New Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

page: 49
106
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Read the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Study and 9/11 Commission Report and learn a bit about aeronautics and structural engineering.

You might find yourself reconsidering your misgivings regarding the 9/11 OS.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)


here let me school you:


high school physics teasher forces NIST to accept freefall
NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors. The starting point of their 5.4 second interval is totally arbitrary. This new video highlights the August 26 technical briefing and allows Sunder and Gross to shoot holes in their own feet. Part II, which is planned to come out in a week or two, will go into detail about the implications of freefall. A list of bullet points has been compiled on that topic already, but if anyone has a special take on it that they would like to feed into the mix, please contact me at dchandler@ae911tuth.org.

--David Chandler, AE911Truth.org
www.ae911truth.org...
TRUTHER RIGHT .............OS WRONG!


high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.

rememberbuilding7.org...


When Underwriters Laboratories fired me for challenging the World Trade Center (WTC) report that it helped create with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it said “there is no evidence” that any firm performed the required fire resistance testing of the materials used to build the Twin Towers. Of course, that was a lie.

With this experience in mind, I checked to see how many times the 9/11 Commission Report used the phrase “no evidence,” and noted in particular the times the Commission claimed to have “found no evidence” or that “no evidence was uncovered.” I discovered that the phrase “no evidence” appears an amazing 63 times. An example is the dubious statement — “There is no evidence to indicate that the FAA recognized Flight 77 as a hijacking until it crashed into the Pentagon (p 455).”

Of these 63 instances, some variation of “we found no evidence” appears three dozen times. This seems to be an unusually high number of disclaimers begging ignorance, given that the Commission claims to have done “exacting research” in the production of a report that was the “fullest possible accounting of the events of September 11, 2001.”

911blogger.com...



9/11 - the big cover-up?Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.

Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.



www.guardian.co.uk...

Hell, even if you don't let me school you consider yourself schooled
and that was just your first post on this thread
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: fixed quote box
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: added reference
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: fixed quote box
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: fixed quote box I think....
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: added quote fixed link
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot


Now that it has been established that your pedestrian assumptions were incorrect, does any part of you feel that you owe ATS member Proudbird an apology or is the above acceptable behavior to you?

Perhaps If you are troubled that others perception of you is negative then perhaps you should reconsider your online behavior and debate etiquette?
edit on 18-3-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: Sp


now I can't speak for BTS
but here is my apology to Proud Bird


Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Danbones
 


Are you going insane?:


like paul wellstone( who cheney threatened and then he had his propellor fly off)


LOL......LOL, LOL......


why ask need company?


At a meeting full of war veterans in Willmar, Minn., days before his death, Wellstone told attendees that Cheney told him, "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."

www.opednews.com...

I'm beginning to think Balsamo was right about you
after all, he has published credentials
you have an Avatar with a plane in it....
someone elses plane



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

aww
an adhominem attack using the word ad hominem
thats BRILLIANT!
instead of obfuscate maybe you should have looked the word reference
up in the Rs ection of your dictionary



I wouldn't be so quick to stick a feather in your cap, you may want to consider ashcanning that miniature combination Russian phrase book and dictionary or whatever it is that you are using...



In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.


THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

This is an ad hom...


Originally posted by burntheships
SURE, just dont teach anyone how to keep log books, as your have already said
you cant be bothered with such a task.


Can you stay on topic? I mean seriously PROUD wacker this is not free
advertising for you to garner students in some pie in the sky pilot trianing
school you hope to open.

Then again,
maybe that is on topic, as it certainly might have a way of working into
the pilot training that was offered to the supposed "terrortists" down there in
Florida....


This is also an ad hom....


Originally posted by CFerguson
Translation - "I have nothing to offer but nervous laughter as I have no intention of crawling out of my hole to endorse anything that I claim.", Proudbird/Weedwhacker


This is not an ad hom...


Originally posted by Alfie1
I've got to hand it to you. Truthers can lie, fake, photoshop, cherry pick etc, as we have seen just on this thread, and you will rely on it for support. However, as soon as it is revealed you can blame it on OS supporters who are allegedly trying to discredit the "movement". Perfect 360 degree defence.


this is not an ad hom either...


Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I read back through the last pages. Yourself, Burntheships and Anunaki10 are not just the only posters guilty of obfuscating the topic ,you are all three muddying the waters inbetween the dullwitted sophomoric ad-homs every time another contributor proves you wrong (which between the three of you is nearly every post) .

Do you think nobody notices? Truthers my arse, Liars is much closer to the reality.

 

Originally posted by Danbones
we'll still be around when you get back, and we will happily deal with what ever valid arguements you might make then...if you make any


Who is we? Are you a Siamese twin or one of those gifted few who is never alone even when they are by themselves?

Seriously, your backup isn't doing you any favors. When can we (the ATS readership) expect you (team truther) to begin addressing the last 40 pages of counterpoint and rebuttals? To be honest and truthful, I don't expect you to "deal" with much of anything regarding this topic, happily or unhappily, because you cant.

The reason you cant is because the nonsense you are choosing to believe is a fiction so facts bailing you out are out of the question and you have no technical understanding so you wont get far bluffing. You are going to be in for a long wait trying to prove anything in the realm of the physical sciences with only conjecture and nonsensical misrepresentations.

I would, however, settle for starting with the simple acknowledgement that most of the evidence presented thus far has not held up to scrutiny very well and quite a bit has proven to be nothing but fraud and misrepresentation.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
DP:
would you quit obfuscating!!???

guess you missed the post above your above post

I'm still witing for a refutation from you re the top guns wih the impeccable credentials
and all of the credentialled experts referenced on this thread...

or any of the credentialled experts on this thread

I referenced proven rebutals to your references....
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: added appropriate eyeball smiley...cause in this case it sure was called for!



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


There is a difference between lively debate amongst differing opinions and being unnecessarily mean-spirited. If you are going to be a jerk, its a good idea to make really, really sure you are right.


You haven't said or done anything to warrant an apology to anybody from what I have read...


You don't have to agree with him but Proudbird isn't doing anything more than trying to help.

Arguably, it could be said that Rob Balsamo and co. also are trying to help. They are trying to help themselves to your pocketbook....



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
and to all you put downers on the last couple of pages that this subject is boring or that we should just not question vat ze Führer said :

please see the above post directed at Mr DP

if they aren't going to give us the truth we will go find it our selves
till we get the truth we prolly won't get bored

so either lead follow ore get the hell out of the way because if you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Danbones
 


There is a difference between lively debate amongst differing opinions and being unnecessarily mean-spirited. If you are going to be a jerk, its a good idea to make really, really sure you are right.


You haven't said or done anything to warrant an apology to anybody from what I have read...


You don't have to agree with him but Proudbird isn't doing anything more than trying to help.

Arguably, it could be said that Rob Balsamo and co. also are trying to help. They are trying to help themselves to your pocketbook....


ummmm
see above post where you were shown to be really really wrong
and if proving you wrong with references makes me a jerk in your opinion which keeps getting proved wrong then you are prolly wrong about that too


but enough of the obfuscations
TOP GUN REFUTATIONS
point by point would be nice
or
if you have no credibility more baseless insults

your choice



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
now where did the airplane in the OP's vid go...?
and why did it go there..?
and who made it go...?

I wonder if there will be a bunch of single socks there as well...
(other then the ones the OSers use when they need a rebound after being shot down with expert references
they can't refute..
and need some more fresh obfuscation
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
DP:
would you quit obfuscating!!???

guess you missed the post above your above post

I'm still witing for a refutation from you re the top guns wih the impeccable credentials
and all of the credentialled experts referenced on this thread...

or any of the credentialled experts on this thread

I referenced proven rebutals to your references....
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: added appropriate eyeball smiley...cause in this case it sure was called for!


Hence the point behind my post earlier. Are you hoping to understand the reason why or do you feel like you've done your bit by repeating ad nauseum "top guns wih the impeccable credentials"?

You are committing yet another logical fallacy by relying on an appeal to authority.

Do you think that ex-naval aviators don't lie? Google Randall Cunningham then get back to me so you can tell me all about what being a graduate of the long defunct United States Navy Fighter Weapons School has to do with character.

Rather than expecting me to write treatise on flight, why is it so difficult to simply state what is compelling enough testimony for you to believe a video with the comments and ratings disabled over thousands of pages of data, evidence and real expert testimony?

Do you still believe there was anything particularly difficult about any of the maneuvers performed?

Do you still believe the wings should have fallen off or the aircraft were uncontrollable?

Do you still believe there were anything but 757 parts in the Pentagon photos?

Just exactly which part of Proudbirds rebuttal did you not understand or do you still disagree with?

Give me something to work with so I know how big to draw the stick figures...
edit on 18-3-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
ummmm
see above post where you were shown to be really really wrong
and if proving you wrong with references makes me a jerk in your opinion which keeps getting proved wrong then you are prolly wrong about that too




I am once again stumped, do I understand correctly that you are feigning offense to Proudbirds reply to your nutty Dick Cheney comment?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Danbones
ummmm
see above post where you were shown to be really really wrong
and if proving you wrong with references makes me a jerk in your opinion which keeps getting proved wrong then you are prolly wrong about that too




I am once again stumped, do I understand correctly that you are feigning offense to Proudbirds reply to your nutty Dick Cheney comment?

are you refering to the refence I posted?
since my post was clear as day
more obfuscation

top guns please


you sure are doing a good job of proving the OP correct


PS Im still waiting for some one to produce a picture of the wings at the pentagon


edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Burntheships, I don't have an opinion of you negative or positive.


Well, may I suggest you stay on topic? Lets discuss 9/11, and the second impact
without a plane, or with one if that is your line. Hence my goodbye to you the last time,
as I see that your constantly talking about the members, and not the topic.



Or is it closer to the truth that somebody's background and qualifications are only pertinent when they are in agreement or you deem them necessary? (calling ATS member Proudbird out sure backfired for you with though, didn't it?)


No, absolutely not. That backfired on Mr. Proudwacker himself.


Mr Birds pilot logs were brought into the thread as a topic by Mr. Bird himself, as "proof" of his superiority
over another pilot, in which case that was an epic fail. However this has been addressed,
and I have no reason to apologize.

I don't think you are intentionally being obtuse but arguing just for the sake of arguing is trolling.
While we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.

edit on 18-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I thought for sure you would mention the lack of interception capabilities since they were there and were capable of doing just that.


Which "interception capabilities" are you referring to specifically?

There is a lot of laymen misconception about the posture and capabilities of the North American Aerospace Defense Command in 2001.

Remember that the cold war and the associated funding had been gone for a decade. In truth the need to fund an hairtrigger continental anti aircraft defense began to diminish the day the U.S.S.R. successfully demonstrated a true ICBM by launching Sputnik in 1957.

The infrastructure simply didn't exist for the military to respond any faster or more efficiently.




let me school you again
(your second post on this thread mister rude)


The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes
It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. 2

There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

Routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th, 2001.

Layered Failures
The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.
Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.
Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases from which to scramble planes. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.

911research.wtc7.net...

*sigh*
well DP this sure helps explain why YOU resort to mud slinging Obfuscation and downright childish behavior
its all you have got



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
back in the thread a poster who it was claimed by PB was Rob Balsamo and that he was not qualfied to have an opinion
if the Poster was Rob Balsamo
here are his published credentials:


Robert Balsamo
4000TT Commercial, Instrument, Multi, CFI II MEI
Corporate Chief Pilot
135 Capt
121 FO Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines
King Air C-90/200, Dornier 328JET


if the Poster isn't Rob Balsamo then PB ( the symbol for lead
) REALLY blew it.

so
DP
I'm thinkin' that's three strikes yer out
but hey who's counting?

Id rather just go hunting the cool info that advances the OPs thread..

here is a guy who doubts the OS


Col Robert Bowman
President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies
Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation
retired Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church
101 combat missions in Vietnam
directed all the “Star Wars” programs under Presidents Ford and Carter
recipient of the Eisenhower Medal
George F. Kennan Peace Prize
President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace
Society of Military Engineers' ROTC Award of Merit (twice)
Six Air Medals
Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech
chaired 8 major international conferences
one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security
independent candidate for President of the US in 2000
thepatriots.us...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Im gonna go read what he has to say..looks like he might have a clue
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?
Why are they hiding audiotapes of FAA and NORAD controllers? Why are they hiding videotapes of whatever hit the Pentagon? Why are they hiding the black boxes? Why did they destroy most of the forensic evidence which appears to show that three buildings at the World Trade Center were brought down by thermite demolition charges? If the thermite residue found on severed steel beams didn't bring down the towers, what did? (Never before in history did steel skyscrapers fall because of fire, and THREE of them did on the same day … one of which wasn't even hit by an airplane!) For the government's story to be accepted as factual, they will have to explain why WTC 7 came down. Why did four hijacked airliners fly around for up to an hour and 45 minutes without being intercepted? Why were normal procedures not followed? (If normal procedures HAD been followed, the aircraft would have been intercepted with 20 minutes to spare, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.) If it was massive incompetence, why has no one been fired? … or demoted? … or court martialed? (Instead they were promoted or given the medal of freedom!) If Osama bin Laden was really suspected, why did our government violate its own “no-fly” order to hurriedly fly the bin Laden family out of the United States before they could be questioned? Why does the “Osama bin Laden” in the “confession” videotape have a nose about an inch shorter than the real Osama bin Laden? Why have half a dozen of the 19 “hijackers” turned up in other countries … alive and well? Were there really any hijackers at all, and if there were, were they patsies? Who made millions on short sales of United and American Airlines? Where is the tens of billions of dollars worth of missing gold that was stored in the World Trade Center? Why did the Secret Service not whisk the president away from the school where he and the students read about a pet goat even after it became clear that the nation was under attack?

The American people and the families of those who died on 9/11 deserve the truth, and we do not yet have it. The above are but a tiny fraction of the unanswered questions not even raised by those who “investigated” the 9/11 tragedy. The most unbelievable of all the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory told us by our government. The Kean-Hamilton-Zelikow commission report was a whitewash, a cover-up, and a bundle of deception. I have spoken to both Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, and they admit that they were lied to about why there was no intercept. If a new investigation discovers a wider conspiracy and identifies living people (American or foreign) as being responsible, they should be indicted for treason. And those who covered up the treason should themselves be indicted as accessories after the fact.

If, however, a new investigation finds that the government's current story is essentially correct, then it should go beyond Kean and Hamilton to assign responsibility for the failure of our air defenses to protect the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. There must be accountability. Without it, we will never know why our multi-trillion dollar defense establishment was unable even to protect its own headquarters from an unarmed aircraft. This is unacceptable.

It leaves the American people with no assurance that they can be protected in the event of another attack.
thepatriots.us...

the Osers appear to want everyone to stop questioning the OS ignore all the proven inconsistancies and preserve the status quo and leave the US open for another attack
well that certainly is a motive worth having OTHER PEOPLE DIE FOR!



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
are you refering to the refence I posted?

The "reference" you posted was to a poorly written blog. The evil Dick Cheney used an EMP device to assassinate a United States senator as payback for not voting for the second gulf war?

Does that sound reasonable to you? What about the other 21 Senators and 133 congressman that voted against the Iraq War Resolution?

You clearly have an exceptionally low standard required to meet your personal burden of proof, I don't know what else to say but I am sure you get that allot.

Besides, the NTSBAAR doesn't say anything about Dick Cheney (or his magical EMP machine... )

3. Conclusions
3.1 Findings


1. The flight crewmembers were properly certificated and had received the training for
pilot certification prescribed by Federal regulations. No evidence indicated any
preexisting medical or other physical condition that might have adversely affected the
flight crew’s performance during the accident flight. Fatigue most likely did not
degrade the performance of either pilot on the day of the accident.

2. The accident airplane was properly certificated, equipped, and maintained in
accordance with Federal regulations and approved company procedures. The
recovered components showed no evidence of preexisting powerplant, system, or
structural failures.

3. The weight and balance of the airplane were within limits for dispatch, takeoff, climb,
cruise, and landing.

4. The flight crew failed to maintain an appropriate course and speed for the approach
and did not properly configure the airplane at the start of the approach, making the
later stages of the approach more difficult.

5. During the later stages of the approach, the flight crew failed to monitor the airplane’s
airspeed and allowed it to decrease to a dangerously low level (as low as about 50
knots below the company’s recommended approach airspeed) and to remain below
the recommended approach airspeed for about 50 seconds.

6. The flight crew failed to recognize that a stall was imminent and allowed the airplane
to enter a stall from which they did not recover.

7. The inadequate airspeed or the full course deviation indicator needle deflection
should have prompted the flight crew to execute a go-around; however, they failed to
do so.

8. The flight crew was not adhering to Aviation Charter’s approach procedures and was
not effectively applying crew resource management techniques during the approach
segment of the flight.

9. Clouds might have prevented the flight crew from seeing the airport.

10. Icing did not affect the airplane’s performance during the descent.

11. The Duluth approach control south radar controller’s instructions did not prevent the
flight crew from intercepting the Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport VOR runway 27
final approach course at a sufficient distance to safely execute an approach and
landing.

12. The out-of-tolerance condition and slight bends in the Eveleth-Virginia Municipal
Airport VOR signal were not a factor in this accident.

13. Both pilots had previously demonstrated potentially serious performance deficiencies
during flight operations consistent with below-average flight proficiency.

14. At the time of the accident, Aviation Charter was not operating in accordance with its
weight and balance load manifest procedures, it did not have adequate stall recovery
guidance, it did not have consistent deicer boot operational guidance, and it did not
have an in-range checklist.

15. Aviation Charter was not adequately making company pilots aware of its Standard
Operating Procedures.

16. At the time of the accident, Aviation Charter was not training its pilots on crew
resource management (CRM) in accordance with its Federal Aviation
Administration-approved CRM training module.

17. Although the Federal Aviation Administration’s surveillance of Aviation Charter was
in accordance with its standard guidelines, it was not sufficient to detect the
discrepancies that existed at Aviation Charter.

18. En route inspections, combined with ground training, flight training, and proficiency
check observations, are essential for ensuring adequate oversight of a company’s
operations and should be conducted on flights operated by 14 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 135 on-demand charter operators.

19. The circumstances of the October 2002 Aviation Charter accident indicate that crew
resource management training should be extended to include all 14 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 135 on-demand charter operations that conduct dual-pilot operations
regardless of whether the aircraft requires two or more pilots.

20. The development of and requirement for the installation of low-airspeed alert systems
could substantially reduce the number of accidents and incidents involving flight
crew failure to maintain airspeed.

3.2 Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of
this accident was the flight crew’s failure to maintain adequate airspeed, which led to an
aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover.


Loss of Control and Impact With Terrain Aviation Charter, Inc. Raytheon (Beechcraft) King Air A100, N41BE Eveleth, Minnesota October 25, 2002


Originally posted by Danbones
top guns please


For goodness sake, what is your fixation with Topgun?
You know what Quentin Tarantino had to say about Topgun don't you?

PROFANITY CAUTION

Now please don't bring it up again


Originally posted by Danbones
you sure are doing a good job of proving the OP correct


Keep telling yourself that you are winning the war chief!
Coming from a guy who fixates on Topgun and believes that Dick Cheney was bumping off congress, I am sure you'll understand when I say that your opinion demonstrably has little relevance.



PS Im still waiting for some one to produce a picture of the wings at the pentagon

You are going to be waiting a very long time but I bet you already knew that
edit on 18-3-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


The assertions in that snippet posted are totally untrue.

Yet another ranting and raving, feebly banging on about nothing factual. Par for the course, when looking at the premise of this thread's OP.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


whats untrue?
and based on what?
just you say?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 



The evil Dick Cheney

that would be the same Dick Cheney that wouldn't issue the "shoot down order" and that shot his hunting buddy, and is afraid to come to Canada...



Does that sound reasonable to you? What about the other 21 Senators and 133 congressman that voted against the Iraq War Resolution?



Paul Wellstone is a hunted man. Minnesota's senior senator is not just another Democrat on White House political czar Karl Rove's target list, in an election year when the Senate balance of power could be decided by the voters of a single state. Rather, getting rid of Wellstone is a passion for Rove, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the special-interest lobbies that fund the most sophisticated political operation ever assembled by a presidential administration. "There are people in the White House who wake up in the morning thinking about how they will defeat Paul Wellstone," a senior Republican aide confides. "This one is political and personal for them." ....
"This race is going to be a case study of whether you can maintain liberal, progressive positions and win in this country in 2002," says Wellstone

History Of Assassination And Poisoning Attempts On Senator Wellstone

Surviving Assassination Attempt - Wellstone Denounces Militarization of Columbian Aid
nuance.dhs.org...

State Department Briefing On Attempted Wellstone Hit
www.fas.org/irp/news/2000/12/irp-001201-col.htm

Police Thwart Colombia Attack Plan On Wellstone
www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2000-December/004162.html

Senator Wellstone Sprayed With Herbicide...

www.americas.org/news/nir/20001210_herbicide_douses_u_s_senator.asp
www.commondreams.org/headlines/120200-01.htm
www.usfumigation.org/Literature/Press_Articles/wellstone_sprayed.htm
www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread7851.shtml

Just before the plane crash, Senator Wellstone announced that he had contracted Multiple Sclerosis, which is thought to be linked to toxic exposure such as the biocides sprayed by the US government on Senator Wellstone during his fact finding mission to Columbia.


right the famous bush drug connection remember the CIA planes in mexico and the yucatan busted flying tons of dope into the US...no I guess you don't


Sherlock Holmes solved at least one case by noticing that something that should be present was missing. In the Hound of the Baskervilles, he solved the case by noticing that no one reported a barking dog. So what's missing in terms of the Wellstone plane crash? For the last 14 months, anytime there has been a plane crash, the media go way overboard in assuming that this must somehow be a terrorist incident. The initial reaction of the media in the first hours of the event is always now "oh my, I hope this isn't happening again. I hope this isn't another terrorist attack." Just a few days ago, there was a news story that Al-Queda may be targeting US Senators. The story referred to the possibilities of sniper attacks on golf courses. Just a few days later, a US Senator dies. So, what's missing? Sen. Wellstone's plane crashes, and there is absolutely no speculation that this is a terrorist attack. Somehow the media immediately knows that this plane crash was caused by bad weather, and this is in no way a terrorist attack. The media dog has been barking "terrorist" steadily for 14 months. Today the dog didn't bark.

www.oilempire.us...


will talk about a couple of the ongoing investigations, then some safety concerns that we hold. Fresh in everyone's mind is the accident which killed Senator Paul Wellstone and seven others in Minnesota last month. I was the Board Member accompanying the Go-Team, just as I had been the Member on the Carnahan accident two years ago. The flights had been a normal one in all respects; air traffic transmissions normal, the aircraft lined up headed west on the runway when it began to turn south and lose altitude. It crashed minutes later headed due south. An intense post crash fire destroyed most of the aircraft.

Carnahan is also suspected of being murdered


The engines and propellers have been torn down and there are no indications of pre-impact failures. We are continuing to examine radar data from previous flights and data from the FAA flight inspection airplane to determine if there are any navigational issues that would have resulted in the airplane turning to the south. We are also looking into the pilots' training and experience. While icing was present in the area at the time, we don't believe it was a factor in the accident.

www.ntsb.gov...

in point number four like in similarly threatened Cranahan's "crash" the plane goes off course for no explained reason...it just went off course and went boom
so
you have proved nothing again
like in your posts one and two...where you must have known the references were no good before you even posted them...just like you must have read point number 4 above before you posted

edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 

Topguns
you reference an ACTOR!!!???

next you'll be using "team america world police" as a reference...and you'll be quoting puppets!"
oh wait....with socks on them...like some of your apparent friends we have already met

Don't dare make with the points made by the top guns and the other experts... nope

I'll keep bringing it up till you deal with the reality of the points the qaulified pros make..

profanity is all you have got it looks like
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)





 
106
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join