Official Story Supporter Pilot's Post On Pentaplane Options

[scott75]

Wasn't sure I'd ever post here again, but there's an official story supporter pilot over in another forum and I'm clearly outmatched in the technical department. Perhaps someone here would want to have a go at countering his points against CIT/PFT's 'plane didn't hit the pentagon' theory, with an emphasis on the flyover extension to that theory. Just in case someone would like to, here's the post that I floundered on in many points:

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread...g131#pid7728294

[rob balsamo]

Welcome back Scott!

I havent bothered to click your link as many are complaining about getting viruses at that site, but I know who you speak of as "weedwhacker" is the only self-proclaimed "pilot" (many beg to differ as he has been wrong so many times), who supports the govt story and has an unhealthy obsession with CIT and P4T while pouncing on his keyboard day and night.

See here when he tried to register here with a sock and I exposed many of his fallacies and just flat out wrong and novice aeronautical knowledge.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778785

(i also edited your link due to complaints of viruses)

If he learned to behave himself, he might still be able to post here and perhaps i would have approved his numerous other socks he tried to register since.

But it appears weedy has been proven wrong so many times his only style of debate left is now mainly personal attacks its just not worth our time. Clearly the guy has an unhealthy obsession. Tell him to go for a walk once in a while... get some air...lol

Be sure to tell weedwhacker i personally thank him for confirming why i changed his sock here to the name
"weedwhacker". (Weedy acted aloof when i changed his sock here to "weedwhacker" as if that wasnt him. He got suspended for numerous ad homs and personal attacks, like you see at the other forum, I then blocked his IP here last week sometime on another few socks he tried registered because i knew he would gripe about it at ATS and give up his "identity". He fell for it hook, line and sinker. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

You can also let him know his IP is no longer blocked. We enjoy him reading our forum and then giving us publicity at other forums. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[scott75]

Hey Rob. I glanced over the thread you linked to. It's just so much technical data though; I can't follow it. I wish there were a truther pilot over at ATS. The way it is, Weedwacker runs circles around the people over there for the most part. I responded to the post I linked to; had to break it down into 3 separate posts. I think it's clear to anyone who looks that I'm no match for him concerning a lot of the stuff he brings up. I'm fine with someone here telling me how I should respond to any of his points and me essentially repeating that, but without technical assistance, I feel that he has the floor.

[rob balsamo]

ATS has banned all "truther" pilots to date.

The only people with "technical knowledge" at ATS are those you see who support the govt story. Ironically, they are also the ones with the most ad homs and personal attacks in their posts. They never get banned. That place is litered with Pentagon Bloggers im sure.

There certainly is no balance. Completely one sided filled with spin. Plus, they do delete posts in full, regularly at the forum. Its not even worth it to post there. Combined with the scam pop-up ads for "Make Money From Home With Google", and the viruses and malware, i'm surprised they still have traffic.

If those who attack us regularly behaved themselves, they would still be able to post here and many others are able. For instance, Tom can still post here, but only limited to the Debate forum. If his personal attacks continue, he'll be banned as well. Pinch/trebor/sweetpea/Paisley/10 other socks... he has been banned on some, but some are still active. Beachnut and Reheat still have socks here that arent banned. Ryan Mackey, John "911files" Farmer, Will "censura"... refuses to debate with an actual opponent, therefore they will never register here. Capt Obvious/Throat Yougurt/ImAPepper/10 other socks is too paranoid to even come in through an IP proxy...lol... but yet reads our forum religiously...

You see Scott, some claim we ban those who "disagree". Is Q24 banned? No. Are you banned? No. We have many here who disagree. They do it civilly, they remain.

Those who claim to have been banned by P4T because they "disagree" with P4T, all you have to do is just read their posts of how they speak of P4T at other forums, loaded with libel and personal attacks, and you will readily see why they were banned here. They dont change their writing style nor attacks when they show up here, but then again, why would i want to let anyone in my house when they libel P4T everywhere else? And yet, i still let them in, till they break forum rules.

Show respect or we show you the door, its just that simple.

Most of those who are obsessed with us purposely come here to attack us personally because they know they will get banned and then wont have to actually debate the topic. Its called suicide by mod.

[scott75]

ATS has banned all "truther" pilots to date.

The only people with "technical knowledge" at ATS are those you see who support the govt story.

I think turbofan has some, but it seems he's left for a bit.

Ironically, they are also the ones with the most ad homs and personal attacks in their posts. They never get banned. That place is litered with Pentagon Bloggers im sure.

There certainly is no balance. Completely one sided filled with spin. Plus, they do delete posts in full, regularly at the forum. Its not even worth it to post there. Combined with the scam pop-up ads for "Make Money From Home With Google", and the viruses and malware, i'm surprised they still have traffic.

If those who attack us regularly behaved themselves, they would still be able to post here and many others are able. For instance, Tom can still post here, but only limited to the Debate forum. If his personal attacks continue, he'll be banned as well. Pinch/trebor/sweetpea/Paisley/10 other socks... he has been banned on some, but some are still active. Beachnut and Reheat still have socks here that arent banned. Ryan Mackey, John "911files" Farmer, Will "censura"... refuses to debate with an actual opponent, therefore they will never register here.

I believe censura is on ATS. Ryan Mackey isn't though.

Capt Obvious/Throat Yougurt/ImAPepper/10 other socks is too paranoid to even come in through an IP proxy...lol... but yet reads our forum religiously...

You see Scott, some claim we ban those who "disagree". Is Q24 banned? No. Are you banned? No.

You banned me for 3 months, falsely accusing me of lying. I didn't lie, I made a mistake. I explained it all over at Unexplained Mysteries back when it happened:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=3066218

We have many here who disagree. They do it civilly, they remain.

I can't agree with that Rob, since I don't believe I was ever uncivil. But I would like to move on from that time. What's done is done and I think that it would be good if the knowledge that forum members have here could be shared in some way to forums like ATS. I'm thinking one way of doing this would be to be able to bring up points that simply stump me or others over at ATS.

Those who claim to have been banned by P4T because they "disagree" with P4T, all you have to do is just read their posts of how they speak of P4T at other forums, loaded with libel and personal attacks, and you will readily see why they were banned here.

I can certainly believe that many people did this type of thing. I don't believe I was one of them, though.


Alright, I didn't really come here to debate the past. I was hoping to get some help with weedwacker and one or 2 others. Here's an excerpt from the latest in the FDR decode thread over there:

The FDR shows 2.2 maximum G force and if you calculate the G force required using reality and physics you get about 1.7 Gs needed. And the last few seconds average out to 1.6 to 1.7 G. Real science beats Balsamo's waving hands make up numbers. Even the DNA proves p4t math is a complete failure.

Take the final true track heading from the FDR of 61.5 degrees it is exactly the path of knocked down lampposts. Exactly. Why not plot it on GE and see...

I can't even approach it.

[rob balsamo]

I think turbofan has some, but it seems he's left for a bit.

Turbofan/Tino Desideri has zero aeronautical knowledge and I am relieved i no longer have to constantly email him to stop speaking for P4T. Further, Tino Desideri claims he still has a "buddy" at P4T. He doesnt. No one at P4T no longer trusts Tino/Turbofan with any information, private or otherwise. There was a reason i posted him last on our core member list when he was listed. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bottom line, Tino is a joke. Always has been, always will be.

I believe censura is on ATS. Ryan Mackey isn't though.

Ryan is on JRE.F. Ryan and the other "experts" who make excuse for the govt story refuse to debate anyone at P4T with even a moderator on his side.

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3704117&postcount=105

Ryan (and others) prefer to debate without an opponent.

You banned me for 3 months, falsely accusing me of lying. I didn't lie, I made a mistake. I explained it all over at Unexplained Mysteries back when it happened:

I didnt ban you. If you were banned, you wouldnt be here now. I suspended you for 3 months because i had enough of you expecting others to hold your hand. And you did lie. I never deleted a post. I edited it. You made your bed, you lay in it. You're back now. You still complaining?

... I think that it would be good if the knowledge that forum members have here could be shared in some way to forums like ATS.

So, you would agree it would be ok if we started to delete your entire posts replacing them with graphics if admins/mods here thought your posts were "off topic" or "911 Madness"?

Great, we'll start with you as a test project.

I'm thinking one way of doing this would be to be able to bring up points that simply stump me or others over at ATS.

Sorry, I dont have time to deal with forums filled with scam pop-up's of "Make Money At Home Through Google" and introduce malware and viruses to their guests, both GL's and Truthers alike. Please read JRE.F for their complaints regarding viruses at ATS. This is where we agree.

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5381655#post5381655

Feel free to infect your computer though...

Alright, I didn't really come here to debate the past. I was hoping to get some help with weedwacker and one or 2 others. Here's an excerpt from the latest in the FDR decode thread over there:

I have already given you a thread where i have proven weedwhacker to be not only a liar, but a novice regarding aeronautical knowledge. Im sorry you are unable to follow along.

You may also want to actually count how many pilots are listed here before you agree with those who claim we only have a "bakers dozen". (that means 13 if you arent familair with the term).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

I can't even approach it.

I agree.

Scott, do you know how to count? If so, please let others know....lol

[alanj]

"I glanced over the thread you linked to. It's just so much technical data though; I can't follow it.

Hey Scott, maybe IMHO there's your problem. Stop glancing and start studying. There's a reason why I've only got just over a "bakers dozen" (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) posts myself but have been a member of the forum for over a year. The good folk on this forum put a lot of effort into their work. Perhaps you should think about doing the same.

[scott75]

Turbofan/Tino Desideri has zero aeronautical knowledge and I am relieved i no longer have to constantly email him to stop speaking for P4T. Further, Tino Desideri claims he still has a "buddy" at P4T. He doesnt. No one at P4T no longer trusts Tino/Turbofan with any information, private or otherwise. There was a reason i posted him last on our core member list when he was listed. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bottom line, Tino is a joke. Always has been, always will be.

He has a lot more aeronautical knowledge than most people; he's the only one who seems able to keep up with Weedwhacker over at ATS.

Ryan is on JRE.F. Ryan and the other "experts" who make excuse for the govt story refuse to debate anyone at P4T with even a moderator on his side.

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3704117&postcount=105

Ryan (and others) prefer to debate without an opponent.

I know that Ryan has said that he's tired of truthers, or something to that effect, but Ryan Mackey -has- previously debated with Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who has worked with Steven Jones and has several peer reviewed papers over at the Journal for 9/11 studies, on the twin towers, though. He did it with Ronald Wieck, who is definitely on Ryan's side, but I still thought the debate was educational. I clearly think that Tony won, but then I've studied the twin tower demolitions a lot longer then the pentagon attack, and he's actually helped me understand points more than once, as we used to essentially be on a mutual debating team over at sciforums.com before discussing alternate theories on 9/11 got shut down over there. I can understand more of what Tony says because of it, although they still have enough technical jargon that I at times can't follow them.

Hardfire TONY SZAMBOTI / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK / 1st PROGRAM

Hardfire TONY SZAMBOTI / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK / 2nd PROGRAM

Hardfire TONY SZAMBOTI / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK / 3rd PROGRAM

I didnt ban you. If you were banned, you wouldnt be here now. I suspended you for 3 months because i had enough of you expecting others to hold your hand. And you did lie. I never deleted a post. I edited it. You made your bed, you lay in it. You're back now. You still complaining?

Alright, fine, suspended. Anyway, I didn't try to deceive anyone. I thought you had deleted some of his posts. This is what happened, from the explanation I made in the link I provided last post:
[ex]Because post 100 was responding to something that didn't appear in any post of yours that I saw, I assumed that he had deleted a post, not edited out part of one.[/ex]

You then apparently assumed that I was being deceitful and that was that.

So, you would agree it would be ok if we started to delete your entire posts replacing them with graphics if admins/mods here thought your posts were "off topic" or "911 Madness"?

Great, we'll start with you as a test project.

Whether the posts are deleted or edited, the result is the same; it can frequently get people to leave a forum; Q left because of it here, I know that. OFcourse, being suspended is an even stronger reason for people not to come back. As to ATS, I've had a few posts of mine OTed, and no, I didn't like it, but considering that I've made 300+ and I have various people there who like debating with me, I decided to live with it. Another thing I frequently do is back up my posts. This way, if an important post of mine is OTed (I've never gotten the 911 madness one, I'm fairly civil), I can simply resend it to the mailbox of the person I'm responding to.

Sorry, I dont have time to deal with forums filled with scam pop-up's of "Make Money At Home Through Google" and introduce malware and viruses to their guests, both GL's and Truthers alike. Please read JRE.F for their complaints regarding viruses at ATS. This is where we agree.

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5381655#post5381655

Feel free to infect your computer though...

I'm on a mac, which is rather hard to infect :-p. I could simply excerpt things I don't know how to respond to and post them here, someone could respond here, and I could carry the response back with me. I could limit it only to weedwhacker's posts, as he's the only pilot amoung them as far as I can tell.

I have already given you a thread where i have proven weedwhacker to be not only a liar, but a novice regarding aeronautical knowledge. Im sorry you are unable to follow along.

You think I'm the only one? It seems the only one who can follow weedwhacker over at ATS is turbofan, and you claim that you don't trust his analysis.

You may also want to actually count how many pilots are listed here before you agree with those who claim we only have a "bakers dozen". (that means 13 if you arent familair with the term).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

I wasn't, thanks. I counted around 150 people listed; are all of them pilots?

The FDR shows 2.2 maximum G force and if you calculate the G force required using reality and physics you get about 1.7 Gs needed. And the last few seconds average out to 1.6 to 1.7 G. Real science beats Balsamo's waving hands make up numbers. Even the DNA proves p4t math is a complete failure.

Take the final true track heading from the FDR of 61.5 degrees it is exactly the path of knocked down lampposts. Exactly. Why not plot it on GE and see...

I can't even approach it.

I agree.

Scott, do you know how to count? If so, please let others know....lol

Sigh, yes I know how to count. And I think I remember you debunking what this poster is saying in one of your videos, but it's been a while and without seeing the video again I wouldn't know where to start debunking it.

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 18 2009, 07:56 AM

[scott75]

I glanced over the thread you linked to. It's just so much technical data though; I can't follow it.

Hey Scott, maybe IMHO there's your problem. Stop glancing and start studying.

alanj, I think the only way I'd be able to understand those threads without reading books on the subject would be to crack open a beginner's book to piloting perhaps. I don't want to train to be a pilot, I just want to understand where these official story supporters are mistaken. When it came to the twin towers, I found knowledgeable people, such as Tony Szamboti, who were willing to show me how they were wrong, by -explaining- things I didn't understand, without having to read books or what not.

There's a reason why I've only got just over a "bakers dozen" (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) posts myself but have been a member of the forum for over a year. The good folk on this forum put a lot of effort into their work. Perhaps you should think about doing the same.

I have put a lot of effort into understanding these things. I've seen just about every video of PFT's, other than their new ones one the Twin Towers, and I've been debating over at ATS and before that, in other forums, concerning the pentagon attack for perhaps the past half year. Before that, I was mainly focused on the WTC collapses, dating back to August 2008. Put simply, if I knew what a pilot who's managed the type of aircraft that approached the pentagon, I'd be helping people left and right to understand these things, but I know that people are different.

[GroundPounder]

scott75, do you have a field of expertise?

[scott75]

scott75, do you have a field of expertise?

I've taught english, have helped design some web sites, and I've done some research concerning 9/11, with my main focus until the last few months having been the WTC buildings' disintegration. Why the question?

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 18 2009, 01:20 PM

[GroundPounder]

I've taught english, have helped design some web sites, and I've done some research concerning 9/11, with my main focus until the last few months having been the WTC buildings' disintegration. Why the question?

i ask because everybody is different. butcher, baker, candlestick maker. if your bent isn't mechanical engineering, physics or aeronautical engineering, then tackling the problem from those angles will be tough. not insurmountable, but potentially frustrating for yourself and others involved. some of us have been at this a long time. i corresponded w/ tony szamboti when i regulared at ae911truth. i'm not an ME or structural or civil engineer, but i know where to look for some things. i shared a paper with him i dug up elsewhere, but that was about all i could bring to that table. call me a student of buckminster fuller's comprehensivist school.

my suggestion is to take your command of the english language and apply that to dissecting the verbiage from washington and the mainstream media around the time of the events. i think you'll find the rabbit hole to be very deep indeed.

my 2 cents...

[scott75]

i ask because everybody is different. butcher, baker, candlestick maker. if your bent isn't mechanical engineering, physics or aeronautical engineering, then tackling the problem from those angles will be tough. not insurmountable, but potentially frustrating for yourself and others involved. some of us have been at this a long time. i corresponded w/ tony szamboti when i regulared at ae911truth. i'm not an ME or structural or civil engineer, but i know where to look for some things. i shared a paper with him i dug up elsewhere, but that was about all i could bring to that table. call me a student of buckminster fuller's comprehensivist school.

my suggestion is to take your command of the english language and apply that to dissecting the verbiage from washington and the mainstream media around the time of the events. i think you'll find the rabbit hole to be very deep indeed.

my 2 cents...

I became persuaded that the flyover theory is the best theory out there a long time ago. The problem is in persuading official story supporters. They come up with so many arguments against it, and I don't know the answers to all of their questions. You're 100% right that trying to answer their questions if I don't have much aeronautical knowledge is tough, but it seems to be one of the few places where official story supporters can go in regards to the pentagon attack and I can't argue back. So I've been trying to understand these things better. Fortunately, turbofan, who, while not a pilot -does- seem to have a much better understanding of these concepts than I do, and is now trying to explain things to me over at ATS. Perhaps that will be enough.

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 19 2009, 11:13 AM

[rob balsamo]

He has a lot more aeronautical knowledge than most people; he's the only one who seems able to keep up with Weedwhacker over at ATS.

lol... Tino has some knowledge in electronics and he is good with cars, but he has zero aeronautical knowledge. One glaring example, he was attempting to debate a pitot tube hooked up to a Vertical Speed Indicator for 3 pages at ATS. Then he realized he read the diagram wrong and that it was hooked up to the airspeed indicator, this AFTER i had already given him instruction on the system. Tino admitted his mistake as he had no choice, but claims he really knew the system. Well no, if he really knew the system he would know a pitot tube hooked up to a VSI would destroy the instrument! He was looking at the STBY instruments interpreting "ASI" as a "VSI". This also AFTER i had already instructed him on the difference of Air Data Computer Primary instruments and "peanut gyros" (the STBY instruments), of which do not include a VSI.

Again, I cant count how many times i have told Tino to slow down and to not speak for us. The paper he is listed as a co-author he hardly even helped with. He mostly helped with a small flash clip and some document formatting using MS Office. He didnt help with anything technical. Matter of fact, since he was better at MS Office/Word processors, i asked him if he could help converting the paper to pdf. He didnt even help with that! I had to learn how to do it when the paper was done. It was during the holidays and he was mostly out doing family related events while i was home studying, researching and putting together the presentation. AK Dewdney from physics911.net and of course CIT had the most input. Tino was so "star-struck" he had Kee and me in his house together he had to take pictures of both of us sitting on his sofa to brag to others that he had proof we were both in his house... lol

The only reason i listed Tino on that paper is because i felt sorry for him so that he could feel useful. I also let him do some narration in two of my presentations/videos. Tino has not been helpful in anything technical because he doesnt have a clue when it comes to aeronautical knowledge. He always came to me, Dennis or Capt Kolstad for instruction on the technical issues and he still got it wrong when attempting to debate the information with GL's as all he cared about was having information, any information, to argue with others. Tino got pounced many times by the GL's because he always went off half-cocked. Now that he has burned all those bridges, good, let him bug weedy now... of which, Weedy is wrong on many topics as well. This is why Weedy will never live up to his promise to contact Capt Kolstad for a "chat".

In reality, Tino has been nothing but a thorn in my side going off half-cocked to debate topics of which he has no clue, at times leaking sensitive and personal information, and chest thumping upcoming projects of which he had no input, due to his ego alone... when his arguments get destroyed by the GL's, Tino then blames others for his premature ejaculations on other forums, that we are making HIM look bad... and wants to delete his posts that HE made...lol.

Remember, P4T does not offer theory, however, it is physically impossible for an aircraft to have caused the damage at the Pentagon based on data and witness statements.

Scott, if you believe in the "flyover theory", that means 911 was an Inside job. Period. Although, you shouldnt "believe" in anything, nor debate anyone based on a "belief" till you study the material thoroughly. This is known as an argument from incredulity and is why you are having so many problems when attempting to debate the topic.

If you believe 911 was an Inside Job, the "Official Story Supporters" you are trying to convince might just be hired by the Pentagon. If 911 was an Inside Job, there is no doubt state of the art cointelpro operations occurring. You will not "convince" these type of people of anything but what they been hired to do. And that is to spin, confuse and cloud the topic so it gets mired down in endless debate.

[scott75]

lol... Tino has some knowledge in electronics and he is good with cars, but he has zero aeronautical knowledge. One glaring example, he was attempting to debate a pitot tube hooked up to a Vertical Speed Indicator for 3 pages at ATS. Then he realized he read the diagram wrong and that it was hooked up to the airspeed indicator, this AFTER i had already given him instruction on the system. Tino admitted his mistake as he had no choice, but claims he really knew the system. Well no, if he really knew the system he would know a pitot tube hooked up to a VSI would destroy the instrument!

Well, atleast he figured it out eventually. I'm not at his level yet.

He was looking at the STBY instruments interpreting "ASI" as a "VSI". This also AFTER i had already instructed him on the difference of Air Data Computer Primary instruments and "peanut gyros" (the STBY instruments), of which do not include a VSI.

There's so many things to remember Rob; I think it's natural that if you're not a pilot and haven't gotten very familiar with some things, you're going to make mistakes. He's atleast at the level that he can get it, after working it out for some time. It'd be great if there was a truther pilot over at ATS, but it doesn't seem like there is one. On that note, I've now been post banned indefinitely over there; I tried to get people to not accuse each other of things without evidence, I get post banned, and then they make it as if I was the one who was causing the problem instead of pointing it out. So they kill the messenger and then claim to be doing something about the problem he was presenting.

Again, I can't count how many times i have told Tino to slow down and to not speak for us. The paper he is listed as a co-author he hardly even helped with. He mostly helped with a small flash clip and some document formatting using MS Office. He didnt help with anything technical. Matter of fact, since he was better at MS Office/Word processors, i asked him if he could help converting the paper to pdf. He didnt even help with that! I had to learn how to do it when the paper was done. It was during the holidays and he was mostly out doing family related events while i was home studying, researching and putting together the presentation. AK Dewdney from physics911.net and of course CIT had the most input. Tino was so "star-struck" he had Kee and me in his house together he had to take pictures of both of us sitting on his sofa to brag to others that he had proof we were both in his house... lol

I see :-p. Well, Tino may be a long shot from a pilot, but I think that he's the best ATS has on the truther side for aeronautical things.

The only reason i listed Tino on that paper is because i felt sorry for him so that he could feel useful. I also let him do some narration in two of my presentations/videos. Tino has not been helpful in anything technical because he doesnt have a clue when it comes to aeronautical knowledge. He always came to me, Dennis or Capt Kolstad for instruction on the technical issues and he still got it wrong when attempting to debate the information with GL's as all he cared about was having information, any information, to argue with others. Tino got pounced many times by the GL's because he always went off half-cocked. Now that he has burned all those bridges, good, let him bug weedy now... of which, Weedy is wrong on many topics as well. This is why Weedy will never live up to his promise to contact Capt Kolstad for a "chat".

GL's? Oh, about the Weedwhacker on ATS, he says that he's not the one who's posted here; he does say he has visited this forum, however, and has sent me various quotes from this forum as well. As to a chat, I think I could arrange it, but it'd probably have to be on neutral ground. Have you heard of Artists for 9/11 Truth? It's run by someone who's over at loose change, Paul Tassopulos, who worked on the original one with Painter (it's now on version 2). Here it is:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/index/

In reality, Tino has been nothing but a thorn in my side going off half-cocked to debate topics of which he has no clue, at times leaking sensitive and personal information, and chest thumping upcoming projects of which he had no input, due to his ego alone... when his arguments get destroyed by the GL's, Tino then blames others for his premature ejaculations on other forums, that we are making HIM look bad... and wants to delete his posts that HE made...lol.

I don't really know too much about Turbo, other than that he's tried to help me understand things.

Remember, P4T does not offer theory, however, it is physically impossible for an aircraft to have caused the damage at the Pentagon based on data and witness statements.

I believe you; but those official story supporters keep on coming up with things that I don't know how to respond to.

Scott, if you believe in the "flyover theory", that means 911 was an Inside job. Period.

I believed that before I'd even heard of the flyover theory, laugh :-). I've read some books by Jim Marrs on the subject, as well as one that David Ray Griffin edited, "9/11 and American Empire", and am currently on his "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".

Although, you shouldnt "believe" in anything, nor debate anyone based on a "belief" till you study the material thoroughly. This is known as an argument from incredulity and is why you are having so many problems when attempting to debate the topic.

People don't work well in a vacuum. So their belief sets are based on whatever information they have. I think I have enough information to know that 9/11 was an inside job. It's some of the technical details that I still don't have enough information on. I think many have something vague called "intuition", and mine tells me that you guys know the technical details fairly well. One thing I think I should say is that Weedwhacker respects Warren Stutt and I mentioned to him that he's a member here.

If you believe 911 was an Inside Job, the "Official Story Supporters" you are trying to convince might just be hired by the Pentagon. If 911 was an Inside Job, there is no doubt state of the art cointelpro operations occurring. You will not "convince" these type of people of anything but what they been hired to do. And that is to spin, confuse and cloud the topic so it gets mired down in endless debate.

Granted, but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt. And even if a few of them are, there'd still be a lot of people who weren't and could learn from what's being said.

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 19 2009, 08:51 PM

[rob balsamo]

Oh, about the Weedwhacker on ATS, he says that he's not the one who's posted here;

Weedwhacker is a liar.

I banned his IP to confirm he was in fact the same weedwacker, because i knew he would complain about it on ATS.

"Anyway, the thread, you must have done a lot of work on it, too bad I can't see it.

Why? You ask?

Well, [Rob] has blocked my IP addy, apparently. Cannot even view the forums as a guest. "

- weedwhacker from ATS

How could i know weedwacker's IP if he claims to have never posted/registered here?

weedwhacker (from ATS)/767Captain/HanSolo/Free-something-or-other all share the same IP.

38.104.59.***

I banned 767Captain/weedwhacker IP here at P4T because i knew he would fall for the bait, hook, line, and sinker, complain about the IP ban over at ATS, and expose himself in another lie.

Weedy, your IP is no longer banned. You're not too bright...lol

[scott75]

Weedwhacker is a liar.

I banned his IP to confirm he was in fact the same weedwacker, because i knew he would complain about it on ATS.



How could i know weedwacker's IP if he claims to have never posted/registered here?

weedwhacker (from ATS)/767Captain/HanSolo/Free-something-or-other all share the same IP.

38.104.59.***

I banned 767Captain/weedwhacker IP here at P4T because i knew he would fall for the bait, hook, line, and sinker, complain about the IP ban over at ATS, and expose himself in another lie.

Hm. I'll ask him about this (I can still U2U over there, just can't post anymore).

[scott75]

Rob, Tino responded to your post to me. He's given me permission to respond to you, based on what he told me. Here goes...

In one post, he asked me to ask you why you were "not able to determine that a 757-200 uses the Air Data Computer [ADC] to supply the Flight Data for Pressure Altitude."

mod edit: remainder of post deleted as per original request of Tino.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Dec 23 2009, 05:20 AM

[rob balsamo]

Rob, Tino responded to your post to me. He's given me permission to respond to you, based on what he told me. Here goes...

In one post, he asked me to ask you why you were "not able to determine that a 757-200 uses the Air Data Computer [ADC] to supply the Flight Data for Pressure Altitude."

yawn...

I am tired of explaining things to Tino over and over again. I have explained time and time again most modern instrument systems use ADC, MADC, DAU's, AHRS, IAC's, EICAS.. .the list goes on depending on avionics package. When Tino has 2000 hours in front of instruments fed off the ADC, down to minimum's day in and day out throughout the Northeast winter weather, and numerous REAL friends he speaks to daily who fly the 757, perhaps i'll entertain his bullshit. Of course the 757 uses an ADC. Not only that, but its required per FAR 121.343 Appendix M. I have explained this to Tino since day 1. He still doesnt get it.

Tino is not getting the attention he wants so he is back for more.

Please try to refrain from posting his BS here as he wanted his posts deleted, his account deleted... .and i was relieved when he left. I have deleted his bullshit above in your post and reason stated.

When he is ready to play with the big boys, tell him to start his own organization. I wish him well.

[scott75]

yawn...

I am tired of explaining things to Tino over and over again. I have explained time and time again most modern instrument systems use ADC, MADC, DAU's, AHRS, IAC's, EICAS.. .the list goes on depending on avionics package. When Tino has 2000 hours in front of instruments fed off the ADC, down to minimum's day in and day out throughout the Northeast winter weather, and numerous REAL friends he speaks to daily who fly the 757, perhaps i'll entertain his bullshit. Of course the 757 uses an ADC. Not only that, but its required per FAR 121.343 Appendix M. I have explained this to Tino since day 1. He still doesnt get it.

Tino is not getting the attention he wants so he is back for more.

Please try to refrain from posting his BS here as he wanted his posts deleted, his account deleted... .and i was relieved when he left.

Tino told me I could use the information that he had given me, but I understand that you can't know this for a fact without talking to him personally, which is rather unlikely at the moment I think. The second part of your sentence (your relief) suggests you may not want to see his views aired here anyway. I mention all of this because he has responded to your response, but I will respect your wish to not post any of it here.

When he is ready to play with the big boys, tell him to start his own organization. I wish him well.

Well I'm glad you wish him well anyway. Regardless of what you 2 think of each other, I think both of you have done a lot of work to further illuminate the truth of what happened on 9/11 and for this, I respect you both.