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: 77
141
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
See, the door swings both ways.



Well yeah. Exactly.

You're saying that you've debunked him, that he's a liar, and that he's just some anonymous person on the net. But so are you. So why should I believe you and not him?

And I haven't seen any of your debunking. In another thread Snapperski quoted you as though you'd proved that "Mike" was fraudulent. But all the quote consisted of was your opinion. Not a shred of evidence.




posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Tiffany, here's what you wrote.



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


None of the ALPA Officers is a member of P4T. That's a complete falsehood.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Here's one I found in a short quick search -

Captain Rusty Aimer



Served as Member of the Board of Directors, Master Executive Council, and Chairman of the Local Scheduling Committee of the 66,00[0] member Airline Pilots Association.


Once again trebor, let us know when you wish to debate the topic and the data.

As usual, your concentration is focused on character assassination. It's not working.




So...AImer is an Officer of ALPA? Wow...you'd better get in touch with ALPA and get his name back on the current officer's list. After all, YOU are the one who claimed


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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


You didn't say "Past" officers". You didn't say "A Couple Past " officers. You didn't say a "FEW Past " officers. You said "... many of the Officers of ALPA are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth."

"Many" means "lots". Not just one.

Once again, Tiff, let us know when you want to say something that is actually factually correct. My "concentration", as you call it, is on credibility and pointing out things you say are not true.

As it is, we'll just add this one to the list that includes your claim that "A radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan." and "Capt" Bob Balsamo's claim that ""When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period."


edit on 8-11-2010 by trebor451 because: font



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So the correct question is which of these speeds do I consider to be most accurate. And the answer is that I don't know, because I have no idea what the margin for error is on ASR and it's some time since I've evaluated the source for it. Second, I haven't looked in detail at the other source either.


No #.


Let us know when you do as I have provided all the tools you need to inform yourself.

If you do not have the courtesy to properly inform yourself when I have taken the time to provide the tools, I have no desire to extend you the courtesy of informing you further.

Good luck in arguments which you feel are "unpopular".



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Here's one I found in a short quick search -

Captain Rusty Aimer



Served as Member of the Board of Directors, Master Executive Council, and Chairman of the Local Scheduling Committee of the 66,00[0] member Airline Pilots Association.


Once again trebor, let us know when you wish to debate the topic and the data.

As usual, your concentration is focused on character assassination. It's not working.


So...AImer is an Officer of ALPA? Wow...you'd better get in touch with ALPA and get his name back on the current officer's list. After all, YOU are the one who claimed


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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


You didn't say "Past" officers". You didn't say "A Couple Past " officers. You didn't say a "FEW Past " officers. You said "... many of the Officers of ALPA are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth."

"Many" means "lots". Not just one.

Once again, Tiff, let us know when you want to say something that is actually factually correct. My "concentration", as you call it, is on credibility and pointing out things you say are not true.

As it is, we'll just add this one to the list that includes your claim that "A radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan." and "Capt" Bob Balsamo's claim that ""When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period."
edit on 8-11-2010 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)




Wow trebor, was a nerve struck? What a mess....


I'm sure you would want to have many more names so you can continue your character assassinations from the comfort of your anonymity, but I think I'll just let you twist in the wind.

Let us know when you wish to discuss the evidence -

After SEVENTY-SEVEN 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
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.
edit on 8-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

No #.


Let us know when you do as I have provided all the tools you need to inform yourself.

If you do not have the courtesy to properly inform yourself when I have taken the time to provide the tools, I have no desire to extend you the courtesy of informing you further.

Good luck in arguments which you feel are "unpopular".


Wait a second, I answered your question.

You haven't answered mine (again) despite the fact that you claim always to answer, except occasionally when you "miss" the questions.

Second time asked:

Do you think it more likely that

- the government, risking terrible consequences if they were found out, employed unscrupulous (and subsequently silent) people to modify aeroplanes so that they could fly a bit faster into the WTC, even though the advantages of the extra speed are completely unclear and such a process would be an organisational nightmare

- the reported speed is incorrect, for whatever reason

?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

edit on 8-11-2010 by TrickoftheShade because: deleted dble post



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you think it more likely that....



Click and read it this time -

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So the correct question is which of these speeds do I consider to be most accurate. And the answer is that I don't know, because I have no idea what the margin for error is on ASR and it's some time since I've evaluated the source for it. Second, I haven't looked in detail at the other source either.

In fact, during my putative descent I wouldn't in almost any circumstances be relying solely on ASR either. So the correct question is which of these speeds do I consider to be most accurate. And the answer is that I don't know, because I have no idea what the margin for error is on ASR and it's some time since I've evaluated the source for it. Second, I haven't looked in detail at the other source either.

If you want an answer to your actual question, of how would I want my speed calculated - by a man with a notepad or a laptop trying to do rapid calculations while a plane screamed towards a runway, or by a radar, I suppose I'd take the latter. But I'd point out that the professor presumably had the luxury of time and empirical evidence in making his judgements.

Now let me ask you a question...




If you do not have the courtesy to properly inform yourself when I have taken the time to provide the tools, I have no desire to extend you the courtesy of informing you further.





Originally posted by me

Several times, when you've found the going particularly tough, you've pretended that you don't even have to read someone's queries because of some perceived error or insult they've aimed at you.


Wonderful to demonstrate me correct with such punctuality. Must be the pilot in you.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Wow trebor, was a nerve struck? What a mess....


A mess? You are the one who claimed "... many of the Officers of ALPA are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth."

Its not my fault you don't know what you are talking about. Tough to believe it can go any deeper, but your credibility is sinking even further - and no doubt we'll get the standard spiel as a response since you really don't have anything else left to say.


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


Is a complete, total and utter falsehood.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you think it more likely that....



Click and read it this time -

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I read it. What you're essentially saying is that you don't have to answer questions about your ideas but every scrap of evidence for a traditional view of events has to meet your criteria of evaluation.

It is, let me repeat, not a logical fallacy to ask you to account for the conclusions that your ideas and evidence make inevitable. It is in fact a signal that your proof is probably wrong if what your evidence "proves" is impossible.

Third time asked:

Do you think it more likely that

- the government, risking terrible consequences if they were found out, employed unscrupulous (and subsequently silent) people to modify aeroplanes so that they could fly a bit faster into the WTC, even though the advantages of the extra speed are completely unclear and such a process would be an organisational nightmare

- the reported speed is incorrect, for whatever reason

?


I'd also like to ask a supplementary question.

Which Officers of ALPA are members of P4T?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Anytime you wish to address the evidence instead of asking for speculation, let us know.

Anytime you wish to provide evidence of your own for your argument, let us know.

You've not only been failing for more than 77 pages, but you've also admitted you don't even check the sources nor evidence based on the topic and instead prefer to argue speculation and theory.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It is, let me repeat, not a logical fallacy to ask you to account for the conclusions that your ideas and evidence make inevitable. It is in fact a signal that your proof is probably wrong if what your evidence "proves" is impossible.


Tricky,

You constantly go in circles.

Read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument as you been failing for 77 pages.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


So you can't answer either question? Okay.

I'm not sure that this "evidence" is going to ever do anything except occupy quite a long thread on a message board if that's how little it takes to shake its foundations.

I think I'll give you a star now. Because I feel a bit... I don't know. It's almost touching.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So you can't answer either question? Okay.


So you refuse to click the links where they were already answered?

Okay..



I'm not sure that this "evidence" is going to ever do anything except occupy quite a long thread on a message board if that's how little it takes to shake its foundations.


Seems to be growing quite a list actually.

Click

Let us know when you have some evidence other than "Because the govt told me so..."



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
So some kind of technology was used. The plane was programmed the way a tommahawk is programmed. We have to arrest all the country leaders of the EU and US on suspected complicity charges.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Yeah man flat out, it was done, I have seen the videos
If you are going to tell me that they were actually remote control flown, I am going to ask you, If it is so difficult to do hands on it must be even harder to do it with a remote control no?


Automatisation. Machines cant feel love (yet), but they can aim missiles, cannons and planes better than we.





edit on 8-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



So some kind of technology was used.


Yes, some (two) Boeing 767s, and (two) Boeing 757s. They were the technology. With humans bent on a suicidal terrorist act at the controls.

A suicidal terrorist act that is conducted using a gasoline tanker truck driven by a human, and rammed into a building, and exploding, is ALSO an example of technology being used.


The plane was programmed the way a tommahawk is programmed.


Oh, you have some sort of link to the source of this claim? Or, is it just your "opinion" and "gut feeling"?

NO, there is no comparison to a Boeing 757/767 and a Tomahawk missile, in terms of "programming". I know very little about a Tomahawk, just what I can research from the Web. But I can intuit that much, since I know a great deal about the B-757/767. Thousands of hours flying them, learning their systems, knowing how everytihng works, and how they fly. No comparison to a guided missile, at all.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You didn't answer them in those links.

Put it this way, if you really have uncovered something "True" it's doubtful you would have to run so fast from such simple questions, even if you thought them basically irrelevant.

When the only possible outcomes of someone's "proof" are absurd, is it more likely that the absurdity is true or that there is a flaw in some aspect of the "proof"? I tend to think the latter.

Which is why I'm not surprised that your notions crumble so quickly when faced with the most basic - and relevant - of enquiries.

Once more for luck:

Fourth time asked:

Do you think it more likely that

- the government, risking terrible consequences if they were found out, employed unscrupulous (and subsequently silent) people to modify aeroplanes so that they could fly a bit faster into the WTC, even though the advantages of the extra speed are completely unclear and such a process would be an organisational nightmare

- the reported speed is incorrect, for whatever reason

?


I'd also like to ask a supplementary question.

Which Officers of ALPA are members of P4T?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I don't know about everyone else here, but I'm getting sick and tired of her cut and pasting of the same stuff every single page. Isn't there some kind of rule against spamming the same exact thing every time? I mean, at least when I'm challenged, I try to present my claim in a more understandable manner, or at the very least in a different manner, hoping that the other person will see my line of thinking. This re-posting of the same thing, literally the same thing is just insane.

I do believe this quote is relevant:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
www.quotationspage.com...


Now, aside from my observation of your post content, I have yet to be convinced that a plane will fall apart immediately after entering the red zone. I can see it becoming unstable and being in danger of falling apart, but one of the problems we have encountered here is that the speed we are talking about is still the speed upon impact.

As far as I know, we don't know how long the speed was maintained. For all we know, it could have only been in the red, structural failure zone the last couple seconds of its flight, after it had been accelerating from the descent, which I can demonstrate here at 2:50 :




posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'd also like to ask a supplementary question.

Which Officers of ALPA are members of P4T?


I'd like to help her out a bit. Here are the officers of ALPA, 2010:

Captain John Prater, ALPA President
Captain Paul Rice, First Vice-President
Captain Bill Couette, Vice President-Administration/Secretary
Captain W. Randolph Helling, Vice-President–Finance/Treasurer

Executive Vice Presidents:

Group A
Capt. Chris Dowell, Continental
Capt. Michael Geer, Delta
Capt. Ray Miller, Delta
Capt. Joseph Fagone, FedEx
F/O Michael Hamilton, United

Group B1
Capt. Edward Lowry, ExpressJet

Group B2
Capt. Thomas Maxwell, American Eagle

Group B3
Capt. Tom Zerbarini, Atlantic Southeast

Group B4
Capt. John Sluys, Alaska
Group C
Capt. Dan Adamus, Air Canada Jazz
_________________________________

I checked each one with the P4T List of Members and not a one is listed as a member.

Tiffany? You said "many"...wait....let me quote you precisely:


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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


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

Can you tell us which ones?

Tiffany? Tiffany???

edit on 8-11-2010 by trebor451 because: looking for Tiffany



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
141
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join