FAA or 84RADES data falsified, or both.

Originally posted by Boone 870
This is very simple, AJ. Using a Rob's reasoning, GOFER 06 was issued a vector after departure or it was assigned to Camp Springs One.

Thats not what it says Boone, that is your interpretation of it. And seeing as i have read you stopped flying at less than 35 hours, combined with your bias, its clear why you are misinterpreting the words as "post departure".

The post states a "heading vector" and that is exactly what it is. No where does the post claim "post departure".

Please stop the spin.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost

Originally posted by Reheat
Proven lies? There are no lies by me,

Your lies have been proven by Craig above

You reference to a known liar as proof is quite humorous.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
and the FAA.gov airman registry.

Your made up definition.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
I never made any claims that i have a "piece of paper".

Sure, the third person reference is very convincing, not.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
However Cap'n Bob as well as the heavy Jet Capts, LGA ATC, numerous Aircraft Accident Investigators.. etc etc.. who support him can be verified.

Your continued "appeal to authority" fallacy is quite trite. All you have verified is that there are few people who have questions about 9/11. You have no proof at all that any of them support your deluded opinions on specifics, particularly this one....

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
As can the various FAA Inpectors who have given him his check rides, unlike Hani Hanjour and FAA Inspector "John Anthony" who recommended a translator to an alleged "Commercial pilot", instead of a 709 ride.

Unsourced claim and hearsay.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Certificates are earned through education and do not expire. Licenses are permissiions granted and expire. Your own definition shows the difference. If you have more questions, please contact any Aviation University in the USA or the FAA themselves and ask them why they call it a certificate instead of a license.

A Medical License is termed a license and does not expire. The terms are interchangeable as shown by my quote of the dictionary definition. Both Licenses and Certificates may have additional requirement such as continuing education. Again, you're making up a definition.

Originally posted by Reheat
All of the physical evidence available indicate the C-130 flew the path depicted by the 84th RADES Data,

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Obtained through a "back-door" FOIA by a person who has grave errors throughout his analysis of anything, and quit not only the "troof movement" twice, but also flipped out on JREF.

"Poisoning the Well" fallacy. You have no evidence or proof there is any error in either the 84th RADES Data or the ATC radar analysis. They both agree.

Originally posted by Reheat
the ADW flight strip,

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
penciled in...

A very common practice and it is verified by ATC Audio.

Originally posted by Reheat
the ADW/DCA Radar

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Processed by mentioned individual above.

"Poisoning the well", again. Prove it's wrong with something other than contradictory witnesses.

Originally posted by Reheat
the ATC audio tapes,

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Controlled by govt agencies...

The same agency which you tout above as verification of your expertise and that of your supporters. "Cherry Picking" what you want to use as verification.

Originally posted by Reheat
the Tribby Video, and the Looney photographs.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Tribby video does not corroborate the above.

It most certainly does prove the final flight path and the pass by the Pentagon, beyond any doubt. Any alternative is aerodynamically impossible.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Conflicting evidence includes statements made by the pilot, eye witnesses statements placing the aircraft approaching from Northwest, ATC audio showing a delay for the turn, and ATC Strip with BUFFR as first waypoint, computer generated (not penciled in).

The only thing conflicting is the mistaken statements of the ANC witnesses. They were wrong. BUFFR is a non-issue.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Then why does the above list grow?

The "flat earth" society adds more members than pffft, every year. That doesn't prove they are right.

Originally posted by Reheat
You reference to a known liar as proof is quite humorous.

So, you have source of your claims of Craig writing things on their website about Cap'n Bob? Im sure many have noticed you evade such questions.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
and the FAA.gov airman registry.

Your made up definition.

Reheat, The FAA.gov Airman Registry exists and Cap'n Bob as well as many who support him are listed there. Try it. Its not a "cracker jack box".

I suppose you believe all these pictures are photoshopped as well?

Reheat, you constantly attack the "authority" from behind your screen, now you claim I'm using "appeal to authority" when you realize your attacks have no weight? Poor form.

A Medical License is termed a license and does not expire.

Just a quick search i did...

Understanding the MD License Lapse Process:
60 days prior to the license expiration date, a “Notice to Renew” is sent to the licensee at their last known address (The licensee is responsible for notifying the Board of all address changes.)
If the licensee has not responded by the license expiration date, a “Late Notice” is sent to the licensee notifying them that their license has expired and they will be assessed a $100 late fee plus the renewal fee to renew their license.
If the licensee has still not responded by 30 days after the license expiration date, a “Suspension Notice” is sent to the licensee notifying them that their license has administratively suspended and they cannot practice medicine in Maine.
If the licensee has still not responded with an administratively complete renewal application by 30 days after the license suspension notice has been sent, their license is immediately and automatically “Lapsed” and can only be reinstated by going through the license reinstatement process.

Forgive me for not reading/addressing the rest of your post, you can seek Boones reply on last page as for the reason why.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by AJ_Frost]

Originally posted by AJ_Frost

Reheat, The FAA.gov Airman Registry exists and Cap'n Bob as well as many who support him are listed there. Try it. Its not a "cracker jack box".

How many have questions as opposed to supporting all of the tripe you promote?

As of the end of 2006 there were approximately 600,000 pilots licensed in the US alone. The number has been declining since 1980 when there were some 827,000.

There about 60 listed as members of the organization who state that they were/are pilots of some sort. It's doesn't take 11.2 G or "hockey stick" math to determine the minuscule percentage that "supports' the lunacy.

The number of "supporters" of delusion do nothing to prove the invalidity of the 84th RADES data, the radar data, the ATC Audio, the ADW flight strip, the Tribby video and the Looney photographs all of which agree with each other.

Even with 100 times the current number of members at pfft that does nothing to refute the hard valid evidence that the C-130 flew the path the data indicates it flew.

Originally posted by Reheat
How many have questions as opposed to supporting all of the tripe you promote?

I promote?

Every single aviation professional listed at P4T supports P4T and list their names despite attacks from people like you.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Many also help with analysis. Please review credits of their presentations.

As of the end of 2006 there were approximately 600,000 pilots licensed in the US alone. The number has been declining since 1980 when there were some 827,000.

There about 60 listed as members of the organization who state that they were/are pilots of some sort. It's doesn't take 11.2 G or "hockey stick" math to determine the minuscule percentage that "supports' the lunacy.

Logical Fallacy.

1. Many more are in other professional positions in aviation.

2. P4T has been around for 3 years. ALPA (the largest airline union in the world) has roughly 9% of pilots in their membership and they been around 70 years. Does that mean 94% of pilots disagree with them?

The number of "supporters" of delusion do nothing to prove the invalidity of the 84th RADES data, the radar data, the ATC Audio, the ADW flight strip, the Tribby video and the Looney photographs all of which agree with each other.

Conflicts remain between all the data (govt controlled and distributed by an individual known for making grave errors) and witnesses, the pilot statements, Clearance.. .etc.

People like you make excuses for it. These people want answers. The list continues to grow.

Even with 100 times the current number of members at pfft that does nothing to refute the hard valid evidence that the C-130 flew the path the data indicates it flew.

Matter of opinion, the above linked people disagree with you. Again, the list continues to grow.

Failure to again evade nor provide source of your claims regarding statements made on the CIT website about Cap'n Bob, noted.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by AJ_Frost]

reply to post by AJ_Frost

Thats not what it says Boone, that is your interpretation of it.

Please point out the error of my interpretation.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by AJ_Frost

 

Thats not what it says Boone, that is your interpretation of it.

Please point out the error of my interpretation.

Requoted since it seems Boone missed it the first time.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
The post states a "heading vector" and that is exactly what it is. No where does the post claim "post departure".

Let me know if you need it bolded or increased font size.

It seems that this focus on minutiae is a sort of death spiral.

Imagine I am the instructor, sitting behind you in the Sim. Or, just an observer. Anyone who's flown a Sim knows that often, when in the hot seat, you miss little things that the casual observer, and the instructor, since they're not under pressure, will catch almost immediately.

A focus on the little, arcane details detract from the main goal: Fly The Darn Airplane!

Just some advice, hoping to suggest a recovery from Unusual Attitudes.


Think of it as CRM for ATS.


To add: I think I remember a discussion once that no matter how perfectly you may think a flight went, an unbiased observer wil always catch little errors. It's how you manage those errors that matters.

reply to post by AJ_Frost

Aeronautics. To guide (an aircraft) in flight by using appropriate headings.

Dictionary.com



[edit on 9-6-2009 by Boone 870]

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by AJ_Frost

 

Aeronautics. To guide (an aircraft) in flight by using appropriate headings.

Dictionary.com



[edit on 9-6-2009 by Boone 870]

Well, obviously "TL270" was not to "guide" the aircraft on the ground pre-departure.

Boone. there is no claim made by "professional" that the heading vector was "issued post departure" as you claimed numerous times on previous pages. You have failed to source such a quote because such a quote does not exist. Seems to be a pattern with you right in this very thread.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It seems that this focus on minutiae is a sort of death spiral.

Agreed. Especially for those who make excuses for the govt story.

Imagine I am the instructor, sitting behind you in the Sim. Or, just an observer.

Feel free to listen to an actual Check Airman who put his name to his claims.


weedwacker, you claim to be a real pilot, albeit unverified. Have you ever been given a clearance to a closed waypoint or intersection as claimed by trebor451?

reply to post by AJ_Frost

Well, obviously "TL270" was not to "guide" the aircraft on the ground pre-departure.

Thank you for conceding.

Boone. there is no claim made by "professional" that the heading vector was "issued post departure" as you claimed numerous times on previous pages. You have failed to source such a quote because such a quote does not exist. Seems to be a pattern with you right in this very thread.

By its very definition, a vector would have to occur while in flight. Therefore, "TL 270" is a departure instruction, not a post departure vector.

reply to post by AJ_Frost

...you claim to be a real pilot, albeit unverified.

I care not to engage with you, as I find that attitude insulting.

Have you ever been given a clearance to a closed waypoint or intersection as claimed by [deleted]

Here, I deleted the link from your post. However, I have been following the discussions, so I think I know what you're alluding to.

Your attitude is off-putting. I will not be drawn into your maelstrom.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
I promote?

I didn't stutter.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Every single aviation professional listed at P4T supports P4T and list their names despite attacks from people like you.

Prove it. I am attacking opinions and beliefs, primarily yours.

There about 60 listed as members of the organization who state that they were/are pilots of some sort. It's doesn't take 11.2 G or "hockey stick" math to determine the minuscule percentage that "supports' the lunacy.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Logical Fallacy.

There is no logical fallacy, that's why you didn't name one.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
1. Many more are in other professional positions in aviation.

Oh, so now the list expands to include "guides". Muhahahahah

Your use of the word "professional" is a bit loose.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
2. P4T has been around for 3 years. ALPA (the largest airline union in the world) has roughly 9% of pilots in their membership and they been around 70 years. Does that mean 94% of pilots disagree with them?

There are many more unions than ALPA. Don't put words in my mouth, it is unbecoming of you. The organization makes no claims, just insinuations of delusions. That's why no one of consequence pays attention to what you have to say. You have accomplished nothing. The "twoof" movement is dead. You just don't realize it yet.

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Conflicts remain between all the data (govt controlled and distributed by an individual known for making grave errors) and witnesses, the pilot statements, Clearance.. .etc.

There are no conflicts other than those you invent. L/C O'Briens' statement is just general enough to give you that "inch" for you to misinterpret it. There is no conflict at all.

There is nothing conflicting about the clearance at all. It's as plain as day that he was to turn to 270 degrees and the Tower controller even mentioned it again, just in case you missed it the first time. That's what the radar shows and that's what the ATC tapes shows. ALL of the data agrees and none of it agrees with you.

The ANC witness statements are the ONLY thing that conflicts and that is the weakest form of any of the evidence. They are simply wrong.

Your "appeal to authority" of the membership of a delusional organization is not working to refute all of the data which supports the known FACTS.

FACTS, you need FACTS. Your "appeals to authority" have expired and are not supporting your case.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Boone 870
Thank you for conceding.

When did i ever admit (or anyone else for that matter), that the vector was issued "post-departure" as you have falsely claimed and failed to provide direct quote? You do realize you are in voilation of ATS T&C Ik when making such false claims, right?

By its very definition, a vector would have to occur while in flight. Therefore, "TL 270" is a departure instruction, not a post departure vector.

Wrong.

The vector occured in flight, that doesnt mean it was ISSUED in flight as you have falsely claimed of others.

When the TURN occured is the reason for debate. People like you claim it happened immediately (after many of you claimed Camp Springs as fact, now you once again take govt provided data as gospel). People like this are skeptical.

(sorry for the caps this time, as its clear you still dont understand).

Boone, a heading vector is a heading vector. If it were issued at your desk during a flight station clearance, in your aircraft on the ramp, or at FL350... its still a heading vector to be followed "in flight".

I don't expect a "pilot" who quits at 35 hours to understand. But these pilots do. (unless of course you also believe they got their "licenses" out of a "cracker jack box")

Originally posted by Reheat
Prove it. I am attacking opinions and beliefs, primarily yours.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Proven....

Reheat, why would aviation professionals ask to put their name on the web, only to be attacked by people like you, if they didnt support such a website and its analysis?

I know, "Cap'n King Air" manipulated them all... right? Perhaps posted their names and credentials without their permission?

After all, didnt you people claim JDX was impersonating Rob Balsamo at one point? Yep...

... and you claim we are the paranoid Conspiracy Theorists....



The rest of your post is about as logical as your above quote and the reason you stay obesssed with P4T daily, but never register at their site to confront them.

Failure to again evade nor provide source of your claims regarding statements made on the CIT website about Cap'n Bob, noted.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by AJ_Frost]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by AJ_Frost

 

...you claim to be a real pilot, albeit unverified.

I care not to engage with you, as I find that attitude insulting.

Have you ever been given a clearance to a closed waypoint or intersection as claimed by [deleted]

Here, I deleted the link from your post. However, I have been following the discussions, so I think I know what you're alluding to.

Your attitude is off-putting. I will not be drawn into your maelstrom.

A simple question and a refusal to answer by those who demonstrate obvious bias.

Surprise surprise.

Weedwacker, there are only two possibilities here.

1. You dont know the answer

2. You prefer not to answer as you know it incriminates and invalidates anything trebor has said on this thread.

So which is it?

Considering past exchanges i have read of yours, including the fact you misspell Jeppesen ad nauseum, im going with number 1.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by AJ_Frost]