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: 81
141
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Ok, I'm done with this thread, and I suggest all intelligent people leave it as well. Tiffany is completely blind to everything important that is being said here.

I'll be unsubscribing, and for the absolute record, I hereby disallow you from using my absence as a reason to support your argument in some way. That's a dirty tactic since I won't be here anymore, and it would just reveal just how real your arguments are.




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

Originally posted by Varemia
Ok, I'm done with this thread...


Take care Varemia.



If it means anything, I do give you credit for being the only one who actually took the time to click through the evidence, unlike the others who blindly support the OS. It's unfortunate that you think data from Boeing, the NTSB, NASA, the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, et al, is "crap".

After EIGHTY-ONE pages, the list of evidence remains -
(I changed the wording just for your Varemia.
)

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 9-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




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?:


Not factual, again that is your opinion. You can not disprove what has been asked of you. You apparently must think goading and baiting me into one of you useless rants against truthers will help you look credible, I think not.

So weedy, do you believe a bunch of idiots who could not take off or land a Cessna 172 do “top gun maneuvers” in a Boeing 767? How do you explain the G’s without the plane ripping to pieces? Why don’t you show us some credible sources to back up your “opinions” instead of demanding you are the only expert pilot on ATS and no one has a clue to what they are talking about? TiffanyInLA, has asked some good questions and you and the rest of the OS defenders have failed miserably in proving her wrong.

Even children know by playing with Microsoft flight simulator, know a Boeing 767 cannot handle such G- force stress without breaking up. You all cannot hide this fact.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Even children know by playing with Microsoft flight simulator, know a Boeing 767 cannot handle such G- force stress without breaking up. You all cannot hide this fact.


This is a good point. From what I understand, Computer games have settings for "easy" to "realistic".

Considering the fact weedwhacker also seems to be providing sources for his claims from computer generated graphic, combined with his claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, it all becomes clear.

It appears weedwhacker is an avid Flight sim "gamer" who plays on "easy" settings.

Perhaps this is the reason weedwhacker doesn't know the basics regarding aerodynamics and V-G diagrams, but is very familiar with cockpit switches?

No wonder he never wishes to put his name behind his claims as do all the other real verified pilots who disagree with him.

Sim gamers are notorious for thinking they know more than the real deal. This is perhaps the reason weedwhacker constantly personally attacks those with real and verified credentials, his clear bias to blindly support anything his govt tells him notwithstanding.


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



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


No, "Tiffany" has no "good questions", sorry....this is well demonstrated, over these many pages. Only the blind can't see it...the blind ones are the people who fall for the tricks, and the distortions of facts, and the selective cherry-picking..and the LYING. Blatantly lied, about "many" ALPA officers being members of "P4T".(benefit of the doubt, though? "She" evidently has marching orders from Rob Balsamo...heck he might even be right at "her" side, channeling as "she" types, mentally 'one', if you get my drift...), so you can't shoot the messenger on that one....AND I doubt the lie will ever be apologized for, since the one who told it to her isn't posting here......riiiiight???
Do you we will get an admission of guilt, at the very least?).

Now about "lying"....let's call the rest of the bs from "P4T" a milder word..."distortion".

I can tell that "P4T" lies and distorts. So can the few others who are also pilots, and ATS members, who post. They can see what I see.

Is it not very, very telling that the "P4T" membership is so tiny?? Ever wondered why? Wondered, "Where are all the ALPA Board members, the heavy hitters?" What about the APA? SWAPA? The three major pilot Unions. (I'm an ALPA member, BTW).

The tactic, as evidence in just the most recent posts, is a common trait of "P4T", in every effort "they" make...you witnessed it, the dismissive and insulting "waving" away of the very excellent work compiled by Varemia(sp?) Not sure of the spelling, atm, but doesn't matter, everyone knows to whom I refer.

Now, let's take a look at your comments:


How do you explain the G’s without the plane ripping to pieces?


I mentioned, just above, the "blindness" that sets in, with the "9/11 truthers". Fine example you've just shown, because I have repeatedly (but not AS REPEATEDLY as "Tiffany"...) posted plenty of evidence about the "Gs".

So now, tell us....why don't you say, in your own words, what YOU think about the Gs? Because, I'd like to know what you based that question on...YOUR knowledge and expertise.


Why don’t you show us some credible sources to back up your “opinions” instead of demanding you are the only expert pilot on ATS and no one has a clue to what they are talking about?


I am NOT the only pilot, "expert" or otherwise, on ATS. Hyperbole, from impressme?? Wow, that's novel.....


TiffanyInLA, has asked some good questions ....


No, "Tiffany" has lectured, by repeat postings of the same irrelevant garbage, at the (alleged) direction of her "boss" and "leader"...and, based on the fact that "she" continues, and never addresses ANY counter argument, but ignores and then barges ahead with yet ANOTHER copy/paste of the same tired mantra, I submit that "she" is not a pilot, but just a minion, doing "her" job. There seems to be no other explanation for the lack of creativity, in supporting "her" and the "P4T" assertions.


....and you and the rest of the OS defenders have failed miserably in proving her wrong.


Did I already mention the rampant blindness of the followers of "P4T"?? Blind leading the willfully blinded??

This seems to be a commonality, in the so-called "truth" field. THAT, and willful distortions of facts. See it all the time, from "that side". Other hand, logical, experienced and reasonable people who examine everything IN CONTEXT are bringing those perspectives to this, and (as usual) being ignored.

Religious piety and illogical devotion to even the most fantastic of beliefs will do that to some people.....



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So can the few others who are also pilots, and ATS members, who post. They can see what I see.


4nsicphd, Capt Chaos, Jetstream, and many other ATS members who are not affiliated with Pilots For 911 Truth, disagree with you.

Do a search -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The rest who disagree with you are verified real pilots, unlike you.

Click

The list is growing.

Have you figured yet out how to plot a V-G diagram when the V-speeds are known?

Here, maybe these guys can help you.

www.airtalk.org...


I haven't made one for a year or two.
It is called a V-n or V-g diagram.
You can make it yourself.
You look up all the information in the POH/AFM.
Horizontal line is airspeed.
Vertical line is g-loading.
Top border is positive-g load limit.
Bottom border is negative-g load limit.
Right border is Vne/[Vd].
Left border is Zero kts/mph.
The positive knee is at Va, Vs is another point at 1-g.





posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That is what I thought. The C-141 was 20 degrees. So is it safe for ALL to agree that real humans were at the controls?

I think if we can agree on this then we can all head in a good direction.


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



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That is what I thought. The C-141 was 20 degrees. So is it safe for ALL to agree that real humans were at the controls?

I think if we can agree on this then we can all head in a good direction.


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


Because certainly if the aircraft were remotely guided, clearly the bank limits could not have been tweaked as well?



Xtrozero, do you still think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150? Have you tried it yet with your alleged UAV's you claim to pilot?

If not, why not?

Do you know what happens to Center Of Pressure as airspeed increases well past Vmo and the reason manufacturers set such limits?

Do you still think Mach Tuck is only relevant to T-Tails?
edit on 9-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
"Xtrozero, do you still think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150? Have you tried it yet with your alleged UAV's you claim to pilot?

Well it would be easy for Xtro to verify to me if he was an UAV "pilot" In the military i was in 94 locating regiment, and we manned the UK's phoenix UAV equipment, I still keep in touch with my old comrades and one of them is in " situ" at the moment and i can get some "insider" questions if he so pleases, Not that i doubt Xtro,
The fellow locator that he is,



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Xtrozero, do you still think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150? Have you tried it yet with your alleged UAV's you claim to pilot?


Tiffany, do you still think a 90-ton 757 traveling at 750 feet per second should exhibit the same cartwheeling crash characteristics as a 10 lb radio controlled model traveling at 75 feet per second?

If so, why?

Relationship to the thread topic: credibility.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




H

...“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?:




Even children know by playing with Microsoft flight simulator, know a Boeing 767 cannot handle such G- force stress without breaking up. You all cannot hide this fact.


This discussion of g's is a digression from the original topic, which was speed. Speed, by itself, doesn't cause increased g loading. Changes in angular momentum or the velocity vector cause increased g's. And rolling into a bank doesn't increase gs. Turning, while in a bank does cause a load. In a level unaccellerated turn, phi=arccos(1/n), so that a 60 degree banked turn equals 2 gs.
For g loading certification, the FAA requires the setting of 2 load limitations. The design load limit is set at a figure such that up to 150% of the design load limit (the ultimate load limit) will not result in permanent deformation or failure. There is no such safety margin for the speed limitations set out in the Type Certificate Data Sheet.
As far as a pull-up goes, it will depend on the speed somewhat, since the acceleration (g load) is equal to the velocity squared divided by radius, or, if you prefer a vector derivation, dtheta/dtime=w=2pi/T=v(absolute)/R, so higher speed=higher gs and smaller radius of the pull-up=higher g.
By the way, rolling while pulling g does have significance, because of torsional loads resulting from asymmetric loading. The diference is apparent when looking at the main spars of aircraft that have shed their wings from excessive g loading. A simple pull-up or updraft overstress will show a spar with tension damage on the bottom and compression damage at the top, while a negative loading or downdraft failure will show the reverse. A rolling overload will show torsion damage, particularly in a wood spar aircraft, such as an older CAP (Avions Mudry)or a Cassuitt racer.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Have you figured yet out how to plot a V-G diagram when the V-speeds are known?


Your snide condescension aside....it DOESN'T MATTER in regards to United 175!!!! The "V-G Diagram" is irrelevant, not applicable, has nothing to do with United 175, as witnessed on 9/11, in the final seconds prior to impact with the WTC Tower. What IS happening is, the ever-desperate "PilotsFor9/11Truth" squad continue to scramble around, and find things to bedazzle the non-pilots that they (mostly) cater to, and who (that very, very, very exceedingly small minority) seem, for some unknown reason, to hang on every word and laughable claim as if they were some sort of gospel.

It doesn't matter to 175, because the ONLY metric that was exceeded, in that instance, was the airspeed "limits"...and then, only briefly. Certainly, in an alternate Universe, had the airplane missed hitting the Tower, and then (mind experiment) slowed down, and landed somewhere...upon inspection, then there would likely be SOME evidence of some stresses not usually seen in normal, in-limit operations.

There are many, many instances of "jet upsets" or "extreme turbulence" encounters, or hard landings, and/or to include tail strikes (both take-off, and landing), etc, etc, etc....within the airline industry, over the years....and of course airplanes involved, depending on the severity of the incident, are grounded and inspected. AND, in about 99.9% of cases (or some other high percentage, who knows?) returned to service. Even the TWA "Hoot" Gibson high-dive? THAT airplane was repaired, and deemed fit for continued service, rather than being written off as a hull-loss.

But, since NO excessive G-forces were involved with United 175, again the V-G Diagram is pointless, in that case. It is worth.....

Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Here's your task....you love them so much, you plot one for a Boeing 727 and a Boeing 747SP. THEN, take a look at how far out of the V-G envelope THOSE airplanes flew, and stayed intact, and landed safely after the excursions.

NOT ONLY airspeed excursions, but G-load excursions as well...Far beyond the certificated 2.5 positive g for Transport Category airplanes.

Boeing, Boeing, Boeing. Built tough. Boeing tough. "If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going." That is an old, old airline adage....predated me, because I heard it from the old, old timers when I was just a new young whelp.


Sorry, "tiff"....I have the feeling you cherish some sort of relationship with Rob Balsamo, in some way, and are therefore partial to, and devoted to him and his "ideas" on this. Unfortunately for you, "love" can be blind, and this seems to be an excellent example of such a case.

One would think that, after all these years, and the "P4T" crowd have STILL not gotten anywhere with the rest of the aviation world? Doesn't that tell you something, maybe? There are more people on this planet who honestly believe in a five-trillion years ago intergalactic war, and an alien named Xenu who brought soul containers to the Earth in spaceships that resembled DC-8s, with rocket motors in place of the engines, and dumped the copses into a volcano, and, and and....I didn't make that up, it is what Scientologists believe, and there are a LOT more of them than "P4T" members....and, to tell the truth, as incorrect and complicated and paranoid the "P4T" delusions are, they are no where near as nutty as the $cientologists'.....YET, more people believe in THEM??? :shk:

People are funny, aren't they????



edit on 10 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Because certainly if the aircraft were remotely guided, clearly the bank limits could not have been tweaked as well?


The problem we have here Tiff is we have someone like you who puts forth a theory, like remote controlled, and their argument rests on only “real pilots cannot do it”, so why tweak anything? If they wanted to make it a UAV then they would use what is available, and we are not talking simple servos driving the flight controls, or are you suggesting they redesigned/reinvented a UAV flight control system from ground up just to Tweak it past limits that they could just use as they stand with the installed auto pilot.

This continues to spiral down a path of never ending creations out of thin air to make it all happen.



Xtrozero, do you still think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150? Have you tried it yet with your alleged UAV's you claim to pilot?

If not, why not?


Does attacking the person make your argument any more correct? Who I am doesn't support your cause in the least nor does it change facts. This is a dead horse you continually beat because you have no where else to go.

You have asked me this question, what, a dozen times and my answer has been….

For a pilot to line up an approach on the towers and then firewall the engine to hit the towers at whatever speed they can reach would be an easy task since all they would need to do is aim with small inputs to adjust, and it seems that since both planes were able to do just that my point is valid.


You, Tiff, have long ago switched to trying to prove your point by only attacking what others think or write here. You need to continue to expand your theory to win us over. That expansion needs to show how they did do it then if real pilots didn’t do it.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


On the topic of "real pilots couldn't do it" (an absurd claim), here is the Dutch TV program "Zembla", that investigated many such "9/11 conspiracy" claims, analyzed the "Loose Change" nonsense (and others).

Including a simulator to re-create the Pentagon fly-over, turn-around and final approach to impact.

(The majority of that rather boring turn, to line up for the final approach, is edited out...they cut to the best, last bits for emphasis).

Starting at about 25:00 talks about some claims by "Loose Change" regarding the Boeing 757 debris at Pentagon, and then moves on to the simulator demonstration. This rather poor video quality, not sure why...but, at least it is subtitled in English, unlike many YouTube versions floating around.....


Google Video Link


Flying the Pentagon attack profile was NOT "difficult"....and neither were the WTC profiles.
edit on 10 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Xtrozero, do you still think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150? Have you tried it yet with your alleged UAV's you claim to pilot?


Tiffany, do you still think a 90-ton 757 traveling at 750 feet per second should exhibit the same cartwheeling crash characteristics as a 10 lb radio controlled model traveling at 75 feet per second?


Unlike you, I can source my claims.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
....a condition known as “Mach Tuck”...... this condition is related to T tails only.


Let us know when you can source yours trebor, your credibility diminishes by the day, as if you had any left.

@weedwhacker -

Are you paying attention? Click - www.abovetopsecret.com...
Read slowly.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
..it DOESN'T MATTER in regards to United 175!!!! The "V-G Diagram" is irrelevant, not applicable,


If you believe the aircraft which struck the south tower to be a standard 767, Boeing and the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics disagree with you.




(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson Leslie Hazzard - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."


Source - Click


Here's your task....you love them so much, you plot one for a Boeing 727 and a Boeing 747SP. THEN, take a look at how far out of the V-G envelope THOSE airplanes flew, and stayed intact, and landed safely after the excursions.


It was already done, Click the links in the evidence list. The aircraft suffered in flight structural failure well below Vmo+150 and lost control for 10's of thousands of feet. Let us know when you find one that has achieved Vmo+150, remained controllable/stable and held together. You have failed for over 81 pages.



One would think that, after all these years, and the "P4T" crowd have STILL not gotten anywhere with the rest of the aviation world?


Pilots For 9/11 Truth started 4 short years ago and now has a growing list of hundreds of Aviation professionals.

ALPA started 70 years ago and represents only 9% of the pilot population.

Does this mean 91% of pilots disagree with ALPA?

Your repeated logical fallacy is stale weedwhacker. Try another tactic.

@Xtrozero



For a pilot to line up an approach on the towers and then firewall the engine to hit the towers at whatever speed they can reach would be an easy task since all they would need to do is aim with small inputs to adjust, and it seems that since both planes were able to do just that my point is valid.


Now actually read the NTSB document.



Source - Click

People like you and weedwhacker claim the above is a "normal" descent for a Transport Category aircraft.


Let us know when you attempt the same in your UAV and if it remains stable and in control. Be sure to maintain Vmo+150 or better during the entire dive and pull out, while rolling on G's into a 38 degree bank.

Video tape it for the rest of us.


Your theory and blind support of the OS is absurd, that is why these lists grow -

Click


...... to win us over.


If I were trying to "win your over", you might have a point. But the fact is that you already made up your mind long ago when your govt told you what happened and you listened without question, regardless of the growing mountain of conflicting data.

@weedwhacker -


Originally posted by weedwhacker
On the topic of "real pilots couldn't do it" (an absurd claim), here is the Dutch TV program "Zembla"....

[snip]

Including a simulator to re-create the Pentagon fly-over, turn-around and final approach to impact.



Dutch Pentagon Attack Recreation A Fraud? - Simulator Not Certified, Not A 757
edit on 10-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Odd that the NTSB report mentions the "impossible" speed with no comment whatsoever. I guess they must be in on it. Which in turn would make it strange that they reported the correct speed at all - why not make up a more plausible one?

Still that's all "speculation" (or rational thought, depending on your bent). And this game was over a long time ago. Sayonara Tiff, let us know when the new investigation starts.




posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



No, "Tiffany" has no "good questions", sorry....this is well demonstrated, over these many pages. Only the blind can't see it...the blind ones are the people who fall for the tricks, and the distortions of facts, and the selective cherry-picking..and the LYING.


This is what the OS needs to be supported.

The Truth does not need cherry picking.
The Truth can not be supported by lies.
The Truth doesn’t need distortions it stands on it own merit.

When one cannot dispute the facts, then smearing P4T and anyone who doesn’t support your “opinions” works for you.

Perhaps, you really think everyone is stupid.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Perhaps, you really think everyone is stupid.


I certainly don't think everyone is stupid. There will always be a segment of the population who are gullible and are easily taken in, though. There will always be the ones who will email their bank account number to a Nigerian scam artist. They will be the first to go buy an Electric Abdominal Toning Belt and will wonder why they don't have a set of abs like the dude or dudette on TV. They will buy that foot cream and those special foot pads that is supposed to leech poisons out of your body. They will give money to P4T for DVDs when they could watch them on the net. They will jump on the CIT bandwagon because they fear the real world will not cater to their biased perspective on things. They are of weak mind and extremely low critical thinking skills and they will glom onto the first - or the latest - slick, fast-talking shyster with a glib tongue and who spouts all sorts of technical-sounding nomenclature that comes along.

That is both the Truth movement and P4T personified.
edit on 10-11-2010 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by impressme
Perhaps, you really think everyone is stupid.


I certainly don't think everyone is stupid. There will always be a segment of the population who are gullible and are easily taken in, though. There will always be the ones who will email their bank account number to a Nigerian scam artist. They will be the first to go buy an Electric Abdominal Toning Belt and will wonder why they don't have a set of abs like the dude or dudette on TV. They will buy that foot cream and those special foot pads that is supposed to leech poisons out of your body. They will give money to P4T for DVDs when they could watch them on the net. They will jump on the CIT bandwagon because they fear the real world will not cater to their biased perspective on things. They are of weak mind and extremely low critical thinking skills and they will glom onto the first - or the latest - slick, fast-talking shyster with a glib tongue and who spouts all sorts of technical-sounding nomenclature that comes along.

That is both the Truth movement and P4T personified.
edit on 10-11-2010 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)


WOW... after 81 pages and the only responses to Tiff i see from duhbunkers and OS supporters like trebor, are AD HOMs, obfuscation, derailing, and every disinfo tactic and logical fallacy in their perp handbooks.

Not a shred of evidence to disprove the evidence Tifs presented.

I recently had a flight on Southwest and decided to ask the 2 pilots as i was exiting the plane about what they thought of flight 175 hitting the WTC at 510 knots at 700ft nsl.

They said "WHAT"? huh?

I said, yes, 175 hit the tower at approximately that speed and altitude.

they looked at me like i was crazy and laughed... "NO,,, IMPOSSIBLE... you don't know what you're talking about."

i said, no really, thats the official data... and reiterated so you guys are sayin a boeing 767 could not have achieved that speed at that altitude and maintained structural integrity right?

again they laughed and "NO WAY... NOT POSSIBLE" and said have a goodnight buddy.



edit on 10-11-2010 by Orion7911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

again they laughed and "NO WAY... NOT POSSIBLE" and said have a goodnight buddy.


"Have a good night, buddy"? lol......ok, sure. Whatever you say. Pilots who hang around the cockpit after a flight talk like that to their customers all the time. Continental company policy is for pilots to address their passengers as "buddy", "pal", "dude", "junior", "Mac" "Toots", "babe", "Sugarbritches" or "HotLips", depending on gender. The sobriquets "Sir" or "Ma'am" are optional only and are to be used only in rare instances of public conversation.

Anything you say, buddy.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join