not sure whether or not to expect anything else.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
That whole article was meant to impress and fool a general audience, the vast majority of which have no idea how easy or difficult it would be for these amateurs to accomplish what they did.

Numerous videos prove that large commercial airliners can indeed fly at hundreds of miles per hour barely above the ground while flying precisely over a runway and even turn with precision.

So basically, the person who drafted this article is either a fraud or a liar. And in either event, the idea that a commercial airliner can't fly that low at high speed and turn or accomplish precision has been debunked.

Numerous video of air shows with large commercial airliners contradict the author's statements. Plus, the pilots of these planes in the air show clips were also obviously in manual flight with help from instrumentation as to altitude.

And apparently, in these commercial airliner air shows they felt confident enough in their ability to do this that they not only put themselves in the airplane, but they risked losing a multi-million dollar aircraft, and also had spectators close by on the ground.

So, it's basically a bunch of made up BS -- at least with regard to the ability of steering an aircraft towards a huge skyscraper at several hundred feet above the ground.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I feel you have described most accurately what probably happened with UA 175 to the South Tower.

There doesn't seem to be any quibble about AA 11 hitting the North Tower at an estimated 430 knots but Tiffany raises issues about the estimated 510 knots for the UA 175 impact.

Tiffany claims the latter is virtually impossible but she would wouldn't she. However, it would seem reasonable to a layman like me that striking a building at 510 knots is likely to be more difficult than striking one at 430 knots. And that, I think, is perfectly reflected in what actually happened.

AA 11 hit the North Tower pretty much dead centre but UA 175 , as you point out, had to make quite a sharp bank and even then only hit towards the corner.

Could that be the likely scenario ? AA 11 hit dead centre at lower speed. UA 175 almost missed because of dicing with higher speed.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect
That whole article was meant to impress and fool a general audience, the vast majority of which have no idea how easy or difficult it would be for these amateurs to accomplish what they did.


Even though PfT did not write the initial article, it is their mode d'emploi for how the Pilots club works - load up a seemingly technical paper or presentation with as much aeronautical mumbo-jumbo as you can, throw it out on an uninformed public ("general audience", if you will), and hope to gain some converts.

Their problem is when they come up against a specific audience of aviation-trained and aeronautically experienced individuals or groups - like the FAA or NTSB or any of the dozens of Pilots Unions and Pilots/Airline/Aircraft Organizations world wide. It is there where their bloviated airplane verbiage crashes and burns as evidenced by the vast support they have gathered from these organizations.

Wait.....not *one* has endorsed their findings. Oh well.

It is also why their designated rep, "Tiffany", likes to hang out here only on ATS rather than take their arguments to Congress or the courts or the aforementioned Pilot's organizations - they know they will be laughed out of the lobby. Having read some of the letters that PfT members have written to (and posted online, for whatever reason) the Pilot's Unions, they are a riot and a source of great entertainment.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Ooooohhhh! I haven't run across those, yet. Links??? I can always enjoy another good laugh.


Having read some of the letters that PfT members have written to (and posted online, for whatever reason) the Pilot's Unions, they are a riot and a source of great entertainment.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by trebor451
 


Ooooohhhh! I haven't run across those, yet. Links??? I can always enjoy another good laugh.


Having read some of the letters that PfT members have written to (and posted online, for whatever reason) the Pilot's Unions, they are a riot and a source of great entertainment.




PfT member and "co-founder" Glen Stanish, (man, what an embarrasing association - there are literally hundreds of things I'd rather be associated with than that - diharretic elephant enclosure cleaner-upper is one of them) wrote to ALPA and infoed all the National Officers and Executive VPs. In this letter Stanish estanblished the fact that he is a Pentagon No-Planer and made the observation that because HE and his organization was not briefed personally on any and all aircraft wreckage inside the building, it therefore never crashed there.

He references the "stare at goats/walk thru walls" whackjob MajGen Stubblebine as an expert here and Stanish takes CNN Correspondent Jamie McIntyre HUGELY out of context, as all the Truthers are apt to do.

The whole letter is the Truther movement encapsulated - every misquote, every whack job, every lunatic, every lie, every molten steel, every nano-thermite, every everything. Tis quite entertaining but, once again, you can only hope this person is retired and not on the flight deck any more because if that is the sort of judgment that is piloting an airborne bus full of people, the grace of God is on him...and them.

Stanish Letter

And incidently, the metadata tag for that URL states it is the "Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)". They are either sharing letter templates or simply using the same letter with names and particulars changed. Now THAT'S professional.
edit on 26-10-2010 by trebor451 because: added content.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Wow, 9 replies from 7 people since my last post. These same people claim "No one cares".

Irony at it's best.


Ok, I don't have much time tonight, but lets break this down.

@Tricky


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
You don't think losing half of your horizontal stab which is also a major control surface for the control of the aircraft is serious?


I'm not saying it isn't serious.


So then why did you ask?


You have been furnished with an example where, you freely admit, serious structural failure occurred. And the pilot was subsequently able to land the plane. Not just crash it, land it.


Yes, and this Capt did so with almost 4,000 hours in type and over 15,000 total flight time, and never exceeding the Vmo of the aircraft according to credible sources tasked with the ensuring the safety of the traveling public . Let us know when you get some data for the claims made that the aircraft exceeded Vmo by 150 knots, and that the Capt had less experience than a pilot who couldn't hit a runway at 65 knots in a 172. Then you may have an argument. Until then, you have failed for more than 63 pages.

The rest of your post is predicated on the fact that is it your responsibility to provide evidence for your claims. Specifically your claim that the aircraft used on 9/11, were standard aircraft. All the evidence points otherwise. Let us know when you get some evidence.

@weedwhacker - www.abovetopsecret.com...

As usual, you say a whole lot, without saying anything. Let us know when you get some evidence for your claims and/or are willing to put your name behind your claims as do the numerous verified aviation professionals and pilots listed here - Click

@hooper -


Originally posted by hooper

Please enlighten us on how you know exactly where they were aiming.


Please enlighten us on how you know exactly where they were aiming, hooper. As with all your cohorts, you seem to turn a blind eye on anything the govt tells you, but remain a harsh skeptic of anyone who questions the govt. What is your motivation, incentive?

I know what 'they' were aiming at based on what was attacked, the Pentagon and the WTC (according to the OS). Are you claiming they were aiming for the numerous Nuclear facilities on the east coast and missed? (which no doubt would have caused much more destruction to the US if some people were intent on killing the "infidel").


Hey hooper, why not so much a bus bomb since 2001 in the USA? Can these "Muslim extremists" who flew Boeing aircraft flawlessly on 9/11, with zero time in type, not figure out their way over the border with the million other Mexicans?

At what point do you raise your BS flag?

@Varemia


Originally posted by Varemia
I have to note that the analogy is also flawed. Hitting a dart board implies an initial thrust and a perfect aim. Flying a plane into something involves being at the controls the entire time.


You are correct of course. Let us know when you are able to hit this target with a dart that has control surfaces which can be guided. The technology is available..



Or, let us know how close you need to be to hit the above red line on your first try, then do it twice in a row.

The above comparison is not about a direct equivalent. It is about perspective. It is about those who claim, "it takes more skills to avoid a building than it does to fly into one. But thats[sic] just my common sense.." - Source, www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tricky and defcon5 seem to agree with the above "common sense". (scroll down from above source link).

Do you agree with them as well?

@IamCorrect


Originally posted by IamCorrect
That whole article was meant to impress and fool a general audience, .


If that were the case, then why does this list grow?

patriotsquestion911.com...

Do you consider the above list of people a "General Audience"?

@Alfie


Originally posted by Alfie1
Tiffany claims the latter is virtually impossible ..


Wrong again Alfie. It's not me "claiming it". It is the evidence. Read the evidence again. The evidence has grown for over 63 pages.

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...)

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument. You have failed for more than 63 pages.


@trebor


Originally posted by trebor451
....rather than take their arguments to Congress or the courts or the aforementioned Pilot's organizations....


Click 1

Click 2

Click 3
(There are more who served on ALPA, ran for office, held office, etc... scroll through)

Your last post contradicts your above post. As usual.

And by the way. Glen Stanish is flying for Continental Airlines and is very current. Why not contact the Chief Pilot and express your opinions as "Reheat" claims he wanted to do (just as the Nazi's did) to harrass employers?

You won't, just like Reheat won't.

You will remain here on ATS attacking those with experience you can only dream to have. While also claiming they are all "whack-jobs" and that "No one cares".

Whatever makes you feel better I suppose.

Enjoy.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
You don't think losing half of your horizontal stab which is also a major control surface for the control of the aircraft is serious?


I'm not saying it isn't serious.



So then why did you ask?


You're just selectively quoting now. I assume out of sheer desperation.

It's obvious that what happened with the planes at the WTC would not necessarily be the exact same failure that occurred in the above example. But you're just obfuscating the issue in order to avoid the fact that you've been shown an example that refutes your notions.

So obviously it's on to the next tactic: changing the subject.




Yes, and this Capt did so with almost 4,000 hours in type and over 15,000 total flight time,


So it is possible. But you have to be a pilot with a certain amount of experience. Even if you just want to crash the thing.

Your structural argument, you admit, is refuted. So it's time to grasp at straws. The thrust of what you're saying here is

- a plane can't do this

- okay it can, but... er... that pilot couldn't.

A whole plank of your argument has fallen away, so you're scrambling for a new one.



and never exceeding the Vmo of the aircraft according to credible sources tasked with the ensuring the safety of the traveling public...


They're credible when they agree with you, I note. And yet earlier you were rejecting their information as government sponsored nonsense. All the evidence points to the China plane undergoing significant stress.




The rest of your post is predicated on the fact that is it your responsibility to provide evidence for your claims.


What does this even mean?





Specifically your claim that the aircraft used on 9/11, were standard aircraft. All the evidence points otherwise.


Wow. various people have been asking you this question for pages and pages. Finally we get there!

You contend that these were modified aircraft. Why on earth would anyone bother to modify the planes? If it's impossible to fly a plane at that speed (even though we know it's not) why not just fly it a bit slower into the building? You will, I'm fully aware, duck this question, because it shows how ridiculous your ideas are.

How did the submissions to ALPA go, by the way? Are they ready to swing behind you? And what about other avenues of enquiry? I imagine it'll be just a few short months before everyone is talking about this stuff.


Oh, by the way, you haven't posted your VMO diagram for a good twenty pages. Could you stick it up again? You know, the coloured one you made? I want to see it again, it's like an old pal.
edit on 27-10-2010 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You've been spewing this same nonsensical claim (amongst all the others) for dozens of pages, by now...yet it persists here again?:


....than a pilot who couldn't hit a runway at 65 knots in a 172...


Instead of that EMPTY, scripted "P4T" rhetoric (I know you've been instructed to keep to script, but you should at least KNOW THE DETAILS of the script)....that rhetoric, above?

WHO, exactly...by name....is that sentence fragment referring to??

We are all quivering with anticipation, awaiting your prompt response.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Oh, by the way, I should add that I'm finding this dart analogy hilarious.

How is playing a pub game in any way like flying an aeroplane?

What next? If you can't play bar billiards properly then how could Hani Hanjour hit the Pentagon?



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Please enlighten us on how you know exactly where they were aiming, hooper.


Huh? YOU said that they were within 25' of their target, not ME! So that means that YOU know, within 25', what their target was. I think they were targeting the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. Thats all.


As with all your cohorts, you seem to turn a blind eye on anything the govt tells you, but remain a harsh skeptic of anyone who questions the govt. What is your motivation, incentive?


Better do an idiom check. Because according to you, me and all my "cohorts" turn a blind eye to anything the government tells us, you are therefore accusing me and my cohorts of ignoring anything the government tells us.


I know what 'they' were aiming at based on what was attacked, the Pentagon and the WTC (according to the OS). Are you claiming they were aiming for the numerous Nuclear facilities on the east coast and missed? (which no doubt would have caused much more destruction to the US if some people were intent on killing the "infidel").


You are really turning into a model of confusion. YOU keep claiming that they hit WITHIN 25' of their target, ergo, you must know exactly what spot on the building they were aiming at - how do you come by this information?


Hey hooper, why not so much a bus bomb since 2001 in the USA? Can these "Muslim extremists" who flew Boeing aircraft flawlessly on 9/11, with zero time in type, not figure out their way over the border with the million other Mexicans?


In my opinion, they are done here. That was my opinion on Sept. 12 2001. They accomplished what they wanted to accomplished. They hit us hard, out of the blue and to an extent, and in such a manner as we will never forget. Bus bombs, street shootings, etc., would be anti-climatic. However, this is not a well organized nor tightly managed group - more a loose confederation of like-minded extremists, ergo, it is very possible, and some attempts have been made (time square bomber, Christmas day bomber) that individuals may make singluar efforts now and in the future.


At what point do you raise your BS flag?


Whenever I see the phrase "___________ for Truth". Fill in the blank.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

And by the way. Glen Stanish is flying for Continental Airlines and is very current. Why not contact the Chief Pilot and express your opinions as "Reheat" claims he wanted to do (just as the Nazi's did) to harrass employers?


And Stanish is on record as being a Pod Person, or one who believe a special "pod" was attached to the underbelly UA 175. You couldn't *write* anything better than this! The Co-Founder of PfT is a Pod Person! He displays his ignorance right there with things aeronautical.

Why would I "report" anyone? Tell Continental that they have an absolute whack job for a pilot? That's Continental's problem. I'll never fly that airline, though, that's for certain.
edit on 30-10-2010 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

And by the way. Glen Stanish is flying for Continental Airlines and is very current. Why not contact the Chief Pilot and express your opinions as "Reheat" claims he wanted to do (just as the Nazi's did) to harrass employers?


And Stanish is on record as being a Pod Person, or one who believe a special "pod" was attached to the underbelly UA 175. You couldn't *write* anything better than this! The Co-Founder of PfT is a Pod Person! He displays his ignorance right there with things aeronautical.

Why would I "report" anyone? Tell Continental that they have an absolute whack job for a pilot? That's Continental's problem. I'll never fly that airline, though, that's for certain.
edit on 30-10-2010 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)

Of course, the ultimate irony is that Stanish will now be flying for United Airlines, the very people he accuses of being part of a conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Of course, the ultimate irony is that Stanish will now be flying for United Airlines, the very people he accuses of being part of a conspiracy.


Good point. We will all wait...breathlessly... for the P4T Press Release (For Immediate Release!) with the screaming headline "Pilots for 9/11 Truth Co-Founder Resigns Captain's Seat, Claiming "I'd Rather Starve Than Work For "Those Murdering Boeing SOBs!"

When reached for comment, Stanish said "I just can't stomach the idea of working for those so-and-so's. The pod that was loaded on UA 175 - it could not have been loaded on without the knowledge of those aircraft flight engineers! P4T has been after flight test data and wind tunnel data on the 767 design for years and Boeing block us at every juncture. The planes that DID fly into the towers were obviously beefed up aircraft, and that could NOT have been done without the knowledge and help of Boeing design personnel."

When pressed, Stanish said "Boeing is complicit in the deaths of over 3,000 human beings. They are in cahoots with the Bush Family Evil Empire (BFEE) and will no doubt get a cut of the illegal-war profiteering from America's imperialistic foray into a sovereign Iraq to steal their oil! This will not stand and I will insist that every active pilot who has membership in Pilots for 9/11 Truth emulate my lead and resign rather than work as part of such a murderous and cold-hearted, horrible industry."

The proceeding was a parody, of course, but we still await something similar from the highly ethical, strongly principled and nothing-but-speculative co-founder of the P4T club.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Hi everyone!

Did ya miss me?

Just dropping in to check the score. I see it still remains the same after SIXTY-THREE 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 Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
The score remains

Pilots for Truth think something or other about there being no planes, or one of the planes isn't real, or there's a pod or something, and the planes are made of something else other than what normal planes are made of.

Everybody else carries on as normal.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The score remains

Pilots for Truth think something or other about there being no planes, or one of the planes isn't real, or there's a pod or something, and the planes are made of something else other than what normal planes are made of.

Everybody else carries on as normal.


Tricky -

For someone who claims "No one cares", you sure are Johnny-on-the-spot with your replies.


Please quote the above claims from here, or once again admit you having nothing but a strawman argument.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Unlike you, all my evidence is well sourced, even in this thread alone.

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument as you have been failing for more than SIXTY-THREE pages and for more than NINE years.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
And yet my view remains the one accepted by almost everybody.

I wonder why? Either you've uncovered some truly startling and impeccably researched information that for some reason is failing to gain traction in the mainstream.

Or you've made a series of poorly thought-through assertions in order to help sell baseball caps, then simply ignored the legion of decent arguments ranged against your "theories".

I just can't decide which...




top topics



 
141
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join