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: 82
141
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Hey Xtrozero -

You claim to be a pilot?

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?



The big question is whether or not the speed really plays into this at all since the first airplane hit at much lower speed with same results, so this means the speed means little to the end results or to the idea that reality happened differently.
edit on 7-11-2010 by Xtrozero because: increase font size


huh????

SPEED MEANS LITTLE?

let me get this straight,,, your argument hinges on dismissing the speed for 175 as irrelevant but could have hit the wtc, because 11 was slower and thus proves it did ?


mmmmmmmmmkay


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




posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by tortillawraps
I do not believe that those planes were hand flown. How anyone without proper training could even know how to navigate to NY let alone hit a small target at such speeds is simply impossible.


Lets see did the 2 towers just suddenly appear in front of them
they would have seen them from miles away. On the gadget shown in the UK last week one of the presenters was set a challenge to learn to fly a plane, he had to take off ,complete a circuit of the airfield then land back on the runway he had 8 weeks, he was NOT allowed any time in an aicraft all training was on simulators guess what he did it!!!


how does your example have any relevance to the scenario on 9/11?

you can't compare someone having a crash course in flying to the alleged FLYING that had to occur on 9/11 by the pilots to do what is claimed they did.

your argument is nothing but a red-herring.

typical disinfo tactic by those who cannot debate the actual evidence


edit on 11/11/10 by argentus because: fix thread distention from quoted quote



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

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.


Lol ... I love responses like that because it only validates the absurd lengths duhbunkers will go to deny a true story.

I've flown Southwest regularly and 50% of the time when passengers are exiting or the planes almost fully exited by passengers, the pilots are standing outside the cockpit door with the stewardesses either talking or also sometimes saying goodbye and thanks to the passengers.

This is something that can be EASILY verified and did happen in this case.

and yes, they said, sarcastically because i was asking what they thought was RIDICULOUS, have a good night buddy!

but then your pettiness to question THAT and not address their REACTION, speaks volumes!


its a TRUE STORY.

and i'm sure i'd be able to REPEAT the experience again without any problem if that was the REACTION they gave.

they pretty much LAUGHED at what i was asking them and almost were INSULTED that i could come up with such a story.

As trivial as this story is on the surface which you can try to deny and dismiss, it again speaks VOLUMES to an average passenger like myself, who can distinguish who on this board and thread is speaking the TRUTH.

Tiff has spanked the OS PERP defenders like you, hooper, tricky and weed for 81 pages... Its amazing you guys can still walk with her hand print all over your black&blue arses



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor G
 


I ve seen on the web (dont remmember where) it could have been done using a advanced "aircraft remote control", such device seems to exist and work like regular automatic pilot for aircraft but in a more advanced way. Also and it would makes "sense" since it seems some IT guy/network administrator from a company that had offices in the towers called the "authorities" complaning about some emmiting device disturbing the WIFI network from his office.
Such "tools" could explain the precison of the hits.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by moltquedelo
reply to post by Doctor G
 


I ve seen on the web (dont remmember where) it could have been done using a advanced "aircraft remote control", such device seems to exist and work like regular automatic pilot for aircraft but in a more advanced way. Also and it would makes "sense" since it seems some IT guy/network administrator from a company that had offices in the towers called the "authorities" complaning about some emmiting device disturbing the WIFI network from his office.
Such "tools" could explain the precison of the hits.


remote control for a drone/missile, maybe...

but not a boeing 767

whatever was seen on video footage, was nothing more than CGI masking either the drone/missile, or replaced whatever WASN'T there.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
they pretty much LAUGHED at what i was asking them and almost were INSULTED that i could come up with such a story.


Yes, United Airlines 757/767 Captain Rusty Aimer put it well -



"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)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911


remote control for a drone/missile, maybe...

but not a boeing 767

whatever was seen on video footage, was nothing more than CGI masking either the drone/missile, or replaced whatever WASN'T there.



Your 'drone/missile - CGIed videos' theory seems "at least" as spooky if not even more than the 'aircraft remote control - emmiter device in the towers' theory :p
edit on 11-11-2010 by moltquedelo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
This is an article from the New York Times about this subject :-

www.nytimes.com...

You will note that it includes this para : " Flying a Boeing 767 straight ahead at 1000 feet or 1500 feet would not be too difficult, even at more than 580 mph., and it would most likely not threaten the structutural integrity of the plane, a half dozen pilots and a Boeing spokeswoman said."

So, here we have the manufacturers spokeswoman saying not likely to threaten structural integrity.

Despite this thread going on interminably nothing has been presented to indicate that UA 175 must have broken up and Boeing contradicts it.

Tiffany admits she doesn't have any evidence UA 175 was modified or substituted and so, in the absence of evidence that the aircraft had to suffer structural failure then the only reasonable conclusion is that that flight was the standard Boeing 767 it is generally taken for.

This obvious conclusion also obviates the necessity for Tiffany to explain why the perps would have found it necessary to enhance the performance of UA 175 over AA 11, which she cant.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

This is an article from the New York Times about this subject :-

www.nytimes.com...

You will note that it includes this para : " Flying a Boeing 767 straight ahead at 1000 feet or 1500 feet would not be too difficult, even at more than 580 mph., and it would most likely not threaten the structutural integrity of the plane, a half dozen pilots and a Boeing spokeswoman said."


Now finish the quote -



But accurately turning the plane at that speed and maintaining the proper pitch, or up and down movement, is difficult, the pilots said, particularly for a novice pilot, and turning at that speed would have put excessive stress on the plane.


Why do you have to be so intellectually dishonest Alfie?

Here's more - (emphasis mine)



In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.

[snip]

The high speed of United Flight 175 may also have complicated the hijackers' mission, because it would have been more difficult to make accurate adjustments in the plane's direction, several pilots said. Loud and repeated alarms would also have been sounding in the cockpit.

''The faster you go, the less time and room you have for error,'' said Tim O'Toole, a former 767 pilot and staff engineer in safety department of the Air Line Pilots Association.

[snip]

The typical cruise speed of a Boeing 767-200 at 35,000 feet is 530 m.p.h. The lower the plane goes, however, the thicker the air becomes, so the slower the plane must travel to avoid excessive stress.





So, here we have the manufacturers spokeswoman saying not likely to threaten structural integrity.


Now lets hear from an actual "Boeing Spokeswoman", this time, one with a name.


(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




Despite this thread going on interminably nothing has been presented to indicate that UA 175 must have broken up and Boeing contradicts it.


Now click through the list of evidence.


Tiffany admits she doesn't have any evidence UA 175 was modified or substituted and so,


Just as you admit you have no evidence of the aircraft being a standard 767

The growing mountain of evidence provided conflicts with your theory.


Let us know when you get some evidence for your theory that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150 as you been failing for more than 82 pages and NINE years and even your own article disagrees with you.


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



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


The Boeing spokeswoman is named in that article : " Liz Verdier ".

I have listened to the telephone recordings you posted on page 40 with Leslie Hazzard and Lori Berchtold and it is obvious they do not have the information to answer the repeated leading questions . Leslie when asked says " oh boy " and Lori Bechtold says " I've no idea ". I invite anyone to go back and listen and make up their own minds .



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


The Boeing spokeswoman is named in that article : " Liz Verdier ".

I have listened to the telephone recordings you posted on page 40 with Leslie Hazzard and Lori Berchtold and it is obvious they do not have the information to answer the repeated leading questions . Leslie when asked says " oh boy " and Lori Bechtold says " I've no idea ". I invite anyone to go back and listen and make up their own minds .


Wrong. It is obvious Leslie is paging through a manual, and Lori didn't want to go on record as an Engineer.

The fact of the matter is, is that they all say it would be difficult and was at "risk of breaking up in midair".

In typical fashion of your intellectual dishonesty, you cherry picked a quote in which when read in full and in context, has the exact opposite meaning of your intention. Thanks Alfie for once again exposing the agenda of those who blindly support anything the govt tells them.

I felt the same exact way as the article during the time that article was released, just a few months after Sept 11, 2001. I also made excuse for the OS back then. I use to blindly follow what I was told by my govt, just like you.

It wasn't until we started to get more details/data of the events that scores of people started to come out of the ether.

That is why these lists grow.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Again Alfie -

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 and more than 82 pages.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



I use to blindly follow what I was told by my govt, just like you.


And now you blindly follow someone else. I think I see your problem. In isn't a lack if insight but a lack of eyesight.

You can't undo one stupid mistake with another stupid mistake.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And now you blindly follow someone else. I think I see your problem. In isn't a lack if insight but a lack of eyesight.


And yet I have listed ample evidence for my argument, when you have yet to offer a shred of evidence for yours.

After EIGHTY-TWO pages, the list of evidence 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, 11 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


wow, i would stop arguing with them, its pretty much useless. There are a couple of guys like them in this forum who just give out their OPINIONS, backed up by nothing. No matter how much research you do, the often find 1-2 sentences and think they are right.

Its a matter of facts, that the official story has holes like a swiss cheese, and the only things what all people doubting the official story want is a new indipendent investigation.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueFalse
 


You apparently haven't seen the actual fallacy in the "P4T" (and, as their spokesmodel, "Tiffany"s) so-called "research".

It is a sham, all of it. Designed to fool people just like you. Professional, experienced pilots the world over realize that there are always a few coconuts in every Luau...and the ones at the "XXXFor9/11Truth" sites invariably are those nuts....AND, they join multiple organizations, to inflate the membership rosters.

When you really analyze carefully, the CV of the few pilots at any of those organizations, you will see the pattern...AND you will see the true paucity of actual numbers, in terms of membership.

The business of "Pilots" for "truth" is to sell merchandise....period.

Some time ago, when a friend of mine showed me an email he received, from Rob Balsamo, on behalf of the "P4T", suggesting that for the upcoming Mother's Day he should buy his Mom some "truth", in the form of several of their crappy DVDs, well that did it for me.

They are con artists, pure and simple. It is evident in the tactics displayed in their self-promotion efforts (which is WHY you see the activity HERE on this topic, BTW).

It is a sad truth of Human nature that there's a sucker born every minute (Barnum and Bailey, and their circus....Uri Geller....the "seance" craze of the early 20th century....late-night infomercials promising perfect Abs by wearing an electric belt while you sleep)...ALL of those examples use deceit and clever distortions to sway people......

The bogus operation called "PilotsFor9/11Truth" is no different.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I should add, also, that anyone can see the method in the madness....of Balsamo sending people to do his dirty work, here on ATS....we see it in the spam posts, of the same exact material, just about every other day in this thread, and in others like it. Same canned response, straight from someone's harddrive, tailored only to include the latest page count, or other fluff to make it appear to not be an exact duplicate.

The intent of that madness "method"? Evidence is when you Google. It is HIS desire (Balsamo's) to play the Internet game, and manipulate the way HIS ego is massaged, as people to various Google searches, and any reference to his vanity website is brought up. It really is sad...and a little heartbreaking. That's what I tried to gently tell "Tiffany", who seems to be his number one fan. I hated to break it to her...no one wants to break the news that their boy/girlfriend is a scam artist (or worse...not entirely sane). THAT sort of information should come from her close friends, if they figure it out, and have the courage to be a friend, and to tell her.......
edit on 11 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Just the reply you would expect from someone who doesn't know how to plot his own V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known while failing to provide any evidence for his argument for over 82 pages.

Again weedwhacker, contact these guys, they can give you a lesson on how to plot your own V-G,




Originally posted by weedwhacker
The business of "Pilots" for "truth" is to sell merchandise....period.


And yet all their presentations are available for free on the net.


Hey weedwhacker, are the ATS owners also "Con-men" because they have so many banners to "sell merchandise"?

No, they are not.

It's called raising funds to operate. Something you seem to be completely unfamiliar with, along with your lack of aeronautical knowledge.

Have fun with your Microsoft Flight Sim!


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



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Some time ago, when a friend of mine showed me an email he received, from Rob Balsamo, on behalf of the "P4T", suggesting that for the upcoming Mother's Day he should buy his Mom some "truth", in the form of several of their crappy DVDs,


lol...yeah, I received one of those emails as well. Their catch phrases are hilarious, as well..."Can't get across that ocean of doubt? Buy a set of Pilot's for 9/11 Truth DVDs for Columbus Day?"

Grandparent's day is next, I'd guess, and after that Niece and Nephew's Day. Real professional there, Tiffany, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
lol...yeah, I received one of those emails as well. Their catch phrases are hilarious, as well..."Can't get across that ocean of doubt? Buy a set of Pilot's for 9/11 Truth DVDs for Columbus Day?"

Grandparent's day is next, I'd guess, and after that Niece and Nephew's Day. Real professional there, Tiffany, wouldn't you agree?


Is it any more or less "professional" than this?




trebor -

You have failed to discuss the topic and data, you have made numerous attempts to twist and cherry pick external content without proper source, now you just completely fabricate claims of those you clearly obsess.

All of the above a violation of ATS T&C and well documented.

Your desperation is getting worse.

What's next? Are you going to accuse P4T members of Child Molestation as did Ron Wieck and William "Pinch" Paisley?

I'd source it, but I hear P4T had those websites shut down due to excessive libel.

Let us know when you are able to discuss the topic and data, You've been failing for over 82 pages.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Let us know when you are able to discuss the topic and data, You've been failing for over 82 pages.


Credibility, Tiff. You have your little followers here,but in the big scheme of things you have absolutely no credibility anywhere. You refuse to answer questions put directly to you on whatever "qualifications" you claim to have, you refuse to answer questions on issues of aeronautical science, you are not even a member of P4T, the fraudulent organization that you are here defending and is the laughing stock of the Internet. You refuse to acknowledge the absolutely hilarious claims of your P4T comrades - missiles into the Pentagon, pods on aircraft, holograms, etc.

Your credibility here is zero - you know it and I point it out every chance I have.

You/P4T claim:


every press release, article and technical paper published on our main website is sent to more than 100 media outlets (mainstream and alternative), airline union leadership and members (many airline union leaders/members are also members of our organization), and govt agencies.


Yet after all these years not a single one of those organizations has come to your side. Why is that, Tiff?
Oh yeah...they are all in on it.

Credibility. Zero.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



trebor - each time you post, you validate my claim that you are unable to discuss the topic, nor the data, and instead elect character assassination, obfuscation, and repeated violations of ATS T&C, .

Keep up the good work!





top topics



 
141
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join