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: 65
141
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Sad really. I hope William is able to find some help (or medication).


You keep coming back to this Paisley fellow, Tiff. Any reason for that? I can guess from your posts that he is a military flight officer and how you must be envious of his career and flight experiences. How much military flight time in tactical jets do you have, Tiffany? Any stick and throttle time in a military jet? How much? Have you ever flown a military jet into an inverted spin - on purpose, by the way - so you can go through and experience the recovery procedures? Have you flown in a military jet at all? If you have, tell us about it! If you haven't, its clear why you keep bringing up the Paisley fellow's name - jealousy and envy and and personally crushing, likely, understanding that you could probably never have made it as a military aviator, but that is neither here nor there in this discussion.

And you still apparently are ignorant of military flight officer qualifications. Why do you keep assuming a military flight officer would even want to get a "FAA Arman (sic) certificate"?

This Paisley fellow does seem to have your goat, though, since you seem to always bring him and his military flight experience into these conversations.
edit on 2-11-2010 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   


While it is nice to learn about your family history...that still doesn't change the fact that we all witnessed the controlled demolition of three buildings on 911...


Were you there? That is the only way you can claim to be a witness. Otherwise you saw what the rest of us saw on the TV.

Are you a real investigator in this issue? Or just another Youtube expert?



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
pinch's last post on ATS was 17 Feb, 2009 before he was banned. trebor451 didn't join ATS until 7 May, 2009 - shortly after pinch was banned.


Hmmm.. interesting. Two people who have the same exact posting style and argument by choosing character assassination over debating the facts and data, saying a lot without saying anything.... one banned, another shows up less than 3 months later. What are the odds?


Besides, trebor451 (robert spelled backwards)


Yeah, it's clear trebor has an unhealthy obsession with Robert Balsamo, just like Pinch does.

Anyway, new page...

After SIXTY-FIVE pages, 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
Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics

Precedent -
EA990
China Air 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, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.



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 = N/A
Precedent = N/A
Verified Experts = N/A


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 been failing for more than NINE years.
edit on 3-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo, clarity



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
This was all discussed in this thread, but it's always good to post reminders as people like Tricky seem to have a failing memory.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Many theories can be offered based on the available evidence I suppose, and others are free to speculate...


There aren't "many theories". There are precisely three possibilities.

- no planes
- modified planes
- the speeds are wrong

Since these are the only options available to you, it's hardly going way off topic to ask you which you think is correct. You don't seem to rule out npt, although above you almost admit to modification. Both of these seem absolutely ludicrous to me - and I think to you, which is why you refuse to discuss them - so I suppose you're left with number three. Which is hardly earth shattering, especially given the quality of your "evidence".

By the way, I like how you say that discussing the implications of your "proof" is speculative, and therefore in some sense undesirable. Brilliant.


For those interested, click this link to understand the tactics used by Tricky.

25 Rules Of Truth Suppression -
Disinfo Tactic Number 14 - Demand Complete Solutions


14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.


Rule 10 is a derivative of the strawman, but Tricky doesn't bother with semantics, he just goes for the all out strawman, uses the above tactic interchanging with the strawman, then repeats it after posts like this exposing his textbook truth suppression tactics get buried with his obfuscation brigade.

No worries though, I'll just keep exposing his tactics every so often.


Tricky, anytime you wish to discuss the data and facts and the topic of this thread, and perhaps by some miracle have some evidence for your argument, let us know. Your tactics of Truth Suppression are failing and have been failing for 65 pages.

Edit: By the way Tricky, if you think the speeds are wrong, you should think twice about getting on your next flight as those speeds were calculated by the very radar which ATC uses to assign speed to aircraft in busy Terminal areas. If there was such a large margin for error in Radar speed returns, planes would be crashing into each other all day long.
edit on 3-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: noted



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Ok, the conclusion is p49/11truth cant do it, however the rest of us can.




The elephant in the room


Turn around and walk out, slowly please.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


But I'm not asking for a "complete solution" at all. I'm just asking you to engage with the basic implications of what you're suggesting.

The reason you refuse to do so is because the process of doing so forces you to confront how ridiculous your notions are.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


But I'm not asking for a "complete solution" at all. I'm just asking you to engage with the basic implications of what you're suggesting.



This was posted back on page 60 and somewhere in the 50's. Read it this time Tricky.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

If I make a claim, I expect to back it up with evidence. Obviously I cannot "prove" the aircraft were modified as I do not have the parts. Just as you cannot prove the aircraft were standard, because you cannot provide the parts.

All evidence thus far points to the fact that the aircraft as reported could not achieve the speeds reported as well as not able to be controlled by a "hijacker" who had less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway at 65 knots in a 172.

Let us know when you have some evidence for your claim instead of assumption, speculation or "because the govt told me so...". You and your kind have been failing for more than 60 pages.




The reason you refuse to do so is because the process of doing so forces you to confront how ridiculous your notions are.


What is "ridiculous" is thinking a standard 767 is "easy" to control 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.

This is why you have failed to provide one verified expert to support your claims, even those ATS members here who claim to be 'experts' don't even want to put their own name behind such a ridiculous claim...while a list of experts who question such a ridiculous notion continue to grow.

Click
edit on 3-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo, clarity



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
i have to say,ive read this whole thread,twice now,and TiffanyInLA to be fair has kick your ass's...and ive also notice a lot of you have turn to personal attack upon tiffany..

let me put it like this,if i was in a jury hearing your testimonies i would be swinging in TiffanyInLA favor with this argument.

and i've been saying for ages,that these same old trusters have 3 or 4 accounts,that how you see there posts always get stars even though there not really saying anything....

can i say twisted agenda.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by snapperski
 


All a truther has to say is "It was the government, it's so obvious!" and he/she will get stars from everyone. I only give stars to people I feel make good points. To be honest, I haven't completely read this thread all the way through, but I would like to see some kind of testing that proves that a Boeing can't surpass the design notes. I started reading through some of Tiffany's quotes and was having difficulty locating the material. The design specs were all about what is legal to put in a Boeing and what isn't. The wind tunnel testing it was said to be based off of wasn't apparent. Now, I'm certain I've missed it, but I'll continue going through it while I have time between my classes.

Also, on a side note, I have noticed that many of the people who tend to oppose truthers have a pattern, but I don't think you can go so far as to claim that they have an agenda or sock accounts, especially just for stars.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by snapperski
 


No, not really....not to those of us who are ACTUAL airline pilots. We aren't being "kicked" by "Tiffany".


....and TiffanyInLA to be fair has kick your ass's


Just read the post immediately above yours. It nothing but a repeat. A repeat. A repeat. A repeat.

It also displays a certain repeat tactic of "false argument", I will call it.

Some like to say "strawman", which is also descriptive. It is the repeated (there's that word again) mental image "she" tries to make, with the verbiage of the "pulling Gs" from a "10,000 foot dive" and "cranking into a 38 degree bank". Etc. It is all hyperbolic nonsense. It is ALL "they" (I say "they", because those are verbatim "talking points" from the so-called "Pilots For9/11Truth" group).

It is a set script, and it varies on occasion, when directed by the leader of the "group". Who, I would venture to point out, IS just about the entire "group", by this point in time.

I think, also, you don't realize the irony of your claims about "sock screen names" on ATS.


You see....it isn't MY place to make such allegations about other active ATS members, nor is it polite to do so. I can express my opinion of certain suspicions...but, they can only be opinions, not allegations.

I deal accordingly, from that viewpoint.

As to the other...the MANY other REAL pilots on ATS, who have chimed in now and then, to these threads? I see completely different writing styles in their posts, as well in all the personal U2Us from them, to me.

I do, however, detect certain similarities in certain other "truther" writing styles, however, that should raise eyebrows. Not yours though, I should hasten to point out.......




edit on 3 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Let us know when you have some evidence for your claim instead of assumption, speculation or "because the govt told me so...". You and your kind have been failing for more than 60 pages.


Couldn't have said it better myself.


ADMIN NOTE: Along with it being childish, altering a quote and passing it off as real serves no purpose other than to give the appearance that you cannot argue the topic with facts and behave like an adult.
edit on 3-11-2010 by Crakeur because: corrected intentional misquote



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You did actually say back on page 59, in relation to AA 11 and UA 175, " I'm not claiming they were "modified or substituted "

Nonetheless, I have to infer from your other posts that you do in fact support modification. I haven't seen you make even an attempt to support substitution.

The trouble is that you don't have a shred of evidence. All you are going on is your doubt that UA 175 could have been doing 510 knots at low altitude. Apart from this one unique occasion when have Boeing 767's flown at 1000 ft at 510 knots ? Piloted of course by someone who had every intention of killing himself and all on board.

Anyway, if I am right in thinking you favour modification then I suggest the scenario doesn't make sense. AA 11 struck at 430 knots so I assume you don't have a problem with that. So was it only UA 175 that was modified ? In which case what made it important that it was going 80 knots more than AA 11 ?

Are you accusing the airlines of being complicit ?



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No, not really....not to those of us who are ACTUAL airline pilots. We aren't being "kicked" by "Tiffany".


You keep making this claim, but you continue to fail to put your name behind such a claim (or any claim you make for that matter) as do these REAL Aviation professionals who can be verified by anyone.

patriotsquestion911.com...

I also beg to differ with your above claim, because if true, you are probably the only "pilot" on the planet(from Student to ATP) who doesn't know that you can plot your own V-G diagram when the V-speeds are known.

edit on 3-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: Clarity



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You did actually say back on page 59, in relation to AA 11 and UA 175, " I'm not claiming they were "modified or substituted "


Read this post again -

www.abovetopsecret.com...




The trouble is that you don't have a shred of evidence.


Read this post again -

www.abovetopsecret.com...
(Perhaps click the source links in the post as well)

Let us know when you get some evidence for your claims other than "Because the govt told me so..."



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


well i can't really comment on this thread in terms of science concerning planes,as i have very limited knowledge in this field,so i've hasten to add my point,as it will no doubt be torn to bits,by you people who are clearly more well imformed them me on subject thread,but we crossed swords in other threads concerning 9/11...so i do hold weight in my comments i've made here.




It is a set script, and it varies on occasion

this can be said for trusters aswell.



You see....it isn't MY place to make such allegations about other active ATS members, nor is it polite to do so. I can express my opinion of certain suspicions...but, they can only be opinions, not allegations.

you may of notice i never dropped names.




I think, also, you don't realize the irony of your claims about "sock screen names" on ATS.

please elaborate,how do you know my real name is not snapperski,now i very much doubt your name is weedwacker ?(from the man who claims he don't make allegations)

i will stand by my statement that i have notice this thread has borderline on personal attack upon Tiffany,not by yourself wacker,but your counterparts have.
edit on 3-11-2010 by snapperski because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You can't have read my post..

I was trying to explore your thoughts about modification of AA 11 and/or UA 175 and you have simply run away from it.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


once again alfie you only read the headlines,or at best,quick flick through things,and then make your comment...this seems to be a common occurrence with you lately.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You can't have read my post..

I was trying to explore your thoughts about modification of AA 11 and/or UA 175 and you have simply run away from it.



Read this post again -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I had the parts, I could "explore my thoughts on modification".

If we had the parts, I suppose you would be able to explore your claims that the aircraft were standard. So far, you haven;t a shred of evidence for your claims, and all evidence that has been provided thus far, conflicts with your claims.

Let us know when you have some evidence for your claims that the aircraft were standard 767 and able to perform the maneuvers described above with a "hijacker" that had less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway in a 172 at 65 knots. Let us also know when you have one verified expert to support your claims. You have been failing for 65 pages.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Let's see, once again for posterity, the sorts of inept, laughably WRONG statements that have spewed from the likes of the people who have leant their names to "PilotsFor9/11Truth" and "PatriotsFor blah, blah, blah...":


Here is a compilation showing the complete lack of credibility of the so-called "PilotsFor9/11Truth" and their companion (with many of the SAME "members" to inflate the roster "numbers") "PatriotsFor9/11Truth".




"A radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan." -- Tiffany

"When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period." -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes.-- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

"It is impossible to hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper while flying a 767 at 450 knots." -- Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club

They also believe a remote-controlled aircraft could hit those 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide towers - while they, with the aircraft under their experienced hand, could not. -- Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club

They also believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. -- "Capt" Russ Wittenberg, P4T member

They also believe there are moon bases on the dark side of the moon where we interact with aliens. -- John Lear, P4T member

They also believe it was high explosives and not AA 77 that caused the damage to the Pentagon. -- Joel M. Skousen, P4T member

They also believe all it takes is a split second to switch a 767 transponder from its normal squawk over to the hijack code (7500). "It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over."-- CDR Ted Muga, PfT Member (This is pure BS. There are four knobs, two outer knobs and two inner knobs, and dialing in the hijack transponder code would take time.)

They also believe there was no jet fuel at the Pentagon crash site. -- Ralph W. Omholt, P4T Member (I'm sure that is welcome news to my former neighbor, Juan Cruz, who was burned over 70 percent of his body by no jet fuel.)

They also believe that "Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel." --Major Jon I. Fox, P4T member (This is something any high school physics student would be able to debunk in one afternoon experiment.)

They also believe holograms slammed into the WTC. -- John Lear, P4T member

They also believe that Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a legitimate organization based on sound aeronautical analysis. --P4T members

They also believe it would take 11.2 g's to pull out of a dive at the Pentagon. -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

They also believe a "pod" was attached to UA 175 - -- Glen Stanish, co-founder of P4T, still an active pilot (Continental)

They also believe there were surface to air missiles at the Pentagon before and on 9/11. -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo via support for April Gallop law suit, dismissed with extreme prejudice and called fanciful and frivolous and fantastic by US District Judge.

They also believe a 767 will break apart at 1 knot over its design limit. Period. -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

All the aforementioned incredibly ridiculous statements can be found either here in this thread or here.



Originally posted by trebor451
I [sic] anyone still wants to hitch their 9/11 wagon to "Tiffany" and "Capt" Bob Balsamo and the others at the utterly speculative Pilot's club web site, by all means go right ahead, but don't expect anyone who has gray matter between the ears to take you seriously.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You really don't expect him to put his name on here and allow hoards of truthers to berate his airline company and harass him personally? I would suggest that weedwhacker perhaps contact an administrator and get board verification, but this calling to arms of wanting to know his personal details is a bit overboard.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join