9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And yet my view remains the one accepted by almost everybody.

You're just loaded with logical fallacies today, aren't you Tricky. Moreso than your normal everyday replies.

Click

And despite your logical fallacies, these lists continue to grow.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Hmmm, wonder why that is?

I Either you've uncovered some truly startling and impeccably researched information that for some reason is failing to gain traction in the mainstream.

Again Tricky - Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument aside from "Because the govt told me so..." and, logical fallacies. You have been failing for more than SIXTY-FOUR pages and more than NINE years.

By the way, I'm flattered that you think my replies, and those of a handful of others, indicate that significant numbers of people "care" about your ideas. But the fact is that just because I have a passing interest in - actually, more of a guilty amusement with - your crazy notions does not indicate any level of serious public interest in them.

When I say "nobody cares", I obviously don't mean it literally. A vanishingly tiny number of people care. Indeed the number is so pathetically small and the adherents so manifestly mental that your "work" actually probably damages the chances of any kind of mass recognition for the "Truth Movement".

Well done.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
When I say "nobody cares", I obviously don't mean it literally. A vanishingly tiny number of people care. Indeed the number is so pathetically small and the adherents so manifestly mental that your "work" actually probably damages the chances of any kind of mass recognition for the "Truth Movement".

Well done.

And yet these lists grow -

patriotsquestion911.com...

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


It's not a logical fallacy. I'm not arguing that my ideas are valid because they are accepted by an overwhelming majority.

I'm merely pointing out that your "arguments" are deeply unpopular and that they have failed either to capture the public imagination or make any significant dent in mainstream perception. Make of that what you will.

As to your continual demands for evidence, this became tedious a long time ago. You've been provided with what you asked for and asked a series of questions about your "theories" which you have been unable or unwilling to answer. Your ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. Your "evidence" has been shown to be flawed or, in one notable case, invented. Indeed you've pioneered a new and mendacious form of "argument" - make a few sweeping statements, argue tendentiously over minutiae while ignoring refutations and requests for detail, then disappear and reappear a few days later claiming victory. With a load of links for a baseball cap shop.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

And yet these lists grow -

patriotsquestion911.com...

Wow. 3000-odd people "question" 9/11?

That's a lot. I mean, in the village where my mother grew up, in the highlands of Scotland, there are about that many people. Well, there are a few more. But, you know, well done. You've got a number about equivalent to just less than one per cent of the population of Toledo.

Also, I wonder how your lists would account for someone who changed their mind? I doubt you'd be in a rush to take them off.

Tricky, it seems you're speaking from experience as the situation is actually reversed. Again a reminder -

After SIXTY-FOUR pages, the score remains -

Evidence for my argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

Data -
NTSB
Boeing
Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics

Precedent -
EA990
China Air 747SP
TWA 727
737
Modified DC-8

All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS ("It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150") -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = N/A
Precedent = N/A
Verified Experts = N/A


Again -


Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so...". You have been failing for more than NINE years.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

While it is nice to learn about your family history...that still doesn't change the fact that we all witnessed the controlled demolition of three buildings on 911...Just because millions of people buy the propaganda handed to them by the US government doesn't change the truth of what occurred that day...

But, i do agree with you one one point...The 'no-planers' are nothing but a distraction, and detraction, from the legitimate truth movement...

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
But, i do agree with you one one point...The 'no-planers' are nothing but a distraction, and detraction, from the legitimate truth movement...

I agree as well.

This thread is not about "No plane theory" although Tricky attempts to use such a strawman every chance he gets because he doesn't have the expertise to actually discuss the data.

This thread is about experts who couldn't perform the 9/11 maneuvers, for those who blindly support anything the govt tells them to provide evidence that the aircraft which were observed to hit the WTC, were standard aircraft as reported, and were stable/controllable.

So far, all the evidence points to the fact that such aircraft, if standard, cannot achieve such extreme speeds over it's limits set by the manufacturer, and certainly could not be controlled by a "hijacker" with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.

Many theories can be offered based on the available evidence I suppose, and others are free to speculate as does Tricky and his obfuscation brigade, but the facts remain, there is a growing mountain of evidence which conflicts with the OS.

Tricky and his herd feel more comfortable believing in something they were told, until it is completely proven false. They attempt to switch the burden of proof. They are failing.

Hence the logical fallacy, argument from ignorance, and the reason I keep asking them if they still believe in Santa Claus because NORAD tracks him each year and it hasn't been proven that he doesn't exists.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I DO agree that those planes- whether domestic airliners, or some sort of modified airplanes-were not piloted by the 'supposed' hijackers....My bet is on remote controlled airliners, or drones...

But I thought that a third of the attempts were successful? Did I miss something somewhere?

If anyone at all can do it, then it is possible.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Hi everyone!

I think we can pretty much put Tiffany to bed. "She" can't do much more than pop back in here every couple of days and recite the same old disproven canards and worn out, meaningless talking points. She quite obviously has reached the terminus of her limited debating and discussion skills, unable to contribute anything new to any topic.

Her latest ploy is to reference an individual - someone with whom she is intimately familiar with - from a different discussion board, ostensibly to bolster her credentials. Problem is, that individual has been banned from this professional board for posting false information about himself and for general rudeness.

Credibility is important when issues such as these are discussed. As such, another examination (updated to include the "pod" people) of the Pilot's club is called for to remind everyone that these people are not to be believed:

"A radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan." -- Tiffany

"When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period." -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes.-- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

"It is impossible to hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper while flying a 767 at 450 knots." -- Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club

They also believe a remote-controlled aircraft could hit those 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide towers - while they, with the aircraft under their experienced hand, could not. -- Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club

They also believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. -- "Capt" Russ Wittenberg, P4T member

They also believe there are moon bases on the dark side of the moon where we interact with aliens. -- John Lear, P4T member

They also believe it was high explosives and not AA 77 that caused the damage to the Pentagon. -- Joel M. Skousen, P4T member

They also believe all it takes is a split second to switch a 767 transponder from its normal squawk over to the hijack code (7500). "It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over."-- CDR Ted Muga, PfT Member (This is pure BS. There are four knobs, two outer knobs and two inner knobs, and dialing in the hijack transponder code would take time.)

They also believe there was no jet fuel at the Pentagon crash site. -- Ralph W. Omholt, P4T Member (I'm sure that is welcome news to my former neighbor, Juan Cruz, who was burned over 70 percent of his body by no jet fuel.)

They also believe that "Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel." --Major Jon I. Fox, P4T member (This is something any high school physics student would be able to debunk in one afternoon experiment.)

They also believe holograms slammed into the WTC. -- John Lear, P4T member

They also believe that Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a legitimate organization based on sound aeronautical analysis. --P4T members

They also believe it would take 11.2 g's to pull out of a dive at the Pentagon. -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

They also believe a "pod" was attached to UA 175 - -- Glen Stanish, co-founder of P4T, still an active pilot (Continental)

They also believe there were surface to air missiles at the Pentagon before and on 9/11. -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo via support for April Gallop law suit, dismissed with extreme prejudice and called fanciful and frivolous and fantastic by US District Judge.

They also believe a 767 will break apart at 1 knot over its design limit. Period. -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

All the aforementioned incredibly ridiculous statements can be found either here in this thread or here.

I anyone still wants to hitch their 9/11 wagon to "Tiffany" and "Capt" Bob Balsamo and the others at the utterly speculative Pilot's club web site, by all means go right ahead, but don't expect anyone who has gray matter between the ears to take you seriously.

As usual, trebor is not able to provide any source for his claims/quotes.

As usual, trebor attempts character assassination instead of discussing the data/facts.

As usual, trebor makes a post with nothing of value.

As usual, trebor STILL has no evidence for his claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

As usual, trebor fails, as he has been doing for the past 64 pages.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I think it's not that it is "easy," but that it is possible for someone with even the experience of the terrorist pilots reported on 9/11. Using diversionary tactics like non-specific adjectives which are opinions on how difficult it would be to do it is no better than what you are complaining others are doing to you.

Originally posted by Varemia
.... are opinions on how difficult it would be to do it is no better than what you are complaining others are doing to you.

Read this post again -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then let me know when you get some evidence for your argument.

Yes, I agree that some of the evidence I use is based on "opinion". But it is based on the opinion of those who have expertise, put their name on it and can be verified. This type of "opinion" is used in a court of law every day. It's called an "Expert Witness".

Those who make excuse for the OS have yet to provide ONE "opinion" from a verified expert (or any evidence for that matter), for over 64 pages and NINE years, to support their theory.

The ATS members here who blindly support the OS and claim to be pilots don't even want to put their own name behind their claims (unlike those who question the OS), I don't blame them.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
This type of "opinion" is used in a court of law every day. It's called an "Expert Witness".

And what was the result of "Capt" Bob Balsamo's foray into "expert opinion" territory with his April Gallop affidavit?

A court may dismiss a claim as "factually frivolous" if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless", that is, "fanciful", fantastic" or "delusional" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,325,327,328 (1989)) Courts have not hesitated to dismiss complaints asserting delusional claims of conspiracy.3 Indeed, courts have dismissed other cases alleging delusional conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11,2001. Because Gallop's claims are factually baseless -- indeed, because they are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional -- they are dismissed.

Credibility means everything and PfT and "Capt" Bob Balsamo and his club members have none.

Originally posted by trebor451
Credibility means everything and PfT and "Capt" Bob Balsamo and his club members have none.

The achievements accomplished by the "Club Members" speak otherwise.

Click

Your arguments are very simliar to a guy named William "Pinch" Paisley. A Navy washout who could never make it to to the front seat, nor TopGun, let alone obtain an FAA Arman Certificate.

William "Pinch" Paisley was so obsessed and envious with the achievements of the Pilots For 9/11 Truth "Club members" that he registered more than 15 socks at the P4T forum just so he could sling mud, (coincidentally, just as you are doing here), without debating the facts or data.

Sad really. I hope William is able to find some help (or medication).

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Tiff, you're probably being too harsh on trebor451, after all, he wasn't registered on ATS when pinch was busy posting.

pinch's last post on ATS was 17 Feb, 2009 before he was banned. trebor451 didn't join ATS until 7 May, 2009 - shortly after pinch was banned.

Besides, trebor451 (robert spelled backwards) has already posted on ATS that he's had a 25 year career as a civil servant, government employee for the DoD - that's fairly different from being a pilot.

I kind of wish that pinch was still here, to contribute his valuable opinions from a pilot's perspective.

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

While it is nice to learn about your family history...that still doesn't change the fact that we all witnessed the controlled demolition of three buildings on 911...Just because millions of people buy the propaganda handed to them by the US government doesn't change the truth of what occurred that day...

But, i do agree with you one one point...The 'no-planers' are nothing but a distraction, and detraction, from the legitimate truth movement...

edit on 1-11-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)

Tiffany is either a noplaner or a proponent of the notion that one of the planes was modified for some reason.

I can't find any logical explanation for either stance.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Many theories can be offered based on the available evidence I suppose, and others are free to speculate...

There aren't "many theories". There are precisely three possibilities.

- no planes
- modified planes
- the speeds are wrong

Since these are the only options available to you, it's hardly going way off topic to ask you which you think is correct. You don't seem to rule out npt, although above you almost admit to modification. Both of these seem absolutely ludicrous to me - and I think to you, which is why you refuse to discuss them - so I suppose you're left with number three. Which is hardly earth shattering, especially given the quality of your "evidence".

By the way, I like how you say that discussing the implications of your "proof" is speculative, and therefore in some sense undesirable. Brilliant.

reply to post by trebor451



BUMPING from above, because it is OH, SO pertinent and goes directly, unequivocally to the complete lack of credibility of the so-called "PilotsFor9/11Truth" and their companion (with many of the SAME "members" to inflate the roster "numbers") "PatriotsFor9/11Truth".

"A radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan." -- Tiffany

"When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period." -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes.-- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

"It is impossible to hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper while flying a 767 at 450 knots." -- Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club

They also believe a remote-controlled aircraft could hit those 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide towers - while they, with the aircraft under their experienced hand, could not. -- Pilots for 9/11 Truth Club

They also believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. -- "Capt" Russ Wittenberg, P4T member

They also believe there are moon bases on the dark side of the moon where we interact with aliens. -- John Lear, P4T member

They also believe it was high explosives and not AA 77 that caused the damage to the Pentagon. -- Joel M. Skousen, P4T member

They also believe all it takes is a split second to switch a 767 transponder from its normal squawk over to the hijack code (7500). "It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over."-- CDR Ted Muga, PfT Member (This is pure BS. There are four knobs, two outer knobs and two inner knobs, and dialing in the hijack transponder code would take time.)

They also believe there was no jet fuel at the Pentagon crash site. -- Ralph W. Omholt, P4T Member (I'm sure that is welcome news to my former neighbor, Juan Cruz, who was burned over 70 percent of his body by no jet fuel.)

They also believe that "Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel." --Major Jon I. Fox, P4T member (This is something any high school physics student would be able to debunk in one afternoon experiment.)

They also believe holograms slammed into the WTC. -- John Lear, P4T member

They also believe that Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a legitimate organization based on sound aeronautical analysis. --P4T members

They also believe it would take 11.2 g's to pull out of a dive at the Pentagon. -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

They also believe a "pod" was attached to UA 175 - -- Glen Stanish, co-founder of P4T, still an active pilot (Continental)

They also believe there were surface to air missiles at the Pentagon before and on 9/11. -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo via support for April Gallop law suit, dismissed with extreme prejudice and called fanciful and frivolous and fantastic by US District Judge.

They also believe a 767 will break apart at 1 knot over its design limit. Period. -- "Capt" Bob Balsamo

All the aforementioned incredibly ridiculous statements can be found either here in this thread or here.

Originally posted by trebor451
I [sic] anyone still wants to hitch their 9/11 wagon to "Tiffany" and "Capt" Bob Balsamo and the others at the utterly speculative Pilot's club web site, by all means go right ahead, but don't expect anyone who has gray matter between the ears to take you seriously.