Well I am not arguing-just presenting another side.

Oh I know, I was just joking. And you

Me too-I hate cold and snow now...

Snow :)

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/pilots-for-911.htmlJust for fair and balanced.An interesting story-both sides. I was not aware of it.

"Fair and Balanced"? You really think so? I suppose if you're a fan of Bill O'Reilly, the piece you link is "Fair and Balanced". But, if your a fan of real journalism, you'll read further.The author of the above article admits to nothing but ridicule and personal attacks as his rebuttal. Furthermore, the author of the above article cannot be verfied as pilot at faa.gov, as can the numerous pilots at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.Geofa, are you familiar with Critical Thinking? Or do you just find an argument based on a particular bias, even if riddled with personal attacks. The article you cite is nothing more than an ego driven troll begging for attention through negative response as its clear he cant even be verified as a pilot, let alone professional debate on the analysis offered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth.Geofa, you are a mod here. Do you consider personal attacks a "fair and balanced" rebuttal to any argument on this forum? Hmmm... interesting.It is clear the author of the above article is frustrated through lack of attention.Fair and Balanced? I think not... I already linked the common arguments on page 1 of this thread for real "Fair and Balance". Please dont embarass yourself offering a personal attack hit piece as "Fair and Balanced". It is not.

Take the flight data recorder evaluation in the link above. I don't know stink about that kind of work.

It shows.

tonyt09 I have a conspiracy theory...I think you aren't here for sim...just to troll 911.Am I mistaken...I hope so.

tonyt09 I have a conspiracy theory...I think you aren't here for sim...just to troll 911.Am I mistaken...I hope so.

"Troll 911"? Or expose those sans real critical thinking skills.YMMVStill waiting for a proper rebuttal to the points made on Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Why are some here avoiding the issue with strawmans? I think we know why...what was it you said dmaher? Here, let me quote it again..."I don't know stink about that kind of work."Yes... we know.

he he...your melting:)

Come on guys, this has been a civil conversation to this point, on both sides of the issue, (More so than other forums when discussing this subject) let's not ruin it with personal attacks!!

he he...your melting:)

If that makes you feel better. So be it.But the fact remains. You "dont know stink about the work", and i do. This is why you refuse to discuss exact points of the work. Do you even know how to determine pressure alttiude as plotted by the NTSB to True altitude? Its clear you, nor "Michal", havent a clue.Who exactly is "melting"?

Come on guys, this has been a civil conversation to this point, on both sides of the issue, (More so than other forums when discussing this subject) let's not ruin it with personal attacks!!

I agree. But why is it that those who offer personal attacks such as...

your melting:)

and...Blackfive articles...and...

truly a sorry bunch of people

... all seem to support the govt story and go out of their way to post such personal attacks when anyone who clicks links will readily understand such tactics and ignorance?I mean, this guy "Michal" you have here thinks a PhD is a "basic college degree". Either that, or he used such an excuse to avoid researching the topic.Either way, it doesnt bode well for his credibility. I dont blame him for not going "public".

Sorry I was just trying to be off the wall :) No hard feelingsyes I don't know stink...I think I was the one who coined the term.But no personal attacks...BTW I do know pressure altitude...just don't press”B"...you'll thank me later.I am curious though...what is the sample rate for the altitude on the flight data recorder?Tony you might be able to get this answer from your resources and post it here. I was wondering if the vertical lines in the flight path animation represent the data points...is that true?It would be interesting to know...I’m being earnest...not confrontational

Sorry I was just trying to be off the wall :) No hard feelingsyes I don't know stink...I think I was the one who coined the term.But no personal attacks...I am curious though...what is the sample rate for the altitude on the flight data recorder?Tony you might be able to get this answer from your resources and post it here. I was wondering if the vertical lines in the flight path animation represent the data points...is that true?It would be interesting to know...I

Thanks...Also a question I had in my original post was the altitude error tolerance spec

Thanks...Also a question I had in my original post was an error tolerance spec'd by the FAA for FDR's. Last night I had found this but can't find it for the life of me. Has this been discussed.

Click the links on page 1 my friend. Its all there... including FAR error tolerance. (eg: +/- 75 feet per FAR)Let me take this opportunity to say, no, im not a "regular member" of AVSIM. I am however a core member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth.As many of you are aware (certainly Geofa is aware), no one can access this thread unless they register.So... how did i get here?Its simple....Pilots For 9/11 Truth are getting many hits from this thread. You all know it as "referral" in your drop down menu on each OP.Whether you like it or not, many of your forum members are clicking through even if they arent posting... and Pilots For 9/11 Truth are very aware of this thread. I have taken the time to register and discuss due to the influx of hits coming from this thread. I wont be going away anytime soon, unless shown the door by your mods.I will not discuss exactly which member i am due to those who wish to avoid topic and instead focus on character assassination. I will however disclose my identity to those who offer theirs first and can be verified. I am one of the core members listed here..http://pilotsfor911truth.org/coreWe encourage all those who do have interest in such a topic to register at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum.... for those who agree... and disagree.But...If this thread is any indication of the "opposition", it is highly recommended you do your research prior to registering at Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum as you will get eaten alive. This is not a personal attack. Its fact. Also, if you do decide to register, please read the forum rules as we run a tight ship.With that said, i would personally like to thank "Kuvem1" for opening up this dialog in an "AVSIM" forum. It is also nice to see those with actual critical thinking skills who know how to click links and think for themselves instead of making excuse. Hopefully your moderators let this thread run its course.Finally, i also make ample use of flight sim software. I have taught many students with such software and saved them tons of cash.Regards

I have no reason at all to believe that the US gov was involved in 9/11 at all, but let's speculate shall we;-An operation of this magnitute would require several years of planning, as we all know the Bush administration was sworn into office 9 months before this,so that would mean they either had this planned well before they even went campaigning, or it was planned in the Clinton years, which both seem verry unlikely to me.-remember, this was the same governament that tried to sell the WMD storry to the world, as wel as trying to tie Saddam to Al Qaida, both of which failed.So why would they be able to succesfully plan and execute a higly complex operation like 9/11, and not have it come out to the press after 7 years? (remember they wouldn't only have needed to convince the US, they needed to convince the world, something they couldn't with Iraq, wo why would it have worked in this case?)why is the world still convinced the official story is true then?-where in the world are the people of these flights? where are the actual airframes? what happened to them?-What would be they try to archieve by killing their own people? this in my opinion is one of the largest faults in all 9/11 conspiracy theories (which says a lot, as I think not even 1% on sites like this is true)-planting explosives in a building with the magnitute of the WTC towers takes a lot of work, you have to drill holes in all of the support collums to get the exlosives planted, an operation that could take days or weeks.trust me, in a city like New York, in a building where thousands of people worked, someone would have noticed something was wrong.-hologram projectors, nice one, did they have soundsets as well? I remember the distinctive sound of CF6-80A and JT9D-7R4D engines, in full doplar effect, on the home videos released after 9/11. I guess they where tampered with as well?And where would those projectors be placed? seems odd nobody would notice something like that before hand...-Now there is a document on that side that shows that the Twin Towers where build to withstand a DC-8 or 707 type aircraft flying into it at 600 mph, and that would conclude it was a setup.newsflash! a 762 is no 707, and was loaded to the brim with aviation fuel. and in Fact the Towers did survive the impact, they fell after slightly less than an hour, long enough for the fire to weaken the structure enough for it to fail. exactly the reasson why the seccond tower fell before the first.and there's probably a lot more that needs to be debunked....It's worse enough what happened that day, let's not make it any worse by spreading false theories.Sander