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: 75
141
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Your sarcasm is hilarious. Your borderline racism less so.

I don't think I've ever seen a post by you which contains any content whatsoever. Just basic innuendo designed to make yourself feel superior and a fascination with describing the hijackers - who were, let's face it, almost certainly in many cases better educated than you - in racially and socially prejudicial terms.

I mean "turbans"? Pathetic.




posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by snapperski
 


Lets see OS planes hijacked crashed into building fire/structural damage and then they collapse the other option false planes,people kidnapped/murdered,explosives planted in building and a government willing to risk killing thousands of people many nationals of other countries and making it easy for internet BUILDING EXPERTS like yourself
to spot COME ON what sound more far fetched.

edit on 8-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: layout

edit on 8-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



W T H are you on about,your ramblings are not making sense,and once again trying to put words in my mouth,since when have i ever said i'm a building expert....i do belive you made that statement up ??

seek the truth and the truth will free you !



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Update -

We are now on page SEVENTY-FIVE (25 past the initial prediction, and only 25 more to go for the final prediction) -

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
NASA Research


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 - To those who blindly support whatever their govt tells them -


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.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Well it's true this thread has dragged on for 75 pages but it hasn't proved anything. Have you decided whether you are talking about AA 11 and UA 175 or just the latter ?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Update -

We are now on page SEVENTY-FIVE (25 past the initial prediction, and only 25 more to go for the final prediction) -

The score remains -

Number of persons who have been convinced that....well....err....I don't know really what you are actually arguing, but here is the distance you have advanced your agenda - 0

Number of new investigations into 9/11 started - 0

Number of media articles raising "questions" about 9/11 - 0




edit on 8-11-2010 by hooper because: misquote



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Well it's true this thread has dragged on for 75 pages but it hasn't proved anything.


It especially has not proven that a standard 767 can fly 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.

You actually need evidence to prove such an absurd notion. Let us know when you get some, you have been failing for 75 pages, as predicted many pages ago.


Have you decided whether you are talking about AA 11 and UA 175 or just the latter ?



Read the thread Alfie.

Why do you keep evading these question Alfie?

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?


It's clear the "pilots" here who blindly support the OS avoid this question, I don't blame you for avoiding it as well, considering your position and bias.

Third time asked Alfie. I'll keep asking till you answer.


edit on 8-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Yes well, that just shows why this has gone on and on. You can't even answer a simple question as to whether AA 11 and UA 175 are still in the frame, as far as you are concerned, or just the latter.

I have said I don't know who, if anyone, is right about UA 175's final speed and it is you who insists on trying to trash the MIT Professor.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Yes well, that just shows why this has gone on and on. You can't even answer a simple question as to whether AA 11 and UA 175 are still in the frame, as far as you are concerned, or just the latter.


Wrong again Alfie.

Since it's clear you refuse to read the thread. I'll help you.

Click the "Boeing" link under the Data Evidence I have provided above.


I have said I don't know who, if anyone, is right about UA 175's final speed and it is you who insists on trying to trash the MIT Professor.



Again you avoid the question.

Alfie - Fourth time asked.

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?
edit on 8-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


And that is supposed to be an answer as to whether we are still talking about AA 11 and UA 175 or just the latter.

It is so obvious you don't want this thread to end, otherwise you would actually respond to direct questions. Hoping for hits on P4t website perhaps ?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Alfie - click the link. It is a link to a post on ATS. (and people wonder why I need to repeat myself)



Alfie - Fifth time asked.

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?


By the way, these facts are not "trashing". (It appears you avoid the linked questions here as well, typical)

A bit surprising though, since it appears you might be very familiar with "trashing"?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Update -

We are now on page SEVENTY-FIVE .....The score remains....


ZERO professional organizations or associations climbing on your broken down bandwagon. You have a couple of ATS members rushing to your defense every once in a while, which is some sort of progress, I guess, but in terms of convincing anyone who matters? Zero. Zilch.

Capt Dave Bates, the president of the Allied Pilots Union representing 11,000 American Airlines pilots, recently sent a letter to his union members advising them not to partake in back-scatter x-ray screenings and to demand private patdowns from TSA officers. This made the news.. You'd think if they thought there would be any truth to the cockamamie speculative claims of Tiffany and "Capt" Bob Balsamo and his pilot's club, the Allied Pilots Union would be issuing press releases and letters to the press about that.

You have to assume that Tiffany and "Capt" Bob Balsamo have contacted Capt Bates and the Allied Pilots Union and given them their best pitch...their best presentation...the absolute best argument that a 757 never hit the Pentagon, but rather flew over the building and that a 757 never crashed in Shankesville, PA and that the two WTC aircraft should have fallen apart at 1 knot above its "design limit".

I'm sure Tiffany and "Capt" Bob Balsamo also made sure that the Allied Pilots Union were informed that "A radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan." (Tiffany) and "When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period." ("Capt" Bob Balsamo) and that 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) and "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) and 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) and they also believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. ("Capt" Russ Wittenberg, P4T member) and they also believe there are moon bases on the dark side of the moon where we interact with aliens. (John Lear, P4T member) and they also believe it was high explosives and not AA 77 that caused the damage to the Pentagon. (Joel M. Skousen, P4T member) and 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.) ) and 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.)) and 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.) ) and they also believe holograms slammed into the WTC. (John Lear, P4T member) and they also believe it would take 11.2 g's to pull out of a dive at the Pentagon. ("Capt" Bob Balsamo) and they also believe a "pod" was attached to UA 175 (Glen Stanish, co-founder of P4T, still an active pilot (Continental)) and 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.)

You just know for a *fact* that all those items were briefed to the Allied Pilots Union because the Pilot's club is such a professional organization. What? They haven't been briefed on all those items? Tiffany and "Capt" Bob Balsamo wish to remain on ATS, arguing these things? Scandalous!

If anyone wonders what someone screaming in a vacuum sounds like, just dial into Tiffany on ATS and "Capt" Bob Balsamo on his Pilot's club web page.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


As usual, trebor is not able to provide any source for his claims/quotes. (Which by the way, is against ATS T&C for external quotes).

As usual, trebor doesn't provide source links for his external quotes because trebor is notorious for cherry picking out of context.

As usual, trebor attempts character assassination instead of discussing the data/facts.

As usual, trebor makes a post with nothing of value.

As usual, trebor STILL has no evidence for his claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

As usual, trebor fails, as he has been doing for the past 75 pages.

trebor -

Perhaps you can answer these questions? Alfie and your cohorts seem to be having a bit of a problem answering.


Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?
edit on 8-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I've seen the link and I am still not sure why I have to scroll through history to get an answer to a simple question from you.

According to radar AA 11 hit at about 430 knots; UA 175 at about 510 knots. So, are you content that we are just looking at the apparently higher speed of UA 175 ?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I've seen the link and I am still not sure why I have to scroll through history to get an answer to a simple question from you.

According to radar AA 11 hit at about 430 knots; UA 175 at about 510 knots. So, are you content that we are just looking at the apparently higher speed of UA 175 ?



It is not clear to you?

Alfiie - speeds for both aircraft as reported are excessive based on the evidence I have provided. One moreso than the other.

Alfie - Sixth time asked


Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Are you saying AA 11 and UA 175 are both still suspicious ? AA 11 was only going 430 knots, according to the highest set of figures.

This is only the top end of the "caution" area if your VG diag. means anything. Doesn't seem very desperate for perps bent on self-destruction.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


This really isn't about which data you "feel" more comfortable with. It's about what data we have and what can be applied. Just because it is your opinion that one data set is more accurate than another does not make the other data invalid in the search for the truth.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

This is only the top end of the "caution" area if your VG diag. means anything. Doesn't seem very desperate for perps bent on self-destruction.



Wrong Alfie -

430 knots is 10 knots into the Structural Failure Zone and 5 knots more than the speed which caused in flight structural failure for EA990, a 767.




Alfie - Seventh time asked -

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?

@Varemia -

Perhaps you can answer the above questions?

I think we already have Alfie's answer. It appears Alfie would much rather have an "MIT Professor" who cannot calculate a percentage assigning speeds for his aircraft.

Thank goodness such an "MIT Professor" doesn't work busy Terminal Areas and instead author's papers loaded with errors and speculation to discredit the argument of people who parrot him, like Alfie.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


One would have to presume, yes....


You have to assume that Tiffany and "Capt" Bob Balsamo have contacted Capt Bates and the Allied Pilots Union and given them their best pitch...their best presentation...the absolute best argument that a 757 never hit the Pentagon, but rather flew over the building and that a 757 never crashed in Shankesville, PA and that the two WTC aircraft should have fallen apart at 1 knot above its "design limit".


It seems a valid presumption, giving that a "PilotsFor9/11Truth" so-called "co-founder" sent such a "presentation", in the form of a letter, to the Air Line Pilots Association. Addressed to the National Officers of ALPA, at the time (October 2006):


Captain Duane E. Woerth, President
Captain Dennis Dolan, First Vice-President
Captain Paul Rice, Vice-President – Administration/Secretary
Captain Chris Beebe, Vice-President – Finance/Treasurer
Captain Howard Attarian, Executive Administrator


Also, to the ALPA EVPs (Executive Vice Presidents):


Captain Chris Lynch – Group A, First Officer Michael Geer – Group A,
Captain Joe Fagone – Group A, Captain Darryl Snider – Group A,
Captain Darryl Snider – Group A, Captain Mark Seal – Group A,
Captain J.C. Lawson – Group B1, Captain Jay Schnedorf – Group B2,
Captain Mike Milofsky – Group C1, Captain Tom Wychor – Group C2
Captain Kent Hardisty – Group D


Who sent the letter? A Continental Airlines (I am sorry to say) First Officer at the time, and self-proclaimed "co-founder", Glen Stanish...who says:


"....on behalf of Professor Jim Fetzer, PhD., Scholars for 911 Truth co-founder, I as an ALPA member and Associate member of Scholars for 911Truth, am writing to you, the ALPA National Officers and Executive Vice-Presidents to encourage your participation and partnership with Scholars, an organization of which I am also very proud to be a member."


From: Scholars for 911 Truth
Associate Member Glen Stanish
ALPA Member 0933457


Subject: Open Letter and Invitation to Join Scholars for 911 Truth
Date: October 3, 2006


Here is the link to the letter, which, as you can see, is being hosted on the "PatriotsFor9/11Truth" website, in this instance. Puzzling, isn't it??


Oh, wait! No, not really...you see, all three (at least these three), the "Patriots", the "Scholars" and the "Pilots" have cross-pollinated, and share a number of "members" ( or, as Mr. Stanish called himself, "associates"
). I believe this has the effect of not only attempting to "legitimize", in people's minds, these organizations (because it appears to be multiple groups, all "on the same page"), but it also has the effect, until you examine them closely, of appearing to have a greater number of fringe "off-the-wall" eccentrics than there really are.

NOW, here's where it gets creepy....I struggle not to link to the "P4T" website intentionally here on ATS (Bugs Bunny knows, certain agents of that group has done it often enough, already), but when viewing (after a Google search, mind you. Didn't wish to wade through the muck at "P4T" any more than I had to) I found a thread authored by the other "co-founder" (and now Big Kahuna) of "P4T", Rob Balsamo, that featured ( in a one line post!! No comments, just a link. But, he IS the "boss"...) this, written by Glen Stanish, on another site.

Rob Balsamo posted and started the thread on August 14, 2006. Titled, "Article By Glen Stanish, Continental Airlines"

I said it gets creepy, didn't I? Well, take a look-see. I feel disgusted by the Forum that hosts this article ------:

www.rumormillnews.com...

Now, I know some might be thinking right now, "Whoa, there! Hold up! Glen Stanish is co-founder of the 'Scholars4T', not 'Pilots4T!"....and I would answer, "No".... he is just an "associate". That PhD fellow Jim Fetzer claims to be "co-founder"...who knows?? Maybe Stanish did "co-found" there, too. Might be "co-founding" all over the place, for all we know.....They all seem to be in bed together, at any rate.....(THERE is your "conspiracy"!!!)

Anyway, Stanish's own words on the "P4T" connection:


My name is Glen Stanish. I am a Pilot and Co-Founder of this Pilots For Truth Forum, and Co-Founded this website along with Johndoex. I received my commercial in 87. I am rated on the B-737, DO-328, Ba3100, and qualified on the MD-80. I have been been flying for about 25 years, for the airlines since 91. I was checking out some of the new areas of the forums and found a thread which was kind of upsetting to me. It is the one titled "BYE, BYE UAL175 "POD" THEORY!, Proof POD doesn't exist!!!" It wasn't the photos which disturbed me the most. It was how quickly so many people dismissed not just the pod, but all the issues dealing with Flight 175. And the logic of it all is what I am seeking. (By Glen Stanish, Co-Founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, in 9/11 Oddities Blob, January 3, 2007).


(my emphasis)

From this source, yet another crackpot 9/11 "conspiracy" site.

Did you notice something odd about this "experienced" airline pilot's views, there? He actually believes in the "pods" on United 175!!
Despite the fact that HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER, just from experience around airplanes like the Boeing 767, at his own airline!!! He should know, just by looking at its design, especially the landing gear fairings, under the wings, where the wings and fuselage meet. Sure, he's likely not senior enough (at that time) to hold a bid on the B-757/767 fleet, but he has EYES, right?

:shk:

I smell an agenda, in this entire "9/11 conspiracy" self-licking ice cream cone travesty. A con job of the deepest proportions, spurred by what appears to be a hint of insanity, on the part of some of the players. The religious aspects, as shown by Stanish's contribution to that freakish "christian" (or whatever it is) website should be a clue to something going on, here.

The slavish, undiscriminating devotion, and blind obedience to all things that have become the lore, and dogma of the so-called "9/11 conspiracy" have a profound similarity to blind religious devotion as well....

Anyone else see this???? I just shudder in disgust.......



edit on 8 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: Clarity



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Wow, interesting letter. Thanks for posting it weedwhacker.

Especially considering many of the Officers of ALPA are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

weedwhacker, you claim to be a pilot (albeit, you still do not know how to plot a V-G when the V-speeds are known
)

Perhaps you can answer this question? It seems Alfie, Trebor, Xtrozero and a few others who blindly support the OS are having trouble.

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



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


Ever going to explain this? How do you know what the target was to within 25'?



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join