









Group: Admin

Posts: 9,745

Joined: 13-August 06

Member No.: 1



Group: AdminPosts: 9,745Joined: 13-August 06Member No.: 1





QUOTE (John Bursill @ Jun 23 2010, 04:13 AM) Hello Rob,



I agree with Deets's argument in it's essence, not that it is improbable the aircraft were 767-200 because of the aircraft speed.



That's not exactly what Deets said. He specifically states "An Aeronautical Improbability" based on speed and aircraft type reported. Not that it is "improbable the aircraft were a 767-200". Do you understand the difference?



With that said, it appears you don't agree with Deets. Thanks for clearing that up.



QUOTE The aircraft did the speed and you have no proof they were not the aircraft we are told they were.



Logical fallacy. Attempting to prove a negative. That is the same thing as you saying, "You have no proof Santa Claus isn't the person I was told he was by my parents". Legge tried the same tactic in his now defunct "What Hit The Pentagon" opinion piece.



A proper way to structure the statement would be, "What proof do you have that the aircraft observed is a standard 767-200, or specifically, N334AA and N612UA?"



So John, where is your proof?



So far, we have "...established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room"..."



You disagree. That's OK John. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree with you. I'm sure many of the experts consulted and credited are as well.



John, it's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?







QUOTE We need the data which you do not have so Rob you do not know. If the speed stated officially is wrong I'm sure some one would of proved that by now by using the video footage?



It is proven based on the best data set we have and were able to obtain, Egypt Air 990, which suffered structural failure at 420 KEAS.



QUOTE What I think Deets is getting at, is that the said pilots at that speed could not hit the target with those planes, yes? That I agree it is improbable.



Dwain is getting at both issues. Improbable speed (Hence, "...this wasn't a standard 767-200;"), and Hijacker pilot skill, (Hence, "...the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target."). Although the latter you will note the sarcasm in his tone.



QUOTE The simulator does the speed Rob and your video is full of hot air!



John, are you able to make one post without attacking me personally?



John, each simulator has it's purpose. A Cockpit simulator is not designed to measure airframe stress. It is designed for training Cockpit Crew with respect to Cockpit procedures. This is discussed in our presentation. Cabin Crew with respect to Cabin Procedure. Wind tunels are utilized to measure aircraft stress. Furthermore, the crash logic was clearly disabled on your alleged test, whether inadvertantly or intentional, as



John, why didn't you get a plotted print out from your supposed sim test? All Level D Simulators have the capability to record and plot the flight. Just like a FDR, but even more thorough as it will give you an actual plot.



It would be nice to have some tangible evidence that your sim test actually took place. Regardless, we already know it isn't a very valid test.



QUOTE Show us the data or don't make statements about what is or is not impossible. That is what my campaign has been about, it is about being reasonable.



We have shown you data and precedent. You choose to ignore it. Your campaign has been about attempting to police the "Truth Movement" and dictate to others what they should and should not research. This is all based on a conflict with me personally stemming from the fact I wouildn't boot



John, why do you continue to ignore these questions?



How about Capt Rusty Aimer, Capt Ralph Kolstad, and Capt Jeff Latas? Do they "know what an airframe can do"?



John, why do you keep suggesting I'm the sole person responsible for this information while ignoring the experts who were consulted and credited? What you are doing is known as intellectual dishonesty and may give people the impression that your arguments are personal, and not in the best interests of truth.



QUOTE Your pilots that say they know what the frame could do, how do they know that Rob?



If you view the presentation thoroughly, you will know.



QUOTE Yes they may have done 360 Knots maybe 370 Knots during an over speed but they are not allowed to fly anywhere near 500 Knots...so how Rob do they know? 767's are very powerful planes and many pilots I talk to every day say they think they could do that speed. THEY DO NOT KNOW, THEY THINK!



Have they viewed our presentation?



John, I agree the 767 is a very powerful airplane. But do you understand why Boeing sets limitations, even on powerful aircraft?



Give them the presentation, then let me know what they "think". Let me know if they will put their name to their claims. Hearsay doesn't mean much on the web John.



Again John,



You think we should ignore the speeds. You think they are "probable". I'm ok with that. I'm ok to agree to disagree on this issue. Can you do the same? Or will you still go around claiming we are promoting disinfo? (Granted I haven't read or listened to much of your work, but I'm sure Craig can dig it out if needed).



Personally, I think It's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?



Have you seen this article?



Whistleblower Reveals "backdoor" 757 Remote Control And Flight Crew "lockout" Technology



That is right up your alley John. Why no comment? That's not exactly what Deets said. He specifically states "An Aeronautical Improbability" based on speed and aircraft type reported. Not that it is "improbable the aircraft were a 767-200". Do you understand the difference?With that said, it appears you don't agree with Deets. Thanks for clearing that up.Logical fallacy. Attempting to prove a negative. That is the same thing as you saying, "You have no proof Santa Claus isn't the person I was told he was by my parents". Legge tried the same tactic in his now defunct "What Hit The Pentagon" opinion piece.A proper way to structure the statement would be, "What proof do you have that the aircraft observed is a767-200, or specifically, N334AA and N612UA?"So John, where is your proof?So far, we haveYou disagree. That's OK John. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree with you. I'm sure many of the experts consulted and credited are as well.John, it's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?It is proven based on the best data set we have and were able to obtain, Egypt Air 990, which suffered structural failure at 420 KEAS.Dwain is getting at both issues. Improbable speed (Hence,"), and Hijacker pilot skill, (Hence,."). Although the latter you will note the sarcasm in his tone.John, are you able to make one post without attacking me personally?John, each simulator has it's purpose. Asimulator is not designed to measure. It is designed for trainingCrew with respect toprocedures. This is discussed in our presentation. Cabin Simulators are designed to trainCrew with respect toProcedure. Wind tunels are utilized to measure aircraft stress. Furthermore, the crash logic was clearly disabled on yourtest, whether inadvertantly or intentional, as pointed out by Capt Ralph Kolstad who has thousands of hours in 757/767 Cockpit Simulators and the actual aircraft at American Airlines.John, why didn't you get a plotted print out from yoursim test? All Level D Simulators have the capability to record and plot the flight. Just like a FDR, but even more thorough as it will give you an actual plot.It would be nice to have some tangible evidence that your sim test actually took place. Regardless, we already know it isn't a very valid test.We have shown you data and precedent. You choose to ignore it. Your campaign has been about attempting to police the "Truth Movement" and dictate to others what they should and should not research. This is all based on a conflict with me personally stemming from the fact I wouildn't boot John Lear from our organization when you made such demands.John, why do you continue to ignore these questions?If you view the presentation thoroughly, you will know.Have they viewed our presentation?John, I agree the 767 is a very powerful airplane. But do you understand why Boeing sets limitations, even on powerful aircraft?Give them the presentation,let me know what they "think". Let me know if they will put their name to their claims. Hearsay doesn't mean much on the web John.Again John,You think we should ignore the speeds. You think they are "probable". I'm ok with that. I'm ok to agree to disagree on this issue. Can you do the same? Or will you still go around claiming we are promoting disinfo? (Granted I haven't read or listened to much of your work, but I'm sure Craig can dig it out if needed).Personally, I think It's better to work together, than to be attacking each other. Would you agree?Have you seen this article?That is right up your alley John. Why no comment?