It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by A W Smith
this should put an end to this thread, From mister Mackey himself
Originally posted by R_Mackey
So, let me get this straight. The mods here banned Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth, who can be readily verified as a pilot, who also happens to question the government story, but never banned any of you?
Originally posted by Reheat
If it is the same FAA then using your logic this verification gambit is no good. Try again.
Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Because we all know that it isn't true unless it's on video? Life must've been a female dog during Nuremberg, eh?
"9/11 was an inside job", God.
Originally posted by ReheatSchooled by an auto mechanic is one of the funniest jokes I've heard in a while.
Originally posted by Reheat
What I said was correct. That's why you didn't quote it.
The 20' accuracy that Turbo has been touting is a manufacturer's tolerance on the instrument itself which does not include the piping and other installation issue such as, placement and performance of the static ports. Consequently, it is misleading and WRONG.
I believe there only three antennas with one cockpit display. However, the FDR records data from all three inputs individually.
The misleading crap continues. The tolerances listed above are "BENCH TEST requirements for an instrument, not operational requirements for an installed altimeter system.
Originally posted by trebor451
Turcois? Did not say anything even remotely resembling a "fly over". For you to use him as a "fly-over" witness is absolutely absurd.
Roberts? How convenient you omit his testimony that says he saw the aircraft "over lane 1" in South parking, headed back in a westerly direction
Originally posted by turbofan
He saw a commercial airliner over the south parking lot. If not, "AA77"
what aircraft do you think he saw immediately after the explosion?
Originally posted by turbofan
Now which set of data do you want to throw out? Flight 93, or Flight 77?
It seems the PA was keeping up and in tolerance when corrected for
Flight 93 and that aircraft was nearly "nose down". How much PA error
did that data receive at a higher rate of descent?
Originally posted by A W Smith
this should put an end to this thread, From mister Mackey himself
forums.randi.org...
Wow, my very own impostor. How childish. I can't prove that it is Cap'n Bob, but that's a darn good guess: * The impostor has obviously been humiliated by me in the past * The only Truthers posting in that thread are PfTers and SPreston * The impostor comments quite knoweldgeably about conversations that took place years ago between John Farmer and Cap'n Bob, and it ain't John Farmer * The impostor is quite the idiot about aerodynamics, much like Cap'n Bob * The impostor posts links to PfT nonsense frequently Just for fun, guess which of the following out-of-context quotes are the impostor, and which are the real Cap'n Bob. I'll bet you can't. Originally Posted by A PA is based on Pressure and is the height above (or below) the standard datum plane as represented by 29.92. PA changes with local pressure changes. Since there is an 80 foot difference and the local pressure on take off at IAD was 30.20, its clear the pressure the night before was somewhere around 30.12/13. Originally Posted by B Put 41 feet into the left altimeter indicated altitude, put 30.20 into the right "New Altimeter Setting". Note True Altitude on top. Put 120 into simulator on left indicated altitude. Put 30.12 into simulator "New Altimeter Setting" on right. [...] Its well within 20 feet as Turbofan described. Originally Posted by A But if you want to continue to assert 41 PA with a 30.20 altimeter is "significantly" different than 120' PA with a 30.12 Altimeter on a field with an elevation of roughly 300 feet, be my guest. You are wrong. Originally Posted by B In other words, if the local pressure at IAD was 29.92 the night before, the PA in the FDR column would read roughly 300 feet, while at take off, it would still show 41 when the local pressure changed overnight to 30.20. So, the question asked, "Which is more accurate.. .the 41 feet at take off, or the 120 on landing?" Answer - Both. They both show the same True Altitude when corrected for local pressure. Originally Posted by A Finally, this all assumes the aircraft we are talking about is N644AA. First you have to prove it was N644AA in order to claim the altimeter was operating outside the aircraft envelope. Originally Posted by B This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, [...] There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Originally Posted by A Since some are still a bit confused, the Baro Altimeter regulated by the ADC is very precise. This is why it is used for precision approaches. Originally Posted by B "below 500 AGL" all call-outs are based on Baro Altimeter and there is never "one eye on the RadAlt" during such an approach. Baro Alt is ultimate authority. Answers below: Cap'n Bob: A, B, B, B If by some miracle you, dear reader, are still in the Truth Movement, this is the kind of person you're associating yourself with -- frauds, forgers, and bullies. If what the Truth Movement stood for was actually valid, none of this nonsense would be needed at all. Think about it. So, in closing, I do not post at AboveTopSecret, and I increasingly take no note of the Truth Movement. Many of them are simply sick. This kind of impersonation is just another example. Although it seems to me this is also another example of poor strategy... By trying to disguise himself as me, Cap'n Bob or whomever isn't fooling anybody, but he can't take a shot at me, either. Must be frustrating.
Originally posted by turbofan
Really? What does it mean to you when a witness says, "I saw the plane
pick up" and motion with his hand like an aircraft is ascending?
"9/11 was an inside job.", God
Originally posted by turbofan
Do you have independent verified accounts of these quotes, or video
statements?
Anyone can write some text and claim a person said it. Just remember,
I have the ultimate witness statement:
Originally posted by turbofan
Trebor, what plane did Rosevelt see immediately after the explosion if not "AA77"?
Lastly, If the plane was pulling up according to Robert ... it could not have been descending like the FDR wants us to believe and it could not have
hit the light poles. Why would Hani suddenly pull-up if he was that close
to the Pentagon?
Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by tomk52
Ahhh, a flyover that nobody saw.
R. Turcious, "saw plane pick up over road sign"
R. Rosevelts, "commerical airliner over south parking lot immediately
after explosion about 100 feet above"
CIT has further research showing people were heard screaming the
plane continued over the Pentagon.
Several Witnesses claim plane was slow and banking (FDR support?)
Nobody Saw?
I guess Rosevelts was imagining this plane right after the explosion?
Ahhh, a flyover that would have been impossible for the parking lot camera to have missed.
You mean the fake 5 frame video? The one that shows a small object level
with the ground, with a trail of smoke...again not supported by FDR parameters?
How much witness evidence do you want to toss out to make your theory
hold water?
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
Can you link me to any real eye witness testimony on "your" side?
I don't mean internet quotes...I mean video.
The last few video accounts the GL's have put forth have been less than
stellar (IE: Keith Wheelhouse, Lloyd England, Mike Walters). All of them
proven liars and do not support the official story.
So, go ahead. Make me a believer and connect me with a real witness
that support the OGCT.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Originally posted by turbofan
Now which set of data do you want to throw out? Flight 93, or Flight 77?
It seems the PA was keeping up and in tolerance when corrected for
Flight 93 and that aircraft was nearly "nose down". How much PA error
did that data receive at a higher rate of descent?
Wow, GREAT point Turbofan. I never thought to look that up.
The last second of data for United 93, according to the NTSB, shows a more than 34,500 fpm descent rate (that's THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND, not three thousand as shown for AA77 data), yet only has a 60 foot error from PA (when adjusted to local MDT [Middleton, not Mountain time for you GL's]) vs. Ground elevation!
So, I suppose those who make excuse for the government story feel a 3,600 fpm descent rate can have almost THREE times the error than a 34,500 fpm descent rate? Perhaps United 757's have THOUSANDS of times more accuracy in their Air Data Computers than do American Airlines?
Which cake do they wish to not eat?
Originally posted by Balsamo's sock ...
The last second of data for United 93, ..., a 60 foot error from PA (when adjusted to local MDT [Middleton, not Mountain time for you GL's]) vs. Ground elevation!
Which cake do they wish to not eat?
Originally posted by tomk52
Why are you still POSING as Ryan Mackey & LYING to everyone?
Just curious...
Tom
[edit on 3-11-2009 by tomk52]
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by tomk52
Why are you still POSING as Ryan Mackey & LYING to everyone?
Just curious...
Tom
[edit on 3-11-2009 by tomk52]
Isn't it obvious? Cap't Bob has some problems understanding that his qualifications are not all that impressive so he has to impersonate someone else on the web who's qualifications *are* impressive.
Just what we have come to expect from the PfT Boys.
"So you think that he's the ONLY 'R. Mackey' in the world...?"