UA 175 - Pilots Discuss WTC Attack

Originally posted by trebor451
Impressive? In your own world. I'm certainly not impressed in any way.

That explains quite a bit. Can you find me a pilot on your side that
can be verified on FAA that is more impressive than most on P4T's
core list?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Many of the P4T members are ALPA in good standing. Kolstad was the ALPA Communications Chair if you care to listen to the interview I linked?

Did you forget about these P4T members Treb, or do you just like to believe otherwise?

So...we have the Communications Chair of ALPA speaking on P4T's behalf.

Are you impressed yet?

[edit on 6-10-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
That explains quite a bit. Can you find me a pilot on your side that can be verified on FAA that is more impressive than most on P4T's core list?

Is that what this is? Some kind of teenage urination contest? "My" side vs. "your" side? A comparison of credibility based on FAA certification or who wants to put their name out in public? Who has more "important" names or certifications? Childish.

Certifications and associations and flight hours and all that garbage impresses me not. You can easily fool the weak-minded (and boy have you) with that sort of hand-waving gesticulation, but anyone with a scintilla of common sense or a logical outlook to things will see right through you.

It appears you are unaware of a classic reality of life - the fact that there are indeed people who can be competent in a specific complex vocation and are able to master the technical minutia and intricate machinations of a particular task or given job and yet still be absolute morons when it comes to other aspects of life. I have seen that time and time and time again in my life. THAT is the group your PfT club has tapped into.

Like I said in that last email, you can quote till the cows come home the dozens of certifications your "side" has and the bajillion flight hours your "side" has and the myriad associations your "side" are members of but that doesn't take away the fact that your "side" has some pretty wacked out lunatics either being prominently pimped or put forth as ”Leaders” in your frantic and rapidly diminishing (can an already dim bulb diminish?) and meaningless club.

Bases on the moon? Aliens telling Armstrong and Aldrin to stay away? 9/11 was a "false flag" event so that the ensuing wars would corner the opium market so we could pay for the inevitable war with the aliens on the moon? It is *impossible* to fly an airliner, with triple-digital flight control computers into a 1,100 foot skyscraper? A 757 could fly north of the Citgo, end up over South Parking at 50 to 100 feet and then do a pylon turn and head over around towards the Mall side of the Pentagon all without being seen by more than 1 person? Camp Springs 1? Being vectored to drag a wingtip along the southern boundary of P-56? “Rush hour” traffic into DCA? You guys are just too good to be true! Hitching your Wrong-Way Corrigan wagon to CIT is just gravy.

Many of the P4T members are ALPA in good standing. Kolstad was the ALPA Communications Chair if you care to listen to the interview I linked?

Did you forget about these P4T members Treb, or do you just like to believe otherwise?
So...we have the Communications Chair of ALPA speaking on P4T's behalf.

Yay! Leaving aside the reputation (from what I've read on other boards, abysmal) Kolstad has in the Navy fighter community, let’s see how effective the “Communications Chair of ALPA” is doing in pimping your cause!

ALPA News headlines:

ALPA Congratulates Mark Rosekind on NTSB Nomination – no mention of PfT

Canadian Pilots Take on Airline Industry’s Top Issues (and no, PfT is not one of the Canadian Pilot’s top issues) – no mention of PfT

Pilots Urge Strong Sentence for CanJet Attempted Hijacking – no mention of PfT

ALPA’s Fatigue Recommendations to the FAA – no mention of PfT

ALPA: Flying the Extra Mile to Protect U.S. Airline Jobs – no mention of PfT

Etc, so on and so forth.

I could go on….but I think I’ve made my point. In fact, doing a specific search using ALPA’s home page search engine for “Pilots for 9/11 Truth” results in a few hits that simply mention 9/11 – “PfT” gets a big fat goose egg. The largest and leading Airline Pilots union in the world does not give a squat about PfT. Yet you seem to think having the former “Communications Chair of ALPA” as a PfT member is some kind of whoopty-doo. Get over yourself.

Are you impressed yet?

Nope. burp


[edit on 6-10-2009 by trebor451]

Wow

Trebor asks for information, and pilots from the ALPA.

I give him one example.

He goes wild and ignores it while giving excuses.

He's not impressed that experienced commercial and fighter pilots
with 40,000 hours in the air (who know more than he does) question
the ability of rookie pilots hitting 3/3 targets at full thrust when
trained USAF pilots couldn't do it within several tries.

Thanks Trebor. Your opinion is very welcome here.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

Trebor asks for information, and pilots from the ALPA.
I give him once example.
He goes wild and ignores it while giving excuses.

He's not impressed that experienced commercial and fighter pilots
with 40,000 hours in the air (who know more than he does) question
the ability of rookie pilots hitting 3/3 targets at full thrust when
trained USAF pilots couldn't do it within several tries.

Thanks Trebor. Your opinion is very welcome here.

Nice imitation of a crayfish. ALPA thinks you people are nuts, obviously, so why the heck you would offer up examples of ALPA members as a means of legitimizing your organization?

And there you go again with the 856,000 hours in 2,156 jets on 6 planets and 3 solar systems.....big deal! When will you understand that those numbers mean nothing when the owners of them spout nonsense! They mean something to the previously-posted weak minded like the members of your club, but to most everyone else? Who cares!!!!

In your reply, let's save some trons and I'll acknowledge that you people have more flight time than anyone in the history of the galaxy has ever had....ok? Deal. No need to talk about the kajakillion hours you people have. What yoU COULD do, though, is explain why we should care about that when your leaders are so whacked out on this stuff... Lear says there are Sasquatch on the moon and Kolstad says a Cessna pilot can't operate a computer-controlled flight control system and Lankford, et al signs on to an support affidavit for a lawsuit claiming that a plane never hit someone who already received money for claiming a plane did hit her (not to mention the Pentagon "surface-to-air missiles" being "stood down").

Ain't *no* amount of flight time or memberships in clubs can make that sort of stupid any smarter.

As far as "knowing more" than I do, it appears that in some cases, that is not the case (see aforementioned Pentagon surface to air missiles and digital flight controls. I'm not 100% certain because I've never been there, but I think the Sasquatch on the moon thing is BS as well).

Don't believe me? Go ask Lankford if there were *ever* surface-to-air missiles located on site at the Pentagon. If he doesn't know, he's a fool. If he says yes there were, he's a liar. If he repeatedly says there were, especially on 9/11/01, he's not only a liar he's a [redacted] liar. What does the April Gallop lawsuit claim? That there were self-defense missiles stood down at the Pentagon. Signing up in support of that lawsuit is really one of the dumbest things you people could ever do. Right there any credibility you could have *hoped* to achieve from knowledgeable and cogent organizations went out the window.

Still don't believe me? A challenge. Rent an hour or two's worth of 767 simulator time, get some Cessna pilot with 50 hours or so, give him as much sim time as the hijackers had (2 or 3 sessions, from what I can glean from the histories), set him up in Western Pennsylvania at 30,000 ft, 460 knots, headed west on autopilot, and let him see if he can aviate and navigate the aircraft back to NYC into the side of a tower. I bet he could. I bet you won't do that because it would be another thing that would show you people how far down the rabbit hole you have gone.


[edit on 6-10-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by trebor451
Ain't *no* amount of flight time or memberships in clubs can make that sort of stupid any smarter.

One of the best quotes I have seen on here to date.

And so very true, I remember asking Lear about how they faked the sounds of the jets in NYC and he said "they just hung speakers out of some windows"

Sometimes I think that the people that actually buy into this junk deserve their ignorance, but I do feel sad for them since they just want to blindly believe, and will use someones career achievements as the foundation of that belief no matter how stupid it is, like Billy Meier, Bob Lazar or tennis courts on the moon.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by trebor451
Impressive? In your own world. I'm certainly not impressed in any way.

That explains quite a bit. Can you find me a pilot on your side that
can be verified on FAA that is more impressive than most on P4T's
core list?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Many of the P4T members are ALPA in good standing. Kolstad was the ALPA Communications Chair if you care to listen to the interview I linked?

Did you forget about these P4T members Treb, or do you just like to believe otherwise?

So...we have the Communications Chair of ALPA speaking on P4T's behalf.

Are you impressed yet?

Did I miss something? Did trebor451 or one of the other defenders of the official storyline post some airline pilots or fighter pilots associations who have come out publicly risking their reputations and supporting the official 911 storyline and stating that they believe the 911 hijackers were fully capable of flying the 911 aircraft as claimed?

Please excuse me if I have been negligent in digging up such vocal aircraft pilots associations on my own. But I could not find any.

Can some good person point me towards where ever these pilot supporters of the flying skills of the hijackers have been posted? I would really be interested in seeing why real pilots believe that Cessna rejects can fly and operate the controls and instruments of 757/767 commercial aircraft.

Pulling up and banking at high gees and at high speeds in 90+ ton twin engine aircraft must be much simpler than it looks. So bring these official storyline pilots on and let them support this nonsense publicly. Surely there are no chickens among them are there?

No. Reheat and weedwhacker do not count because they are completely anonymous behind their screen names.

Originally posted by HennyPen
No. Reheat and weedwhacker do not count because they are completely anonymous behind their screen names.

Just out of curiosity, why should your opinion count then? Unless, of course, I missed the part where you have published your name, vocation, location and professional expertise, qualifications, experience and acumen in this subject.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by HennyPen
No. Reheat and weedwhacker do not count because they are completely anonymous behind their screen names.

Just out of curiosity, why should your opinion count then? Unless, of course, I missed the part where you have published your name, vocation, location and professional expertise, qualifications, experience and acumen in this subject.

As a pilot my opinion doesn't count for beans. As an American citizen or world citizen expecting justice for the murdered victims of 911, my opinion is important and my research and that of many others shows us that 911 absolutely requires a thorough new investigation. This thread deals with pilots.

But you a non-pilot sit in judgement over real pilots with traceable names and easily provable flight experience and training providing us with their expertise on the abilities of Cessna rejects and commercial aircraft controls. How can you a non-pilot sit in judgement over the abilities of real pilots?

Reheat and weedwhacker are anonymous non-entities unwilling to prove their expertise as pilots and unwilling to publicly risk their reputations supporting the official 911 storyline.

But you a non-pilot in your hypocrisy cannot provide us with pilots or pilot associations who will or have publicly stake (d) their reputations on the veracity of the 911 hijacker supposed abilities and the abilities of commercial 757/767 aircraft under hand control in high gee pullup and diving banking high speed approaches.

So get off your lazy butt and provide us with pilot associations publicly supporting the official 911 storyline. I have seen none to date.

How come no real pilots want to publicly step forward and support your illusions?

reply to post by HennyPen

Can some good person point me towards where ever these pilot supporters of the flying skills of the hijackers have been posted? I would really be interested in seeing why real pilots believe that Cessna rejects can fly and operate the controls and instruments of 757/767 commercial aircraft.

Sure... I'd be glad to help you out.

The very man that made Hanjour a "Cessna reject" also said, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."

www.newsday.com...

You're welcome.


[edit on 7-10-2009 by Boone 870]

Originally posted by Boone 870

Sure... I'd be glad to help you out.

The very man that made Hanjour a "Cessna reject" also said, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."

www.newsday.com...

You're welcome.


[edit on 7-10-2009 by Boone 870]

Wait a minute Boone....are you saying saying Marcel Bernard is lying? I ask that because PfT has stated, unequivocally and categorically and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, that it would be impossible...not just difficult or improbable...but impossible for any of the hijackers to have done this. "The speed is too great!" they say. "They wouldn't be able to control the aircraft!", they cry. "Its like driving a car through a drive-through car wash at 80 mph!!!" the "experts" lament. "They wouldn't be able to vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft,!!!" they bluster. "I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it!" they doth protest.

Curse you, Bernard! You are a (lets see if I can hit all the points) a Lying Shill Government Apologist Corporate Lacky America Hating Shill (wait...I used shill twice) and we can't wait for you to do the perp walk (or is it frog walk?) as you go off to pay for your crimes against humanity!!!!!!

There. I feel better.

reply to post by trebor451

Curse you, Bernard! You are a (lets see if I can hit all the points) a Lying Shill Government Apologist Corporate Lacky America Hating Shill (wait...I used shill twice) and we can't wait for you to do the perp walk (or is it frog walk?) as you go off to pay for your crimes against humanity!!!!!!

You forgot to include swinger party having, baby blood drinking, traitor, wannabe, slacker, and liar.

I'm sure that I left out a few names.

ETA: I almost forgot to include "racist."

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by turbofan
I wonder if Trebor knows about the latest additions to the core list?

Gee, that list keeps getting bigger and more impressive. I wonder why
that is?

"Impressive" is a relative word, TF. It means different things to people. You and Cap't Bob and the rest of the club members all think each other are "impressive". Most everyone else in the world are...shall we say less than impressed with your "impressiveness".

Don't create hyperbole. "Everyone else in the world" is playing COD on their playstation and not even thinking about this at all.

Your (the collective "your") intellectual reach is limited

I hardly think you are an individual to judge what is "intellectual". Care to bare your scholastic credentials and areas of expertise? Are you a psychiatrist? Behavioral therapist? How about hold degrees in human factors? Let me guess... aerospace engineer, but then you really couldn't assess intellect effectually...

, your aeronautical knowledge is suspect (to say the least with your inability to understand standard published departures, flight procedures around prohibited areas, NOTAMS, etc).

Why don't you dazzle us with your expertise in these areas instead of flinging ad hominem attacks that are, by the way, against ATS guidelines?

When you have to attack people instead of their arguments you have no argument.

Your claims of "expertise" (which is an offshoot of your self-professed claims of being "impressive") amount to nothing more than lots of flight hours. Ask John Lear if his bajillion flight hours makes his claims of Moon bases and aliens telling the Apollo astronauts not to return to the moon any more legit.

Howard Hughes was a total nutjob but he sure could fly and he sure made a nice plane. What does a belief in aliens have to do with John Lear's abilities to define aeronautics or aerospace engineering?

Again, ad hominem!

What *would* be impressive is if some mainstream aviation/aeronautical organization like ALPA or IFALPA or some other organization of professional aviators and aeronautical people would buy into your snake oil.

This is a straw man. There is no organization that would or should "speak" for a dues paying group without that group voting unanimously to do so. That is why groups like AAA do it so rarely.

The fact they aren't tells you WHAT?

That they aren't in the business of speaking for their members without consensus, especially when it comes to a political issue?

As was mentioned before, Cap't Bob has either been shot down in flames by these organizations or he hasn't the backbone to take his absurd concoction to them to ask for their support.

How did the shoot Cap't Bob down, again? Did they make a vitriolic statement such as yours?

Impressive? In your own world. I'm certainly not impressed in any way.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by trebor451]

That's certainly dismaying. The fact that any pilot at all would go on record is impressive to me. It goes against the human need to preserve livelihood and avoid ridicule. It shows me that this group is comprised of some individuals who are nutjobs (all groups have them), and some that feel the evidence is so compelling that they are willing to speak out.

I spoke to a pilot about this the other day and he said that P4T had some good arguments. When I asked if he would join he said not unless it was anonymous. Again, he is not indicative of a whole, and, well, unlike you I don't like to generalize, but it does support my feelings that people think long and hard before taking a stand on anything and public ridicule does in fact pay a large part.

There are people on this website, an "anonymous" user site that were concerned about their "FOES" list. Humans like to be liked. Some can free themselves from this need, but in general even the most intelligent of us want to be liked. Bill Clinton, whatever else you might say about him, was a genius. Academic scholarships to Ivy League schools, then a Rhodes scholar...and he was handcuffed and crippled by his need to be adored.

A shame, really.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by HennyPen

 

Can some good person point me towards where ever these pilot supporters of the flying skills of the hijackers have been posted? I would really be interested in seeing why real pilots believe that Cessna rejects can fly and operate the controls and instruments of 757/767 commercial aircraft.

The very man that made Hanjour a "Cessna reject" also said, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."

Seems like a contradiction there by Marcel Bernard. Perhaps a few strong-arm insistent FBI agents visited Mr Bernard and made sure he got his lines correct.

So perhaps you are working at providing us with the airline pilots associations willing to stake their reputations on the flying abilities of the Cessna rejects? Surely Boone you can find a few hundred out of the thousands of pilots available?

When did you say you would be posting these pilots speaking out publicly Boone? Why only silence if this 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is so easily verifiable?

Come on Boone; these 9-11 perps need some better support.

Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.

Source

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63b7387179af.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston

Seems like a contradiction there by Marcel Bernard. Perhaps a few strong-arm insistent FBI agents visited Mr Bernard and made sure he got his lines correct.

In conspiratorial SPrestonLand...? Maybe.

In the real world...? Not so much.

Approximately 2 weeks before 9/11, Hanjour went to another airport and had no problems with the certification flight or renting a Cessna 172.

Mr. Shalev said that the runway is small at Clearview and difficult to land. Hanjour landed at the airport without any difficulty. Mr. Shalev stated that based on his observations, Hanjour was a "good" pilot. Mr. Shalev thought that Hanjour may have received training from a military pilot because of his use of terrain recognition for navigation. Hanjour told Mr. Shalev that he (Hanjour) had most recently trained in Florida as a pilot.

After the certification flight, Mr. Shalev approved Hanjour for the rental of the Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters.

911myths.com...

[edit on 7-10-2009 by Boone 870]

reply to post by Boone 870


Ahhh, another Israeli popping up two and one half years later?

MOSSAD guaranteeing another one of its operatives?

Approximately 2 weeks before 9/11, Hanjour went to another airport and had no problems with the certification flight or renting a Cessna 172.

Mr. Shalev said that the runway is small at Clearview and difficult to land. Hanjour landed at the airport without any difficulty. Mr. Shalev stated that based on his observations, Hanjour was a "good" pilot. Mr. Shalev thought that Hanjour may have received training from a military pilot because of his use of terrain recognition for navigation. Hanjour told Mr. Shalev that he (Hanjour) had most recently trained in Florida as a pilot.

After the certification flight, Mr. Shalev approved Hanjour for the rental of the Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters.

911myths.com...

[edit on 7-10-2009 by Boone 870]

Yes, but a Cessna is not a jet. If you learn to fly in a Cessna you are not automatically handed the keys to a jet and given the thumbs up to be a commercial jet pilot.

Perhaps, Weedwacker can explain why that is? Why does the FAA require so many hours of air time to get an ATL? If flying jets is so easy to learn from a flight simulator why doesn't the FAA allow an individual who has a private license to fly commercial if he's also had flight simulator experience. Why must you have 1500 hours + air time?

According to my friend who's a pilot, commercial airlines require so many hours in the air + language proficiency prior to your hiring. Why, if it isn't really important?

Moreover, I just looked at the 9-11 commission report tonight and checked a few days ago, but nowhere does it say he even had flight simulation for the 757 only the 737.

I have years of driving experience behind me. I can drive manual like a pro. I have always had small cars, though. I had to borrow my mother's minivan (she loves them) one day and I could barely park the damn thing because of its size which led me to believe that my dream of getting a bunch of chicks together, renting an RV and doing route 66 was going to be more of a nightmare.

The bigger something is, the less maneuverable it is. I asked my pilot friend and he said the same is true in the air. Does a pilot here want to dispute that?

Okay back to Mr Shalev and Hanjour...

Hanjour failed out of another flight school a few weeks prior for both his in air and written skills, and yet Mr Shalev (whom we know very little about in the 9-11 Commission report and only know more about due to his statement that he was once in the Israeli military) said he was supadupafly awesome, or something like that.

Okay, so you guys choose to disregard a flight school's impression that he could barely drive a car, let alone a jet and cite as your SME the words of a man whose only appraisal of his flying skills came through watching him qualify on a single engine Cessna.

Speaking of Cessna, it is used by so many flight schools for private licenses because of its ease of use, maneuverability, and reliability. According to their own website: anyone can fly a cessna!

How are you not making evidence fit, again?

Flight school instructors = ignorant rubes
Dude who rents cessnas = truth teller

Now, many of the pilots I know already have years behind them so I can't really trust them to know what its like for a noob, because they forget. For example, I had to recently help a 16 year old learn to drive. I couldn't believe how shaky and scared she was even weeks later. I asked Mom and she said I was the same way. I couldnt believe it. I thought I was a great driver back then.

So I went to Confessions of a 757 Trainee. This is someone who went through the 737 training and blogged that:

First impressions of the fixed base sim are somewhat disappointing, tucked away beneath a 737-400 level D sim in the corner of the sim hall is a small caravan type construction. The only barrier to the outside world is a heavy duty curtain divider. Inside however is a different world of Boeing beige. The fixed base trainer is a complete working replica of a 757 / 767 flight deck albeit with blanked out windows. To say that I feel out of my depth is an understatement. I have moved from the very familiar surroundings of the 737 to the rather different six TV screen world of a big Boeing. While the philosophy of the flight deck is initially very different it doesn't take long to see where the similarities between our new toy and the venerable 737 are.

So...this is someone who did their time in the 737 and the first time they were behind the wheel of a 757 they felt "out of depth".

Now what does all this tell me? That Hanjour was probably a fairly good light plane pilot but couldn't fly jets, hence the failing out of school.

Again, just throwing this out there...

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I spoke to a pilot about this the other day and he said that P4T had some good arguments. When I asked if he would join he said not unless it was anonymous.

Your friend is welcome to join P4T under an anonymous name. There are
several pilots helping with research and providing leads without risking
their employment. The are sub forums within P4T tailored for pilots and
research which your friend will likely appreciate.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I spoke to a pilot about this the other day and he said that P4T had some good arguments. When I asked if he would join he said not unless it was anonymous.

Your friend is welcome to join P4T under an anonymous name. There are
several pilots helping with research and providing leads without risking
their employment. The are sub forums within P4T tailored for pilots and
research which your friend will likely appreciate.

Turbo,

he doesn't buy the official story, but he doesn't buy the "missile" or "remote piloted 757". He feels that they either had training that we don't know about, or that it was a different plane. He disagrees with Weedwacker that these were maneuvers that "anyone" could do, but he doesn't feel that we have the whole story so it is possible that another pilot flew the plane instead of Hanjour.

He also said that anyone could learn to fly a Cessna, but a Cessna is a light aircraft and very easy to impress upon. That is his big beef that people are clinging to one statement by Mr Shalev that proves nothing when they could just say that maybe someone else (another hijacker) flew the plane.

He doesn't buy the "wings were disintegrated" story, but he also doesn't buy the "above safe speed" because he says there is theory and then there is reality (has cited examples of pilots in a pinch doing the impossible).

He is sort of in the middle and agrees with me that there is too much dogma on either side. I will see if he would like to join just to put some balance in. Sorry, rambling...its early. *shrugs*

You lot should really stop with the "Why aren't there groups coming out and supporting the official story?" nonsense.

For a start, the professional organisations you mention are formed for different - some would say more important - reasons than debating 9/11. They are pilot associations and as such are interested in the welfare of their members and preserving their interests. They're not a single issue pressure group.

Secondly, nobody creates single issue pressure groups in support of things that are self evident or widely believed. The lack of a "Pilots4the OS" is not evidence of the non-conspiracy narrative being widely disbelieved, but rather an indication that almost everybody accepts it.

To put it another way, there is no group claiming that the first world war happened, or that falling from a great height will kill you, or that butter is made from milk. Because the vast, vast majority of people take those things as obviously true.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
To put it another way, there is no group claiming that the first world war happened, or that falling from a great height will kill you, or that butter is made from milk. Because the vast, vast majority of people take those things as obviously true.

Trick,

You stole my thunder! Exactly what I was going to say. Well said. Organizations, whether formal or informal or club-sized or international are not going to go out of their way to issue broad-based breathtaking news/press-releases about the obvious. Imagine ALPA or the Association of Army Aviators or the Retired Air Force Aviator Association or the FAA or ICAO issuing press releases that state "Heavier Than Air Machines Can Actually Fly" or "Impacting The Earth At High Speed Can Kill You".

Asking for such as "proof" that the "official story" (as the Troothers like to call it) is really pretty childish and falls in among the lines of the "your side vs. my side" playground argument. Just chuckle at it, post a reply or two highlighting how silly such things are, shake your head in amazement and move on to the next post.