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: 92
141
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by elnine

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by wmd_2008
 
No, I spent a thousand hours studying all the videos of the second hit, frame by frame.
Don't take my word for it, study them yourself.
And there are some good quality versions just coming out in the last month from the videos released by NIST, which are worth a look see.




LINK ME TO ONE GOOD QUALITY VIDEO AND SHOW ME A MISSILE!!!! bet YOU CANT!!!


LINK US TO ONE GOOD QUALITY VIDEO SHOWING A REAL PLANE AND REAL IMPACT!!! bet YOU CAN'T!



WELL what have we here another BLIND PERSON it seems YOU SAW THE PLANES we all SAW THE PLANES unless of course you were smoking something at the time




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You should have noticed where I said the cameras would not have picked it up and you have to look for what a missile would do to the smoke and flames and dust as they went through them. I gave one good example. Another that is really easy to spot is on the north tower where a giant white cloud shows up on the wall the plane hit, then a big donut shows up on the surface of that smoke cloud, for no apparent reason.

edit on 1-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



THERE is no way in HELL you can PROVE any of this missile BS you claim, trying to say it would NOT show up on the cameras of the time is making me
we have videos on the net showing missile tests from years ago filmed with even more low tech cameras and they show up WHY FILM THEM IF THEY WOULDN'T SHOW UP



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 
Could you be more specific, please. What do you mean by "low tech"? Like as in using film? That's low tech maybe in some people's book. I'm talking about pixelated low resolution hand held shaky earlier generation digital cameras where the wing tips of the plane disappear in spots. How is that going to catch something going maybe 50% faster with a cruise missile or three times as fast with a conventional rocked powered missile.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


OLD CAMERAS TOOK SLOW PICTURES OF SLOW ROCKETS
ROCKETS TRAVEL MUCH FASTER NOW DAYS



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by lachstockn2
After 2 hours and 90 + pages, I'm exhausted.

Somewhere around page 15, TiffanyInLA raised the issue of precedent.

It's a simple question. Can someone cite another example where the same aircraft type was able to achieve the same speeds under the same conditions?


Excellent observation.

"Deny Ignorance" is the alleged motto of this website.

Yet, the following evidence has not been addressed for over 92 pages. Instead, those who offered such evidence, have been banned without warning.

Please allow me to bring it forward. (No doubt I'll be banned as well after this, but it is well saved)

After NINETY-TWO pages, the score remains -

Evidence for my argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

Data -
NTSB
Boeing
Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
NASA Research


Precedent -
EA990
China Air 747SP
TWA 727
737
Modified DC-8

All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS ("It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150") -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = N/A
Precedent = N/A
Verified Experts = N/A


Again - To those who blindly support whatever their govt tells them -


Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so...". You have been failing for more than NINE years and 92 pages.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptRalph



Originally posted by lachstockn2



November 14th "Tiffany" was banned...On the 15th "GayPilot" showed up. Banned about 3 hours later. 11/25 "HasselHoff2010" shows up. Less than an hour later..he too was banned. Yesterday lachstockn2 and CaptRalph show up and make their first posts here.

5 sock puppets for one thread? This is not including the countless other names Balsamo has created in this forum.


Is business THAT bad at Pilots for 911 Truth that he has to flood the 9/11 Forum here?



Alexa traffic rank for pilotsfor911truth.org:
Traffic Rank Change
1 month 660,621 -134,255 Change in Traffic Rank over the trailing 1 month period (A negative change means the site is getting more popular)
3 month 522,640 +13,085 Change in Traffic Rank over the trailing 3 month period (A positive change means the site is getting less popular)

Percent of global pageviews on pilotsfor911truth.org:
Pageviews Change
1 month 0.00001 +50% Change in Pageviews over the trailing 1 month period
3 month 0.00001 +10% Change in Pageviews over the trailing 3 month period




posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptRalph
 


CaptRalph, Tiffany, gaypilot, all the same person if you ask me, good bye,

Tiffany has not provided president, she could not distinguish between, impossible and improbable, the items she has given have been disproved by weedwacker, if you read the thread you would know this. please stop spamming the board with the same dribble that tiffany did.

Wee Mad



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by weemadmental
 


"CaptRalph" is eerily similar to "RalphTheMouth", from the PPRUNE forum.....

(from [banned] "TiffanyInLA"s post, this thread...a link):

www.pprune.org...

USED/CITED extensively since, but still worthless because....NO ONE at the professional pilots forum network took it seriously....NOR did they realize the ulterior motives...the "V-G diagram" ploy was used incorrectly, in a false manner, to "argue" the .... and let's face it, it IS from none other than the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" nonsense and garbage website. Clear as a bell.....

Now, this "new" ATS member?? May very well be the infamous, and strangely ABSENT and SILENT "Ralph Kolstad" of the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" multiple video so-called "fame"??

IF so....great!!!! I look forward to our discussions. BECAUSE, Ralph Kolstad IS/WAS a qualified airline pilot, and therefore, will be able to hold his own....as will I....

....unless the alternative is to be subjected to these poorly-experienced surrogates?? Like "TiffanyInLA", and (errrp!...this one IS funny!!!)..."GayPilot", (edit**...see PS below)....and a host of other "sock" screenames, that escape me at the moment....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS: (**) Time to break through the "fourth wall", as they sometimes say in the theatre....

The "GayPilot" sock name that appeared (briefly) was MOST CERTAINLY Rob Balsamo, again of the "PF9/11T" designation.

Because, along with the chosen "avatar" of GayPilot which is still seen in the link, there (but deleted from the thread mini-profile) is the logo of Continental Airlines...(soon to be United Airlines)....the company I worked for. It is an obvious, and not very clever, "dig" at yours truly.

....because, at another time and place, Balsamo and I exchanged enough information to ascertain, to both of our satisfactions, a certain curricula vitae about each other.

YET....Balsamo, in the various "sock" names, continued to disparage MY qualifications!!!!! Even though he knew, FULL WELL, of my history....as evidenced by that pathetic and childish display, with that recent "sock" name here, and a "new" ATS account.

I hope people will understand, finally, the amount of time that should be devoted to this person's "opinions", and why he deserves little but derision and ridicule.......




edit on 5 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 

. . .countless other names Balsamo has created. . .
WHAT!?!?
You mean there is no real Tiffany and those were just pictures this dude put up as a fictional Tiffany, just to fake us out?!?
I"m shocked, really shocked.
I can assure everyone that my avatar is actually of myself and I followed the lead from a friend of mine who I got to post on ATS in the religion section for a while, to post yourself as an avatar and not to act like you are hiding or anything.


edit on 5-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptRalph


Originally posted by lachstockn2
After 2 hours and 90 + pages, I'm exhausted.

Somewhere around page 15, TiffanyInLA raised the issue of precedent.


"Captain" "Bob" Balsamo (quotes around "Captain" because it is not a proven fact that Balsamo ever reached a "Captain" seat, but he uses that term) likes to claim that those who do not believe in his snake oil are obsessed with his website and claims.

After his latest 5 socks, not counting the member names he had previously, it is clear who has an obsession with hanging out on an internet discussion board rather than take his case to those individuals and groups who matter - government, unions, associations, etc.

With any luck this latest sock will be banned in a day or so, too.
edit on 5-12-2010 by trebor451 because: html



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Seems those who continually break the rules around here and are allowed to stay, are those who blindly support anything the government tells them.

This warning is from page 26 from an ATS mod.


Originally posted by seagull


ENOUGH!!



You all, every single one of you, will stop the "identity" accusations. I don't, nor do the vast majority of members, give a flying damn who you may or may not be out in the "world".

You will address each other by your ATS screen name, or not at all...

...if you can not do this, don't post in the forum.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yet those who provide evidence for their arguments and stay on topic, are banned.

Why is that?




edit on 6-12-2010 by CaptRalph because: (no reason given)


edit on 6-12-2010 by CaptRalph because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
"Captain" "Bob" Balsamo (quotes around "Captain" because it is not a proven fact that Balsamo ever reached a "Captain" seat, but he uses that term)


Not only is Rob Balsamo a Captain as defined under FAR Part 135, but he has also been a Chief Pilot.

You may want to review the regs and perhaps contact the FAA for your "proof". Then again, it appears you don't want the facts to get in the way of your blind support of anything the government tells you, and elect character assassination instead of facing the facts.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptRalph
 



Seems those who continually break the rules around here and are allowed to stay, are those who blindly support anything the government tells them.

Yet those who provide evidence for their arguments and stay on topic, are banned.

Why is that?


Or, option "B" you are wrong about your assesment. Do you think that ATS is run by government "ops"?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Or, option "B" you are wrong about your assesment.


Being "wrong" gets one banned from ATS without warning? Yet those who continually violate mod warnings, are allowed to continually violate those warnings?

Do you think that is fair?

Are you able to address the evidence posted?

Those who blindly support the OS have been failing for more than 92 pages.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
"Being "wrong" gets one banned from ATS without warning? Yet those who continually violate mod warnings, are allowed to continually violate those warnings? Do you think that is fair?"

Oh, c'mon you're not being FAIR now. Don't you know that this is the land of denying ignorance?
I absolutely refuse to have my delusions about ATS shattered by someone who is perceptive enough to see through smoke and mirrors being used to keep people in the Dark Ages.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptRalph

Originally posted by hooper
Or, option "B" you are wrong about your assesment.


Being "wrong" gets one banned from ATS without warning? Yet those who continually violate mod warnings, are allowed to continually violate those warnings?

Do you think that is fair?

Are you able to address the evidence posted?

Those who blindly support the OS have been failing for more than 92 pages.


Its so funny that not a single person on this page of the thread since Tiffany got banned, has addressed the evidence and you've simply come here posting that EVIDENCE clearly sourced and supported with facts within all posting guidelines as A REPLY to those repeating their UNSUPPORTED arguments, yet the only thing these members including the usual suspects like weed trebor et al. continue doing, is violate MOD's warnings not to attack peoples ID's, character assassinations, dodging evidence and refusal to engage in any intelligent discourse discussing it.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptRalph
 



Being "wrong" gets one banned from ATS without warning?

No, it may be your perception of what got the poster banned that may be wrong.

Yet those who continually violate mod warnings, are allowed to continually violate those warnings?

I take it you have some evidence to support this allegation?

Do you think that is fair?

No, its not fair or true.

Are you able to address the evidence posted?

What evidence? The other poster, Tiffany in La or whatever simply repeated the same opinion over and over and over again. No facts were presented to evidence any theory besides the posters personnel opinions.

Those who blindly support the OS have been failing for more than 92 pages.

Yep, fail. Thats why the "new" investigation is progressing so nicely.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by CaptRalph
 



Seems those who continually break the rules around here and are allowed to stay, are those who blindly support anything the government tells them.

Yet those who provide evidence for their arguments and stay on topic, are banned.

Why is that?


Or, option "B" you are wrong about your assesment. Do you think that ATS is run by government "ops"?


Or option "C" that Tiffany and GayPilot and Hasslewhatever and all the others are using the same IP and were recognized as repeat socks and thus immediately banned for violating ATS rules.

Ya think, Ralph?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Being "wrong" gets one banned from ATS without warning?

No, it may be your perception of what got the poster banned that may be wrong.


Please post the reason that TiffanyInLa was banned. After reading this thread thoroughly, I can see no other reason than that she posted evidence, and people like you accused her of being "Rob Balsamo".

TiffanyInLA also repeatedly stated that she is flattered you think she is Rob Balsamo, and I am too, but can you address the evidence?

Anyone reading this thread will see that you and your kind repeatedly make accusations of identity in violation of mod warnings, ATS T&C, and the rule of "Courtesy Is Mandatory", instead of addressing the evidence and topic. Readers don't even need to search for it, it's right here on this page.

You do this because you cannot debate the facts and have no argument of your own backed by evidence.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptRalph
 



Please post the reason that TiffanyInLa was banned.

I am not a moderator, ask them.


After reading this thread thoroughly, I can see no other reason than that she posted evidence, and people like you accused her of being "Rob Balsamo".

Again, I am not a moderator, ask them. However, I would note that TIL was constantly providing links to another site, something which could be construed as spam which I believe is cause for being banned.

TiffanyInLA also repeatedly stated that she is flattered you think she is Rob Balsamo, and I am too, but can you address the evidence?

Soon as some "evidence" is presented.

Anyone reading this thread will see that you and your kind repeatedly make accusations of identity in violation of mod warnings, ATS T&C, and the rule of "Courtesy Is Mandatory", instead of addressing the evidence and topic. Readers don't even need to search for it, it's right here on this page.

I didn't know I was a "kind". Be that as it may, I could not care less about a poster's identity. The poster in question, TIL, constantly avoided answering direct questions, constantly repeated responses and constantly provided spam like links to other websites and basically refused to engage in actual debate.

You do this because you cannot debate the facts and have no argument of your own backed by evidence.

Specifcally?




top topics



 
141
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join