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: 88
141
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
You want evidence that this is possible? Here you go Tiffany www.youtube.com...
Obviously that will not be good enough for you but you asked for evidence so I will supply it =)


I thought you said you weren't here to prove or disprove anything or want to argue for or against anything???




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Are you an airline pilot? Do have ANY actual experience in real airplanes? Even a little bit in small GA types??


including hijackers who could barely fly a cessna.


Would you elaborate on that sentence? WHO, specifically, did you mean there? Names, incidents (with the "Cessna") etc.


A good resource for gaining perspective on piloting, that I have made considerable use of, is the X-Plane forum because a lot of people who use that slight simulation program actually fly those same craft in the real world.


Oh??? Do tell...so, you don't have actual real-world flying experience?


A comment there that pertains to this topic is that pilots who aspire to flying large airliners should not even start out training on a small plane because of how radically different the controls are.


Whhhhaaaaaattttt????? (chokes on coffee....)

You have to be kidding....! Who on that forum says something as stupid as that?? Can you provide an example...I'd need a word with them!!


In a small plane you are using the strength of your arms to steer, while in an airliner that type of touch will put you immediately into a nose dive or something.


Oh, brother!!!

When I go rent (can't afford to own my own small airplane..too damned expensive!) a GA airplane, it is the SMALL airplane that is easy to over-control, after being accustomed to the Boeing. When I was on the DC-10, I rented a Cessna 210. This is complex, and "heavy" on the controls (to light airplane pilots, anyway...compared to a Cessna 150, for instance). The guy checking me out (you don't just "rent", like you rent cars...they have to fly once with you, to "vet" you)...the instructor looked at me in amazement, and said "I've never seen anyone fly this airplane holding the control wheel with just two fingers before!" I laughed, and explained the difference, in the feel, between the bigger jets and the smaller GA airplanes. We get used to it....but, it's not a LOT of extra force....in fact, the "feel" on a commercial airliner is artificial...compared to light airplanes. Springs are used in the aileron controls, and rudder too. Elevator "feel" is computed, and modulated hydraulically. The "artificial feel" is needed because the control surfaces are hydraulically powered. (Exception is the DC-9/MD-80. It is still has plenty of direct cable connections...in fact, on the DC-9/MD-80, the elevators themselves? Not connected at all. You can see this on the ground, if you look, in strong winds sometimes. The elevators are hinged, and free to move. The cables actually move TABS on the trailing edges, and THAT moves the elevator surfaces as required).


Unless you try a maneuver like I am pointing out in my previous post, you can not appreciate the difficulty. I would recommend to anyone thinking it is easy to do it on your computer, record a video of it and put it on YouTube and post a link here so we can all watch.


I'm afraid you really don't know what you're talking about, but by all means, make a YT video. I'll watch.

edit on 15 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

No, I agree that for a Boeing 767 to fly over a major city at 700 ft at 580 mph was wildly reckless. But the thing is the pilot didn't care.


which is irrelevant if the "plane" couldn't have reached its target and maintained structural integrity.

and since the argument and evidence tiffany presents for 87+pages has yet to be disproven, proves the plane in the videos is not a boeing 767-200... which is further evidence supporting NRPT.


Originally posted by Alfie1
I have seen evidence from you that the aircraft might have sustained damage. Might have required a maintenance checkover. But nothing to the effect that the plane must have broken up.


the evidence presented proves beyond a doubt, it would have.


Originally posted by Alfie1
In the absence of evidence that UA 175 was modified or substituted it seems to me that, as a basic Boeing 767, it did what it did.


and modification is an irrelevant issue if the evidence proves it was impossible ... the absence of evidence of modification, doesn't change the facts and evidence that contradicts the OS' claim about flight 175 being the "plane" that hit the wtc.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

So you think the plane caused NO damage to the building is that what you are saying.
I do not have some sort of morbid fascination with death, to where I enjoy any of this. For example, for research purposes I was watching plane crash videos on YouTube last night and it was all I could do to not break down crying. And by the way, for anyone who has been following this thread, the friend that I mentioned who knew Atta suffers horribly just for knowing the guy and cries quite a bit over it. My point is, I am not doing this, posting about 911, for fun and wish I could just forget it. I don't because I feel an obligation to humanity to speak out about what I know for a fact is a lie and not from supposition but as a witness. If anyone else existed with the same experience as mine, and was speaking out, I would gladly let the whole subject drop from my mind.
If you want to use my testimony to make snide remarks then, please don't, in the name of Jesus, and anything good in this world.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Are you an airline pilot? Do have ANY actual experience in real airplanes? Even a little bit in small GA types??
Oh??? Do tell...so, you don't have actual real-world flying experience?
I'm afraid you really don't know what you're talking about, but by all means, make a YT video. I'll watch.

edit on 15 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


speaking about knowing what you're talking about... have you figured out how to plot your own V-G diagram yet when the V-Speeds are known? If you're a real pilot and not just a google online pilot, this is surely BASIC aviation knowledge weedwhacker.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


The V-G diagram?? Oh, such a fan of that pilot's club you are!!!


Transport Category airplanes do not NEED a simple V-G diagram like that!! It is most useful for small airplanes, with narrower weight and balance envelopes. The types of actual charts and performance references are far more complex, and tailored for a variety of differing airplane configurations.

The charts are actually a hold-over from pre-digital computer days, anyhow. NOW the data is compiled differently, and presented differently. It is yet another failure of the "P4T" to understand (or, they wish to continue to fabricate, in order to fool people).

Shame that those charlatans at "P4T" try to bamboozle the non-pilots, in their quest to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs and DVDs.....sad, so sad.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

a GA airplane, it is the SMALL airplane that is easy to over-control, after being accustomed to the Boeing.
OK, apparently I am not using the right terminology, but my general point is that experience on one type of plane does not necessarily transfer well to a different type of plane.
No I have never flown a plane, I am just saying it may be instructive to read general forum posts on one devoted to flying, to understand a little bit about the subject. I was using a little tidbit from my reading of that type to illustrate a point.

edit on 15-11-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimb07
If you want to overturn the OS based solely on the flight characteristics of Flight 175 then you have to prove that it would have been impossible for the plane to fly as described by the tracking data. To say something is "impossible" (as opposed to merely unlikely or improbable) is a very strong statement and requires a high standard of proof.


and tiffany provided that for 87+ pages. Guess you either haven't read the entire thread, or have a problem in comprehension.


Originally posted by Jimb07
The various charts and technical data we've seen in this thread provide evidence that the plane would have to have exceeded its design limits to fly as it did, however there has been no evidence that this would have made the flight impossible.


actually, from what I see, there's more than enough evidence that contradicts that claim.


Originally posted by Jimb07
The expert opinion from P4T members is contradicted by the many pilots and engineers who support the OS (whether tacetly or not).


yet you can't name or find one of those pilots willing to support your claim and that its "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.


Originally posted by Jimb07
Discussion of past incidents of aircraft exceeding design limits by different degrees and with different outcomes has been a distraction. At most this shows that flight 175 may have been unprecedented, which of course does not mean it was impossible.


NO, the past incidents set a precedent for structural failure at a much lower speed... so exceeding that precedent by as much as UA175 did, makes it an impossibility to have not suffered structural failure and reached its target.


Originally posted by Jimb07
The evidence presented may support the conclusion that flight 175 was improbable, but it certainly doesn't prove that it was impossible.


Uhm, yes it does.


Originally posted by Jimb07
Tiffany and others on this thread have maintained the logical position that all they need to do is show that the OS is impossible without offering a better explanation. However, if you can only make the case that it was improbable then you need to propose a better explanation and so far nobody has been able to do that.


the evidence proves it was far more than improbable and more along the lines of impossible unless you can show a 767 that exceeded Vmo+150, Va+220 - pulled 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, and maintained its structural integrity.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Too bad you've fallen for the "P4T" garbage and hype.

You want SO BADLY to "believe" it..... :shk:

Here. It is a Boeing 727, low altitude, and at Vmo (390 knots is announced by the EmCee) in that demonstration pass.

B-727s have several different Vmo limits, depending on model and configuration. I won't go into details, and it's been MANY years since I flew the darn things, anyway...):




Now, Orion...IF YOU were/are an airline pilot, then you would be in a position to speak as an equal. So far, you seem to only accept (without question, and lacking practical experience to judge their merits) what is spewed by "P4T".

Isn't it interesting that NONE of the airline pilots unions, WORLDWIDE endorse that "group"???

I mean, the APA (American's Pilot Union) and the ALPA chapter at USAir just joined together to publically criticize the Homeland Security pat-down and body scanner rules....gee, you'd think if THEY could get together (ALPA National is still mulling it over), then they'd have joined with "P4T" a LONG time ago!! Right???


edit on 15 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


"Tiffany" keeps repeating this (and now you too), and whenever I answer it, I am ignored by "her":


...the evidence proves it was far more than improbable and more along the lines of impossible unless you can show a 767 that exceeded Vmo+150, Va+220 - pulled 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, and maintained its structural integrity...


"pulled G's" ?? "out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on..." (etc, etc, blah blah).

Garbage, and nonsense and flat WRONG!!! It is exaggerated, and pure bunk! Any pilot who flies knows this....what the "P4T" and any minions that are sent out to spew their crap repeat posts....as laughably incorrect, and hyperbole.

AND, there is no "Va" designated for Transport Category jets, so that bit is increasingly laughable too...and indicates the sheer ineptitude of the sorts of fantasists that write that junk, at the "P4T".

In any event, the Boeing 767 (as all Transports) is certified to a positive G load of +2.5. NOTHING in the flight profile seen on 9/11, when looking at the airplanes in NYC and DC, exhibit that much G-loading. (I have to check, but I don't think United 93 did, either).

What is more...as they ["P4T"] keep trying to use so-called "precedents" incorrectly...like China Airlines 006....THAT Boeing 747 exceeded 2.5 Gs....as much as 5 Gs!!! That was recorded...and yes, structural damage occurred, but NOT catastrophic "fall-out-of-the-sky-immediately" damage. It landed safely...flew for about an entire HOUR to get to the diversion airport (San Francisco).


Hitching one's wagon to "P4T" is a terrible idea, for they are the losing team.....



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
 


"Tiffany" keeps repeating this (and now you too), and whenever I answer it, I am ignored by "her"


...the evidence proves it was far more than improbable and more along the lines of impossible unless you can show a 767 that exceeded Vmo+150, Va+220 - pulled 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, and maintained its structural integrity...


"pulled G's" ?? "out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on..." (etc, etc, blah blah).

Garbage, and nonsense and flat WRONG!!! It is exaggerated, and pure bunk! Any pilot who flies knows this....what the "P4T" and any minions that are sent out to spew their crap repeat posts....as laughably incorrect, and hyperbole.

AND, there is no "Va" designated for Transport Category jets, so that bit is increasingly laughable too...and indicates the sheer ineptitude of the sorts of fantasists that write that junk, at the "P4T".

In any event, the Boeing 767 (as all Transports) is certified to a positive G load of +2.5. NOTHING in the flight profile seen on 9/11, when looking at the airplanes in NYC and DC, exhibit that much G-loading. (I have to check, but I don't think United 93 did, either).

What is more...as they ["P4T"] keep trying to use so-called "precedents" incorrectly...like China Airlines 006....THAT Boeing 747 exceeded 2.5 Gs....as much as 5 Gs!!! That was recorded...and yes, structural damage occurred, but NOT catastrophic "fall-out-of-the-sky-immediately" damage. It landed safely...flew for about an entire HOUR to get to the diversion airport (San Francisco).


And everything you've just stated was already answered and debunked by tiffany... you obviously dodged it and now that she's not here, you repeat the same debunked argument hoping no one remembers.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hitching one's wagon to "P4T" is a terrible idea, for they are the losing team.....


and yet the list of real pilots with real names and experience that surpasses google/sim pilots like yourself keeps growing.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Too bad you've fallen for the "P4T" garbage and hype.


Well since Tiffany's arguments contain evidence that you've evaded or been unable to disprove and has debunked your credibility here, that its garbage and hype is merely your OPINION.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
You want SO BADLY to "believe" it..... :shk:
Here. It is a Boeing 727, low altitude, and at Vmo (390 knots is announced by the EmCee) in that demonstration pass. B-727s have several different Vmo limits, depending on model and configuration. I won't go into details, and it's been MANY years since I flew the darn things, anyway...):


which would explain why you don't know how to plot your own V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, Orion...IF YOU were/are an airline pilot, then you would be in a position to speak as an equal. So far, you seem to only accept (without question, and lacking practical experience to judge their merits) what is spewed by "P4T".


who are made up of professionals that have far more experience and knowledge in the industry than you have


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Isn't it interesting that NONE of the airline pilots unions, WORLDWIDE endorse that "group"???


whats interesting is how you repost a failed argument tiffany addressed and effectively debunked as irrelevant several times already


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I mean, the APA (American's Pilot Union) and the ALPA chapter at USAir just joined together to publically criticize the Homeland Security pat-down and body scanner rules....gee, you'd think if THEY could get together (ALPA National is still mulling it over), then they'd have joined with "P4T" a LONG time ago!! Right???


just because APA hasn't joined yet, doesn't prove or disprove anything you're trying to; its another irrelevant argument and fallacy you keep resorting to because you have no real evidence to support your argument or disprove tiffany's.

edit on 15-11-2010 by Orion7911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


"Tiffany" and "her" posts are a load of BS, and are completely merit less:


everything you've just stated was already answered and debunked by tiffany... you obviously dodged it and now that she's not here, you repeat the same debunked argument hoping no one remembers.



I have told you....EACH time I bring up "Tiffany"s errors, I am ignored...."her" ONLY response to my points, when I raise them, is to REPEAT THE SAME SPAM POSTS. Over and over and over and over and over and over..... (that was annoying, wasn't it? So is the "P4T" lies and garbage).

So, WHO exactly is doing the "dodging", again?? Go back and check. I'll wait......


...and yet the list of real pilots with real names and experience that surpasses google/sim pilots like yourself keeps growing.


"real" pilots???
Do you mean the crowd at "P4T"???


Firstly, with a handful of exceptions, they have NO "real" pilots....take a long look at their membership roster, and the CV of each.

The "real" pilots" Except for the original posts, years ago at the onset of the "club"...WHERE ARE THEY NOW?? Do they post here? ON "P4T"?? (You'll have to go look for me...I don't waste my time sifting through the dreck that are the threads and posts on their site.......)

Oh, and that "growing" list??


Take a long, hard and non-biased look at the "new" recruits. Hilarious!! THAT is about all I look at, and each time am completely underwhelmed.

OH, and this:


...surpasses google/sim pilots like yourself ...


??? Really? Point to one, just ONE of my posts that would lead you (or anyone) to think that about my abilities. I can spot the BS'ers a mile away, however.

BTW....plenty of ATS staff members, and regular members, know my real life details. Accusing me of being "fake" is just going to spread that egg on your face even more thickly.....

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

ALSO: You need to read AND comprehend my posts beter:


...which would explain why you don't know how to plot your own V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known.


THE "V-G" DIAGRAM IS POINTLESS IN THESE "DISCUSSIONS" ABOUT UNITED 175!!! It is "eyewash", meant to "impress" the non-pilots, and those not fully cognizant of many aspects of flying in general, and airline flying specifically.

The ONLY aspect that would be pertinent, from the V-G diagram, is the G FORCE plots, and being outside those envelope limits. BUT, as I already pointed out, a Boeing 747 EXCEEDED by DOUBLE those limits, and survived!!!

"Tiffany" (at Balsamo's behest, no doubt) tried to claim that just exceeding the maximum dive speed, as published (Vd) by only 1 knot would result in a total break-up of the Boeing 767....which is COMPLETE BUNK!!! That is why the rest of us laugh at "P4T"...that, and for many other reasons. Just look at their history of failures and lies and misconceptions and misdirections.....



THAT is what I wrote, from the beginning. It was the LIBELOUS statements by "Tiffany" that claim otherwise, as "quoted" and "parroted" by you, just now.

I don't blame "Tiffany"...because I expect that "P4T" founder Rob Balsamois at "her" elbow with each post "she" types...like two peas in a pod, I expect...they have a very close mental and emotional connection to each other, I presume.






edit on 15 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
 


"Tiffany" and "her" posts are a load of BS, and are completely merit less:


from what i see, the one with the least evidence for their argument is YOU ... which makes your postings and OPINION far worse than mere BS.


everything you've just stated was already answered and debunked by tiffany... you obviously dodged it and now that she's not here, you repeat the same debunked argument hoping no one remembers.

I have told you....EACH time I bring up "Tiffany"s errors, I am ignored...."her" ONLY response to my points, when I raise them, is to REPEAT THE SAME SPAM POSTS. Over and over and over and over and over and over..... (that was annoying, wasn't it? So is the "P4T" lies and garbage).


Each time you've claimed tiffanys arguments and evidence are erroneous, she simply repeated and posted the evidence you evaded and failed to disprove... i think her tactic was fair game and hardly spam based upon your continued failures and claims that was the real spamming imo.

whats most shocking and baffling is why she was banned without any mod warning... its actually very disturbing to be honest because its a sad commentary on what appears to be an unfair and petty censorship of a poster that contributed valuable data and arguments for a position that had every right to respond accordingly and defend against attacks and attempts to deny certain pertinent facts and evidence.n

I think this was one of the most unfair bannings i've seen to date and a huge loss for TRUTH SEEKING and important information from an obvious professional in the industry no matter how much you disagree. and since your OPINION has lost credibility with me from reviewing this thread and your past posting history, any future OPINIONS will be met with the same resistance by myself and those who can see through your fallacious arguments.



...and yet the list of real pilots with real names and experience that surpasses google/sim pilots like yourself keeps growing.

"real" pilots???
Do you mean the crowd at "P4T"???


Firstly, with a handful of exceptions, they have NO "real" pilots....take a long look at their membership roster, and the CV of each.


i have

patriotsquestion911.com...

either you haven't, or you're a liar.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
BTW....plenty of ATS staff members, and regular members, know my real life details. Accusing me of being "fake" is just going to spread that egg on your face even more thickly.....

edit on 15 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


i don't recall saying you were fake ... whatever i said was more along the lines of that you credibility from what i've seen, has dwindled to almost zero.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Oh, nevermind......problem seems to be solved.

For review: Videos that show simulator flights that re-created high-speed Pentagon attack. Other videos that show commercial airliners at high-speed, flying low passes (airshow examples).

AND, best evidence? Dozens of videos and stills, especially of the most documented part of the 9/11 events (because of the earlier impact of American 11, and cameras being focused on the WTC Towers), United 175 approach and impact.

All "arguments" attempting to refute these facts seem destined to fail, since they offer no alternative "theory" of any substance, absent any proof of any kind, other than speculation. It isn't logical to ignore the ample, demonstrable evidences, in favor of some highly speculative, and illogical "claims"...when nothing is put forward.

It is truly puzzling ---- why such delusions, in view of the evidence, persist?? Anyone have a reasonable "theory" on that? Might need some psychologists or something.....



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, nevermind......problem seems to be solved.

For review: Videos that show simulator flights that re-created high-speed Pentagon attack. Other videos that show commercial airliners at high-speed, flying low passes (airshow examples).

AND, best evidence? Dozens of videos and stills, especially of the most documented part of the 9/11 events (because of the earlier impact of American 11, and cameras being focused on the WTC Towers), United 175 approach and impact.

All "arguments" attempting to refute these facts seem destined to fail, since they offer no alternative "theory" of any substance,


except the argument tiffany presented and the alternative theory of NRPT that explains most everything better than any other theory including your fallacious argument and the OS.

LOL



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


and tiffany provided that for 87+ pages. Guess you either haven't read the entire thread, or have a problem in comprehension.

I've read the entire thread and my comprehension is just fine, thank you. It's impolite to suggest that people who disagree with you simply haven't read or understood your argument.


yet you can't name or find one of those pilots willing to support your claim and that its "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.

That's not my claim, in fact I even said I believed it was improbable based on the evidence presented in this thread. It's apparent you've taken up the copy and paste banner in Tiffany's absence, but please don't put words in my mouth.

I've read and evaluated the same evidence you have and clearly we've reached different conclusions. I still have an open mind about it so if you have more evidence that is persuasive, or you want to examine particular evidence in more detail then I'm happy to listen. However, if you've adopted a faith based position and just want to bludgeon any contrary opinion then further discussion is pointless.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Improbable for a pilot well experienced flying that particular plane, but in my opinion, impossible for anyone else, including hijackers who could barely fly a cessna.

There seem to be two arguments in this thread; the first that it was impossible for a regular plane to fly in that way, and the second that it was impossible for the hijackers to pilot it. I was addressing the first argument in my post, but my view is much the same on the second. I accept it was improbable, but I've yet to be convinced it was impossible.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jimb07
I was addressing the first argument in my post, but my view is much the same on the second. I accept it was improbable, but I've yet to be convinced it was impossible.



And if this were a court of law, you would be instructed that you cannot convict based the fact that those who argue in favor of the OS have not proven their case "Beyond a Reasonable doubt".

It is good you observe the evidence and the lack of counter argument offered by those who blindly support the OS.

Now how do we justify the changes in foreign and domestic USA policy, the shredding of the Constitution, the virtual sexual assaults at our airports, and the 100's of thousands of deaths.... based on a story that is "improbable" and not proven "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt"?



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GayPilot
 


And if this were a court of law, you would be instructed that you cannot convict based the fact that those who argue in favor of the OS have not proven their case "Beyond a Reasonable doubt".

I'm not so sure that's a good analogy, but I would say that proof on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence (according to your jurisdiction) better reflects my view.

I don't "blindly support" the OS, but in this case I've not been persuaded of any alternative explanation yet.




top topics



 
141
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join