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: 78
141
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



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?


I am not here to convince you of anything. Your mind was made up the day you registered on ATS and it has never changed. I never asked you to believe me, I just assumed you would have good judgment. I really don’t care who you believe in.


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.


Apparently, you haven’t been following the thread and it's contents.




posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

I am not here to convince you of anything. Your mind was made up the day you registered on ATS and it has never changed. I never asked you to believe me, I just assumed you would have good judgment. I really don’t care who you believe in.


That's not my point. I'm asking why you felt able to throw out "Mike's" evidence on the basis of his anonymity.




Apparently, you haven’t been following the thread and it's contents.




In the thread I'm talking about Snapperski quotes your opinion of Mike's work. The quote contains not a single fact, but is simply a stream of assertions. If you like I'll reproduce it. What I find remarkable about it is that Snapperski presents it as though it is in some way "evidence". And this to discredit a source that he dislikes for its anonymity.

Essentially I just find it odd that someone wold quote the opinions of an anonymous internet source in order to discredit an anonymous internet source.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Essentially I just find it odd that someone wold quote the opinions of an anonymous internet source in order to discredit an anonymous internet source.


That’s because the “anonymous internet source” had done his research and you didn’t bother to read his sources that proved your friend was spreading disinformation. My own research supported the “anonymous internet source,” and that’s how I know he was telling the truth.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

Oh, brother!! Not again....


pretty much the same reaction we have every time you post a reply here.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Those cute little videos, YOU keep repeat posting them, almost like clockwork. I've already taken the time to tear them down, but it seems to have been ignored.


they're ignored because those cute little videos presented evidence and facts that in reality, you failed to tear down.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
People who are truly interested can find where I've dissected those videos...


and your dissection was subsequently dissected and proven lacking at best.

so most readers reading your posts now, realize your opinions are worthless in determining truth.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, what I try NOT to do is the posting of the same set pieces, from the same script, over and again.


and yet with all your trying not to, you still do.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, when I have more time, I might come here and, once again, newlywrite up my critiques of those videos. Instead of just posting the same old, same old...like some tend to do.

edit on 6 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: clarity


including you....



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by snapperski
 


Enough with this nonsense you and Tiff and the rest of the "we did this to ourself, rather than a stupid foreigner doing it,


FACT are FACTS...just because you choose to deny it, doesn't change the OS is a lie and 9/11 was an inside job.


Originally posted by weemadmental
This is what happened there are thousands of videos,


...that prove fakery, nrpt and the OS was a LIE


Originally posted by weemadmental
eye witnesses and general public that show, or have seen this event happen,


who are contradicted by eye witnesses and general public that know and didn't see what you claim everyone did.


Originally posted by weemadmental
things happen, aircraft can do more that just shuttle people about, any of the P4t group should know this, i wouldn't like to be side saddle or passenger in any aircraft flown by the P4t movement.
It has been years now since this happened, there has been no successful legal challenge to any of the items that have happened,


because for one, the legal system is controlled by those responsible for 9/11 aka the PERPS... so why would the criminals allow themselves to be investigated let alone convicted?


Originally posted by weemadmental
there is no evidence against what has happened,


to the contrary, there's overwhelming mountains of evidence proving the OS was a LIE.


Originally posted by weemadmental
when you can find any proof that TPTB has fabricated this event for any purpose, you know real evidence not conjecture or fabricated


you mean like the evidence they've fabricated that you believe?


Originally posted by weemadmental
give us one bit of plausible and "CREDIBLE" evidence that can stand up in a court of law and you will covert us to your cause but you still have not done this


yes we have.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by TrueFalse
 

You have no evidence, this is the basis of law, why do you all think that they could not fly an aeroplane, they have done this, it has happened, its not too difficult to place a liner into a target with a bit of training, they are not simpletons, they had managed to get into the US board the plane, and take over, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to get this far, as for pointing the aircraft at a target is quite straight forward, thumping the throttles to the stops and positing the aircraft is not a difficult task, get over this point and you can see how this has occurred.
Wee Mad


and yet you have ZERO evidence or any intelligent argument refuting the arguments and evidence presented that prove otherwise.

such a shame.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
As far as I know, we don't know how long the speed was maintained.


Yes we do, and you are wrong. This is why I keep posting the evidence, in hopes you people will actually review it. Instead, you just keep repeating the same logical fallacies and false assumptions without ever actually reviewing the data.

The evidence is all here if you wish to become informed.

After SEVENTY-EIGHT 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.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I have never found a pilot that will agree, and if you want to make an unhappy pilot laugh, just tell them what the OS defenders are claiming, “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.” The truth is so compelling for some people, as we see this demonstrated in many of these 911 threads.

edit on 9-11-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I know a great deal about the B-757/767. Thousands of hours flying them, learning their systems, knowing how everytihng[sic] works, and how they fly.



Then why don't you know that a V-G diagram can be plotted when the V-Speeds are known? Everyone from a Student pilot to an ATP knows this. But you don't.




There is only one explanation for your clear lack of aeronautical knowledge. You're not a pilot.

This is why you will never put your name behind your absurd claims, and the list of real and verified experts who disagree with you, grows.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by hooper
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'?



Read and learn -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument, you've been failing for 76 pages.
edit on 8-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: new page


I read, but I think you need to learn. Thrower/Pilot? Really?

The face of the towers were approximately 1500 x 250. Thats about 375000 square feet or about 8 acres. The pilot (the plane was piloted not thrown) needed to hit anywhere on that 8 acre bullseye. He did.

So where is the 25' error of margin coming from?



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I've contacted ALPA and alerted them to the fact that people are claiming their Officers are members of P4T.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've contacted ALPA and alerted them to the fact that people are claiming their Officers are members of P4T.


We should give Tiffany a-NOTHER chance to tell us which ALPA officers are members of P4T.

Let's repost the question and ask her to answer:

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???



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Hey, impressme, is this all ya got?


...“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.”


Merely repeating the same garbage spewed from the fertile imagination of Rob Balsamo over at "P4T". Not even factually accurate, either!? DO you know why? How will you defend this?:


...claims it is "easy" to control a 767.....for a pilot....who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.


The salient part of the originally quoted, (not yours, just parroted) text from the stock script that "P4T", via Rob Balsamo, spews over and over and over and over and over, again...Over and over.....

So....WHO exactly was at the controls of American 11, and WHO at the controls of United 175?

Also, WHO is being referred to when you say "....who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots."

Be specific, look up the actual facts, in order to support your derisive dismissals. WHICH of those two hijacker pilots, in the Boeing 767s were the ones talked about that had problems when they tried to rent a Cessna 172?? Names??

Prove that ONE of those guys is, in fact, the same person in the Cessna 172 example. Proof.

I think you will fail.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Then why don't you know that a V-G diagram can be plotted when the V-Speeds are known...


And why didn't YOU know that the V-G diagram you made up is missing a vital data point??? You (well, as a spokesmodel for "P4T") haven't ever addressed this...but most of those "V-G" diagrams assume MTOW...at least, as those sorts of diagrams are applied to General Aviation airplanes. There aren't any V-G diagrams of that sort, for Transport Category airplanes, because of the very wide weight and CG envelopes that those airplanes enjoy....we have plenty of other charts to refer to (but in this computer age, we've no need, anymore. Computers crunch the numbers for us, and spit out the parameters to adhere to. You'd know this, IF you were an airline pilot on the big jets...).

How come YOU don't know (oh, but I think you do, you just leave it out) that maneuvering speeds, and stall speeds all change, based on actual weight. You (as a representative, posting on behalf of "P4T") DO understand this, correct?

But, it doesn't matter. My point ALWAYS has been that the "P4T" use of this "diagram" is worthless, and intentionally contrived to distract those who DO NOT fly, with the pretty colors and graphics, and technical jargon.

Still...ignoring stall speeds for now, as they aren't relevant on 9/11. Nor the Va (maneuvering speed). Again, red herrings thrown out, to distract...a typical ploy and tactic of the "P4T", to bedazzle and confuse the lay audience members.

Plotting of the V-G diagram merely shows that, because of the added kinetic energy derived from increasing airspeeds, the ability of over-stressing the airframe (too many Gs) is possible. BUT, speed alone, BY ITSELF, does not cause an increase in G forces. It is control manipulation (and of course, outside influences such as turbulence...ALSO not a factor on the morning of 9/11. And, NO! There was no significant turbulence that day, in that region, at that altitude. Winds were light and variable at most, and no thermal activity that early either).

So, in the case of both American 11 and United 175, the G forces can be ignored....it is evident, based on the flight profiles observed, that no significant Gs were exerted on the airframes. Therefore, the ONLY metric that was exceeded, in terms of the certificated and tested envelope, was the excessive airspeeds seen.

All the rest of the claptrap from the "P4T" isn't worth the electrons that they are taking up. Fortunate for the rest of the Universe, it is vast, and seemingly infinite....so, the influence of those missing electrons is minuscule.....the increase in overall entropy is so tiny as to be insignificant. (Much like the "P4T"....)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451


We should give Tiffany a-NOTHER chance to tell us which ALPA officers are members of P4T.


Well, they must be. I can't believe Tiffany would tell a lie.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey weed,

I got a question, what is the max bank angle with the auto pilot? Since P4T says it was about 38 degrees and looking at the video in the last few seconds it looked like the pilot started to really bank for a good hit I was wondering just what is the max bank you can have the auto pilot do.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Then why don't you know that a V-G diagram can be plotted when the V-Speeds are known...


And why didn't YOU know that the V-G diagram you made up is missing a vital data point???


It appears weedwhacker doesn't want to click on the evidence either.

Here, let me help you weedwhacker.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet

The above was provided perhaps more than 20 times in this thread. Click on it.

Next, find where is says "Vd" and the corresponding speed.

Take that speed, and place it in this diagram provided by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics where it says Vd.



Viola. You now have data from Boeing based on flight and wind tunnel testing placed into a diagram as defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.


wheedwhacker - can you read what it says outside the Vd line?

If you can, I'll give you a star.

edit on 9-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



trebor, I know you wish to get more names so you can continue your typical style of character assassination (just like the Nazi's) due to the fact you are unable to discuss the data, but please, try to stay on topic.

Let us know when you get some evidence to support your absurd claims, you've been failing for over 78 pages.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
reply to post by trebor451
 



trebor, I know you wish to get more names so you can continue your typical style of character assassination (just like the Nazi's) due to the fact you are unable to discuss the data, but please, try to stay on topic.

Let us know when you get some evidence to support your absurd claims, you've been failing for over 78 pages.


Credibility goes to the very soul of what you are speculating, Tiff. You said:


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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


I am asking who the ALPA officers are that you said are member sof P4T. You don't seem to want to answer.

This goes directly to your credibility - if you don't speak truthfully about P4T membership, why should anything else you say be believed?

You claim that a radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan. Whatever...we'll just let that one go for now and save it for later.

You also claim that many of the Officers of ALPA are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Who are those ALPA officers who you claim are members of P4T? An examination of all ALPA officers and P4T members shows that none of the ALPA officers are members of P4T.

Care to comment?
edit on 9-11-2010 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've contacted ALPA and alerted them to the fact that people are claiming their Officers are members of P4T.


Did you ask any of them if they think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150?

I think Capt Rusty Aimer - ALPA MEC Officer said it best -


"To me, it's impossible, you know, any pilot that has been in a commercial jet would probably laugh if you said 510 knots."


Source - Click
(scroll forward to 23:20)




top topics



 
141
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join