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: 89
141
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





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





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



Its typical for people who subscribe to this sort of nonsense, and who have NO concrete facts on anything......to turn around at attack the people who refute them with REAL evidence........

They cannot account for your evidence........so they try to discredit you instead........

Weed youve proven yourself knowledgeable in aircraft mechanics and as a pilot, most people can tell that, this person or persons, just decides to put all their faith in the information given to them instead of information from experience and knowing about the profession.....

Me thinks the stars are just from his followers, which makes me giggle, for people who want to deny ignorance youd think they would do some research and listen to those who have an understanding of flight dynamics and actually have flight time under their belt.........




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jimb07
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.


"Preponderance of evidence" is based on a Civil case which determines more than 50% is in favor of those who make a claim.

"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is based on a Criminal Case in which the Prosecution has the responsibility to prove their case "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt".


This means that the proposition being presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty


In other words, since you admit you feel the evidence shows the Government Story (I prefer GS over OS) as "improbable", you have admitted to the fact that those who support the GS have not proven their case "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt".

I think we will both agree the initial case made by the GS is criminal and not civil?

Furthermore, the definition of "improbable" is less than 50%. Therefore you have admitted that those who support the GS have not even proven their case to satisfy a "Preponderance of evidence".

In other words, you indirectly admit by your statement of "improbable" that the GS holds no justification for the changes that have taken place based on such a theory which has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt nor under the preponderance of evidence.

Those who continue to argue in this thread that "if an alternate explanation is not offered, then the OS must be true", are wrong.

The Burden of proof is upon those who support the GS. They are making the claim that a Standard 767 hit the south tower at more than 150 knots over the 767 max operating speed under the control of hijacker who had less experience than one observed to not be able to control a 172 at 65 knots.

Everyone (including yourself) admit they have not been able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and instead find their case "improbable" based on the evidence provided.

Further, those who have presented evidence relevant to the topic, have been banned, without warning. And those who blindly support the GS, with rebuttals that consist of mostly ad homs and personal attacks, unsourced external content, and absurd claim which are also unsourced, remain.

Anyone taking the time to read through this thread will readily understand. I highly recommend it.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
...youd think they would do some research and listen to those who have an understanding of flight dynamics and actually have flight time under their belt.........


I agree.

That is why I recommend people click this link instead of listening to people like "weedwhacker" who cannot be verified as a real pilot.

patriotsquestion911.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GayPilot
 


oh im sure he could if he had a mind to....besides how do we know YOURE a real pilot? just saying its all speculation, just because you have Pilot in your name doesnt mean you are one.

If he had the mind to im sure he could present the proper materials to prove his profession......

Can you?



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by GayPilot
 


oh im sure he could if he had a mind to....besides how do we know YOURE a real pilot? just saying its all speculation, just because you have Pilot in your name doesnt mean you are one.


And just because I have "Gay" in my name, doesn't mean I'm "Gay" either"


But unlike weedwhacker, I can discuss the evidence.




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueFalse
 


Lets see I will explain this to you in as simple launguage so YOU can understand the Karate video was shown to show that a softer object can damage a harder object. OBVIOUSLY you could not comprehend that


Re Your fire video lets see what does it have in common with WTC

Multi storey building and fire thats it, LET me expalin why you cant compare the two so that even someone with your OBVIOUS lack of any construction knowlege can UNDERSTAND it.

The building in Beijing was it a tube in tube steelframe building like the Twin towers NO

Did the fire start by a PLANE being flown into it at high speed which caused fire/structural damage NO

For your info
[url= en.wikipedia.org...]

From the link above

The engineering firm for the building was Arup, East Asia,[7] who designed and built the TVCC after an extensive internal study of the World Trade Center building collapses on September 11, 2001.[8]

Back to you.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Orion are you tiffany ?, she has not debunked anything on this forum, she spammed the board again and again with the same nonsense that you are now posting, this has to stop,did you notice that she was banned without warning for her comments, as you have now been made aware by several different people and pilots, you will not find a single person willing to lose the licence they have worked years to get, so please stop asking if there are any pilots that can meet the dive, roll on (or is that bank) in to G's plus VMO 150 etc, etc

It is easy to see that you have no experience in these matters and by spouting the P4T crap, that hasn't been recognised or proved in the last 10 years, so will never now be shown to be right,

Do you honestly believe in your heart of hearts that if any of this "evidence" was real that it would have been through the courts or that someone with a conscious would step forward and stay, i was there, i ordered / planned / created X,Y,X to allow this to happen.

Weed got one better with the video, check out the 1 minute mark,


Wee Mad



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
Weed got one better with the video, check out the 1 minute mark,


Now show us one which exceeded Vmo by 150 knots.

Did you notice the 1 min + 3 second mark?

Well inside the green arc.

Try again.
edit on 15-11-2010 by GayPilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

edit on 15-11-2010 by 00FOG00OF00WAR00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GayPilot
 


you'll find gay"pilot" that weed is highly knowledgeable in these matters and he doesn't want to risk a career by identifying himself to the great unwashed, if you or any of the others with "experience" (i say you are all google pilots / FSX pilots, myself ) the most of you would understand the power of these aircraft, the gracefulness of this airframe and just how strong it really is.

Are you listed on the P4T website Gaypilot, have you identified yourself, are you willing to put your career on the line to sign with these nuts?, no i didnt think so

Wee Mad



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GayPilot
 


Once again, you keep saying this and posting that he doesnt knwo what hes talking about, when it seems that hes made quite the strong case......

You keep saying hes a google pilot and wont share his credentials......

I ask, where are YOURS



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GayPilot
 


Gaypilot, as i have stated before, not one will come forward to say they have done this, its a career breaker, i think you would be better trying to show the aircraft did in fact reach VMO+150kts for any period of time, other than the last gun before plowing into the target, and try without the flawed VG diagram, did you know it is a crap fabrication, i bet you borrowed it from Tif,

The video was a demonstration of a low flying aircraft to show that aircraft of this type can fly low and fast without breaking up, i have one somewhere with a 747 doing aerobatics at low level too, people, do not see these things as being possible, we have to show that it its, just because you don't see a 7x7 airframe doing aerobatics, doesn't mean it cannot be done, there are rules and restrictions, if you are a pilot with any sort of experience, you would understand this.


Wee Mad



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
...weed is highly knowledgeable in these matters...


And yet he still is unable to plot a V-G when the V-speeds are known.

Nor understands why the Concorde is limited to 400 knots yet has a Mmo of 2.04.


...and he doesn't want to risk a career by identifying himself to the great unwashed,


So, are you claiming that these aviation professionals are not risking their career's?

patriotsquestion911.com...

weedwhacker claims to be retired. What career would he be "risking"?

After all, it appears weedwhacker can do nothing but attack the above real pilots from the corner of his anonymous identity on ATS.

I suppose that is why the above list grows with real aviation professionals, and weedwhacker remains here attacking them, yet also claiming he never reads their work?

Hilarious.

From what I have read in this thread, none of you guys who support the GS wish to put your names to your claims nor have you found one verified pilot to support your position.

Yet all of the above in the link provided are supposedly "paranoid kooks".

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



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The hijackers were real pilots, but fundamentally yes real pilots could do it.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Once again, you keep saying this and posting that he doesnt knwo what hes talking about, when it seems that hes made quite the strong case......


He has not made any case to rebut this heavily sourced and verifiable evidence.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've read through the thread. weedwhackers claims are empty, unsourced, and mostly personal attacks on Pilots for 9/11 Truth, not to mention his posts are a mess.

I invite all readers to take the time to read through this thread.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GayPilot

Originally posted by weemadmental
Weed got one better with the video, check out the 1 minute mark,


Now show us one which exceeded Vmo by 150 knots.

Did you notice the 1 min + 3 second mark?

Well inside the green arc.


Try again.
edit on 15-11-2010 by GayPilot because: (no reason given)


Come on gay pilot your showing your flight sim credentials here, the one minute mark is a low flying kc135 (its the BIG aeroplane not the extra 300) it is based on the 367-80 airframe that went into the Boeing 707, which is in this aircraft is a flying gas station, it can carry both cargo and fuel, enough for a good few sorties, it is/was to be replaced with a kc-767 but i believe that this has gone tender again, this airframe was introduced i believe June/July 57, if an old airframe such as this can complete these moves, do you not think a younger, more powerful and manoverable airframe could complete the moves completed on 9/11



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
Come on gay pilot your showing your flight sim credentials here, the one minute mark is a low flying kc135 (its the BIG aeroplane not the extra 300) it is based on the 367-80 airframe that went into the Boeing 707, which is in this aircraft is a flying gas station, it can carry both cargo and fuel, enough for a good few sorties, it is/was to be replaced with a kc-767 but i believe that this has gone tender again, this airframe was introduced i believe June/July 57, if an old airframe such as this can complete these moves, do you not think a younger, more powerful and manoverable airframe could complete the moves completed on 9/11



Are you claiming the above KC-135 was traveling more than 150 knots over Vmo?

If so, you would be wrong.

Let us know when you find one aircraft that has been positively identified to do so.

You've been failing for over 89 pages.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GayPilot
 


Flying at a speed higher than Vmo/Mmo means flying into the peripheral flight envelope; although it is not operationally authorized to fly deliberately outside the normal flight envelope, it is not unsafe (in isolation) and it may happen (strong head gust during descent at Vmo/Mmo, or engines commanded at full power in level flight and pilot momentarily not in monitor/control of the speed/trajectory)

The Concorde cruising speed is Mach 2.04 (~2,170 kilometres per hour / 1,350 mph)

the Concorde, due to its design takes off at 250 mph, or 217knots, the Concorde was limited in speed over land, over the fear or the sonic wave from the aircraft damaging property and noise regulations etc, it was ONLY limited over land, it went supersonic over water, where the boom and sonic wave could cause no damage.

This was the limitation and reason on the concorde,

Wee Mad



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GayPilot
 


In other words, since you admit you feel the evidence shows the Government Story (I prefer GS over OS) as "improbable", you have admitted to the fact that those who support the GS have not proven their case "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt".

You are confusing my comments about the two main arguments in this thread (plane couldn't do it, pilot couldn't do it) with my view of the GS as a whole.


Those who continue to argue in this thread that "if an alternate explanation is not offered, then the OS must be true", are wrong.

Pointing out flaws in the OS is all well and good, but if you're not offering a better explanation you're not advancing the search for truth very far.


Everyone (including yourself) admit they have not been able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and instead find their case "improbable" based on the evidence provided.

Truth is very often strange, implausible and improbable. It doesn't make it not the truth.


Further, those who have presented evidence relevant to the topic, have been banned, without warning. And those who blindly support the GS, with rebuttals that consist of mostly ad homs and personal attacks, unsourced external content, and absurd claim which are also unsourced, remain.

There have been harsh words on both 'sides' of the argument, but I believe things would be better if we all tried not to polarise debate into 'truthers' vs. 'debunkers' as I didn't think that was the spirit of this forum and certainly wasn't why I joined.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GayPilot
 


are you listening to yourself or what we are telling you, really ? i never suggested that it was VMO 150+, look at its height and speed, do you understand what this does to the airframe, or the stress of the weight of this aircraft and the manoeuvre being carried out does. i was stating that if an old airframe such as the KC135 can manoeuvre like this and it is a 54 year old airframe, then Boeing 767 could out preform it,

Wee Mad



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join