9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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,

But for some reason you have never been able to actually PROVE that claim... not to mention TiLA addressed and debunked it already in this thread for which I have yet to see any real rebuttal... the most you've done is evade, obfuscate and derail to divert attention from your inability to prove her evidence and arguments wrong.

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

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

but of course that TOO is just your OPINION thats been proven many times to lack credibility if not just for the fact you were caught Lying in this thread....so since ones Opinion has no bearing on determining Truth and your Opinion has been put into serious question, I see no reason to take anything you say seriously or give your opinion any authority on matters of this subject, let alone anything on 9/11.

reply to post by elnine

. . .which ignores the adamant clarity of his statement. . .

So, what do you think he meant, I mean W?
He said "sitting outside" waiting to go in. Where he was sitting was in his limo in the parking lot at the school. After he watched it on some sort of TV, obviously in the limo, then they moved him out of the car and into the building. That would have been the first crash, into the north tower. He very well may have seen the plane crash if they had a camera person videoing it like they did with the second crash (which apparently only I know about). I don't know what type of special communications technology would have been in that limo. If they had some sort of ability to have live TV streamed into his car, then my explanation for what I saw would not make a lot of sense. For all I know, it could have been aired on local TV, too, but I was asleep then, before my girlfriend woke me up to see what was going on, on TV. Also, if that happened, why would he admit it or is he really that stupid?
I think a lot of people are kind of brain dead and they see TV in a hypnotic dream state where nothing seems real, even if it is and they can easily shrug off just about anything. At this particular point, I had broken off the TV addiction and had my cable turned off so I would not feel obligated to watch it just to get my money's worth. So that was why I was watching local TV on 911 and was a little bit free from the normal tv induced trace syndrome, enough to understand what I was watching.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Secondly, if you will pay very close attention, the poster using the sock screen name "Tiffany" came into this discussion WELL late...not for the "92 pages" that you so disingenuously suggested, there!

To imply coming in at the 12th page in a thread with 92+ pages was somehow WELL LATE in any sense of the word and that discredits her evidence and arguments, is extremely DISINGENUOUS and nothing more than another one of your attempts to obfuscate and derail the thread because you still after 95 pages can't debate the facts and evidence with anything more than opinions and character assassination.

Casual objective readers seeking truth who review all the evidence and arguments in this thread, can see TiLA commanded it and presented overwhelming evidence that no one has been able to debunk proving beyond a doubt, No Boeing 767-200 could have possibly been present at the wtc on 9/11.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, the ONLY thing that "Tiffany" presented were lies, and twistings of actual data and facts, and complete nonsense, for the most part.

Except unfortunately for you, the facts prove otherwise since your claim is nothing more than an opinion with
zero evidence to back up.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I suggest (if you have time, or inclination) you review EACH post made by "Tiffany"...and look for the number of almost EXACT duplicates. (In case you were somehow "amazed" at the number of pages, in the thread count. THAT would be the first sign of what's known as "spamming" a thread).

except when one actually looks at these posts, not only will one will see that the posts were valid responses with the EVIDENCE that debunked the REPEATED false claims and demands over and over for her evidence, but if what she did was really spamming, then why wasn't she ever warned it was spamming and banned until many pages and posts LATER??? This shows an unfair standard, bias and interesting censorship.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Each time, the "points" and "evidences" raised, in the cartoonish and cultish posts, were addressed by solid facts and experience and examples. SOME people (it seems) choose to ignore the real facts, when presented, and prefer to cling to a mistaken belief, no matter the evidence.

which sounds exactly like what you've done throughout this and other threads.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Absolute RUBBISH!!!!!

And the plane that hit the second WTC tower was not a United plane...... The plane was a grey painted plane, the color you would see on a normal US Air Force plane.

Total nonsense. For chrissakes, man! There are PHOTOS!! VIDEOS!! Airplane parts, and debris!

DNA from the passengers, and crew. Personal effects from the passengers and crew! Mountains of evidence.

To deny that, is a form of delusion....and a sorry state of affairs.

to deny the MOUNTAINS of evidence that contradicts what you've just claimed which is absolute RUBBISH, is a form of delusion as well... and a sad state of affairs to boot.

Originally posted by Gakus
Yet there are how many videos clearly showing planes flying into the buildings?

They must be fake too, right?

I don't see how anyone with a sane mind can possibly attempt to argue this FACT =/

I don't see how anyone with a sane mind who's done a real investigation into ALL the evidence, can possibly attempt to argue the FACTS and EVIDENCE that contradict those who believe the OS and conspiracy THEORY about REAL planes hitting the towers.

There's plenty of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence supporting Nrpt and Tv Fakery which contradict the video's you saw and claim show real planes. It matters not the number of video's there are even though there are far less than there should have been which alone needs to be examined,,,but its a FACT that there is NO CLEAR video showing planes flying into the buildings...the video evidence contains evidence of manipulation and fakery and contradicts the idea "clear evidence" exists. Those making the type of claims you have, never seem to show any real verifiable/credible evidence to back it up because once the video's are examined, there's NOTHING clear about them.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, boy, here it comes...I just saw a commercial for next week's episode of, "Conspiracy Theory" with Jesse Ventura, and it's clear he's officially signed onto this "no planes" lunacy.

just as No planers have said; NRPT continues to Grow because the EVIDENCE supporting it, is credible and irrefutable and since Jesse's investigations are based on credible EVIDENCE and FACTS, its no surprise.

Expect to see the NPT and TV fakery issue alot more in the near future... its only just beginning, so get used to it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
From the few seconds I can see he's intending to tell people that no wreckage was found at the Pentagon, no passenger remains were recovered, and other lies that have been debunked time and time again.

the only LIES are by those who deny the facts and evidence that have debunked those who support the OS fairy tale about real boeing 767's and 757's hitting or crashing anywhere on 9/11.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
He showed footage of the impact hole left by the fuselage but he didn't show any of the photos of debris lying on the front lawn.

oh you mean the hole that no boeing fuselage could have created and debris that were planted by the perps at the pentagon?

GO JESSE! can't wait to see the show. spread the word!

thanks for mentioning this DAVE, I wasn't aware that this show was next week!

reply to post by elnine
What evidence?
The guy who made September Clues was on the Rick Adams show on Republic Radio, a few days ago and it got replayed last night and listened to it again. The co-host was a Dr. D who wrote a no plane supporting book. So this guy was saying he had not watched any of his videos for over a year and then just watched them and was struck by how complicit the media was on 911.
Well, yes, I would agree on that. Then the guy was going into some sort of metaphysical Utopian beliefs that had nothing to do with the topic. Nuts? Figure it out. I wrote a big explanation on Dr. D's blog about how I knew there was a plane. Of course no recognition that he even looks at the comments, evidenced by all the spam on the comments section.
Then there's Simon Shack, another nut case who poses as a researcher and obviously never does any research, and is very hostile to those who try to give him helpful information. Who cares about the facts when there is video fakery to expose, Right? I think these people were handed some trash and told, promote this and get a pay check. That's all I can figure.
That being said, there are some real researchers out there, and an example would be the videos I linked to on this thread where they are working hard to go through all that data dump from NIST and find the interesting stuff and get it edited and up on YouTube. There's a few of these people and they work really hard and know a lot, and a lot more than me and I've actually worked at educating myself but back when there was not much legitimate work to be found and wasted time disproving all the no plane and similar theories.

To carry on the evidence which a clear attempt was made to suppress...

Page NINETY-FIVE (70 pages [yes, SEVENTY!] past the initial prediction, and only 5 [FIVE] more to go for the final prediction) -

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.

reply to post by TheFonz

Hey Rob, I see you found your way back yet again.

What # sock is this now? And how long are you planning on hanging around this time?

reply to post by TheFonz

Give me a break. You registred today and waltz straight in and copy+paste the same message which has been used by every other sock banned so far.

But hey, at least you've gone from impersonating other live persons to fictional ones. I suppose that's a step in the right direction.

As to why you're the one being banned all the time, perhaps it's because I generally follow the rules. I certainly don't need to create numerous accounts in order to post on a forum, where I have been told repeatedly that I am not welcome. And if the ATS modes/admins decides that my two posts on this page is taking it too far, I will accept that and move on.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by TheFonz

Rulse 16a and 16c of the T&C might be a good place to start.

reply to post by TheFonz

I don't deny it. And as for why I haven't been warned yet, I take it it's because none of the mods have made their way here yet. As I understand it, it's way past midnight in most of the US, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of them were sound asleep.

reply to post by TheFonz

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.

Weedwacker can...Flying is easy.....

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.