AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[tfk]

Well, here we go again...

Balsamo is nothing if not 1) consistent, 2) petty, 3) vindictive & 4) wrong.

Mostly 4).

But whenever he's exposed being blatantly 4), you can be sure that he will quickly turn 2) & 3).

That's part of his 1).

As a result of embarrassing him by pointing out his trivial errors, I've won another suspension. And Bobby's guaranteed himself another week of being able to push his nonsense on credulous children who don't know any better.

That boy just can't stand it when people show him his mistakes.

So I guess I'll just have to show a TINY subset of his glaring mistakes over here...

... and wait until he starts his song&dance to obfuscate the obvious. LoL.

The questions at hand are four-fold. Answers are at the end of this post.

1. "Why can't Robby, an alleged ATP & Instructor Pilot, correctly perform simple, trivial speed-distance-time calculations?

2. "Why, in 2010, are there STILL erroneous calculations on the first page of his website on "AA77 & the Pentagon", when all the information necessary to correct his glaring errors has been available since the FDR data has been released?"

3. "Why does Robby blame the 9-11 Commission for HIS OWN mistakes?" Especially since the info that the 9-11 Commission put out (in 2006), that Robby uses as the basis for his conclusions, was completely correct.

Robby has made two attempts to do the trivial number-crunching needed to get the correct numbers. He has failed twice. Which brings up the final question:

4. "How many more tries would it have taken this klutz to get the right answers if I, or someone else, hadn't spelled them out for him?"

Here's a link to the latest spanking. The one that got him to ban me. LoL.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19325&view=findpost&p=10781460

I do have to correct my post above, tho, which lists Robby's errors.

First a comment about airspeeds:

A word about airspeeds ...

There are several:

Indicated Airspeed (IAS): What the pitot/static indicator says. Uncorrected for density, installation or instrument errors.

Calibrated Airspeed (CAS): IAS corrected for installation & instrument errors

True Airspeed (TAS): CAS corrected for altitude & nonstandard temperature. This is the actual speed of the plane with respect to the air.

Ground Speed (GS): Actual speed with respect to the ground.

"Computed Airspeed": This is a non-standard term, used in the FDR data decode.

The use of "computed airspeed" in my tabulation of Robby's % errors above was my error. I assumed that "computed" meant "corrected for all errors". This does not appear to be true. This term may, or may not, be equivalent, in Boeings FDR terminology, to "calibrated air speed". If any of you guys can shine a light on this term for me, I'd appreciate it. (No, Robby, don't bother. I'd prefer an answer from a competent pilot.)

Which speed on uses depends on for what purpose one is trying to use the information. For example, if one is comparing locations over the ground, then ground speed is pertinent. If one is commenting on aircraft performance, then the true airspeed or indicated airspeed may be pertinent.

With that in mind, here are the numbers that AA77's FDR show for the 5 minutes before the 330° Turn, thru the turn, and during the straight run-in to the Pentagon after the turn. I have used Warren Stutt's latest FDR decode (early Jan 10) for the calculations.

From these numbers, one can see the errors in Rob's claims on the front page of his AA77 & the Pentagon front page. The fact is that the numbers that he used from the 9-11 Commission Report, that came from the NTSB, were correct. But Rob completely botched his attempt to take that data and derive from it speeds & distances traveled.

The fact that he botched his math in 2006, and botched it again when he tried to fix his original mistakes, is no reason to leave erroneous conclusions in 2010.

One would hope that, now that I've held his hand & provided accurate calculations, he'll take the proper actions and fix his erroneous claims.

Based on history however, I see no reason for optimism...

So, now we have a solid basis to answer the 4 questions with which I began this post.

1. "Why can't Robby, an alleged ATP & Instructor Pilot, correctly perform simple, trivial speed-distance-time calculations?"
Answer: Sloppiness & zero desire to be accurate.

2. "Why, in 2010, are there STILL erroneous calculations on the first page of his website on "AA77 & the Pentagon", when all the information necessary to correct his glaring errors has been available since the FDR data has been released?"
Answer: The right answers don't sell DVDs.

3. "Why does Robby blame the 9-11 Commission for HIS OWN mistakes?" Especially since the info that the 9-11 Commission put out (in 2006), that Robby uses as the basis for his conclusions, was completely correct.
Answer: Some people are always looking for other people to blame for their own shortcomings.

4. "How many more tries would it have taken this klutz to get the right answers if I, or someone else, hadn't spelled them out for him?"
Answer: God only knows...

Tom

PS.
For completeness & honesty, here are the corrections for the tabulation of Robby's math errors, which STILL sit front & center on his primary "AA77 & the Pentagon" web page...

 

[tfk]

One last note before I get back to work...

I still have some serious doubts about the real meaning of "indicated AoA" in the data set.

Celestrin proposed a reasonable interpretation: that it is really the Pitch Limit Indication, "the difference between the current AoA & the angle until stall warning starts sounding".

The other option is that is really is a measure of AoA, but with a significant offset.

The advantage of the celestrin's suggestion is that it makes sense of the negative magnitude of the values.

The disadvantage is that engineers are usually not this sloppy when naming their terms.

The advantage of the second argument are the inverse of the above: an accurate terminology, but an impossible negative value for flight. (I doubt that there is a plane that's ever been built that could generate lift with MINUS 15° AoA.)

As with all other issues, until someone finds out what Boeing means by this term, everything else is simply guesswork. And my flight instructors two favorite words (& warning to me) were "Don't Guess!"

I was looking at the climb out data, trying to figure out what it meant, and noticed the drop in "Indicated AoA" about 6 - 12 seconds after the plane left the ground. It is clear to me that it had to be due to some change in the configuration of the plane. I speculated that it could be the slats or flaps being retracted.

Robby immediately provided one of his typical responses to my comments about the Indicated AoA. "Typical" for Robby means "ready, shoot, draw" & "completely wrong".

Here ( http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19325&view=findpost&p=10781375 ) was his reply: "Furthermore, the decrease in AOA on climbout is due to increase in speed, not due to retraction of flaps/slats."

[Followed by his usual steaming pile of nonsense.]

A quick review of the data shows exactly what is going on: it's the gear being raised. As shown here:

It is CLEARLY not "an increase in speed", as Robby asserts. Because the speed doesn't change one iota during this interval.

This graph proves it. (A review of flap position shows that they do not change during this interval.)

I was going to post this note over at PffffT, but alas, Robby can't take people pointing out his mistakes. It seems to be bad for DVD sales. Banning dissenting opinions seems to be the only way to keep 'em trickling off of the shelves.

LoL.

So I'll post my note here. And expect Robby's song & dance explaining what he "really meant to say"...

 

[tfk]

That's the point. I winder if he realises that it can be workarounded...

But I wonder how long it will take to banning said member.

Ahhh, Klimax,

I think that I get what you're saying now. ...that someone could get around his disabling of links by using tinyurl...

(Took me long enough.)

Su-weet. If/when I go back to spank him a little more, I'll keep it in mind.

Thanks.

Tom

 

[stewieg]

His intent is NOT to help his posters post convenient, short URLs.

Nor is it to help his readers easily link to pertinent, related information.

His specific purpose is to PREVENT his readers from seeing information that exposes him as a fraud.

Typical behavior for frauds & charlatans for centuries.

This is simply one of a half dozen sleazy tactics that Rob uses to maintain the charade, such as:

... banning anyone who disagrees with him.

... stripping out posts that expose his mistakes.

... limiting people's posting privledges.

... throwing up walls of technobabble.

... running away when he can't ban people.

... revisionist history.

... incompetence.

... blatant lying.

In other words, for Balsamo, business as usual.


Tom

Don't forget about the threats.

 

[beachnut]

...
1. "Why can't Robby, an alleged ATP & Instructor Pilot, correctly perform simple, trivial speed-distance-time calculations?
...

Balsamo has no ATP, you have to pass the check ride and not be delusional. Maybe it was his 2,223 G calculation that pinked the day.

 

[tfk]

Balsamo has no ATP, you have to pass the check ride and not be delusional. Maybe it was his 2,223 G calculation that pinked the day.

Well, ain't that a surprise.

And here, he's had numerous opportunities to correct me when I've said that... and yet he chose to say nothing.

How, uh, un-surprising.

LoL. I wonder what other accolades he's had his sycophants claim about him, has never corrected, and left everyone to assume that they were correct.


Tom

 

[tfk]

More Balsamo nonsense...

I think I need to start my own thread for this.

You claim the aircraft covered a "19 mile long sweeping 330° turn while descending over a mile, and then a 4 mile straight run into the building" in 3 mins 46 seconds (referencing the 9/11 Commission report above).

Tommy, thats 23 miles.

23/3.7 = 6.2 miles per minute.

6.2*60 = 372 knots

Wrong, Rob.

For a whole bunch of the same reasons that you ALWAYS seem to come up with wrong answers.

1. Wrong equations
2. Sloppiness
3. Guesswork
4. Ignorance of tolerances
5. No competent error analysis.

Allow me to illustrate:

1. Wrong equation:
Equation should be: (23 statute miles)*(1 nautical mile/1.15 statute miles)*(60 min/hr)/3.8 minutes = 316 kts.

2. Sloppiness:
3 minutes 47 seconds (the right number) = 3.78 minutes. You wrote it as 3m46 sec. And rounding off 3m46s = 3.77 minutes as 3.7 minutes.

3. Guessing:
Not bothering to check whether miles are nautical or statute. Guessing that miles were nautical. And guessing wrong.

4. Ignorance of tolerances.
You incorrectly took the numbers 19 & 4 to be 19.0 & 4.0. That was wrong.

5. No competent error analysis.
Absent. Completely ignored.

A simple speed-time-distance equation is as simple as an error analysis can be. Let's look at some details. Details that you have shown no inclination or competence to address.
___

So, here ya go.

Starting off, what is the error associated with the "True Airspeed"? Right off, you don't have any idea. So you have to work up to it.

Where does the true airspeed come from?
The plane measures Indicated airspeed, then looks up calibrated airspeed, and then applies corrections for nonstandard temp & pressure to calculate true airspeed.

So, we've got to work our way forward from IAS to CAS to TAS.

Indicated Airspeed tolerance?
§ 23.1323 Airspeed indicating system.
(b) Each airspeed system must be calibrated in flight to determine the system error. The system error, including position error, but excluding the airspeed indicator instrument calibration error, may not exceed three percent of the calibrated airspeed or five knots, whichever is greater, throughout the following speed ranges:

(1) 1.3 VS1 to VMO/MMO or VNE, whichever is appropriate with flaps retracted.
(2) 1.3 VS1 to VFE with flaps extended.

Since the above FAR includes position error, it defines the "Calibrated Airspeed", (but excludes the instrument error).

CAS, without instrument error, is ±3%. Assume a very tight instrument tolerance of 1%. (It's probably close, but a little higher.) That leaves CAS, with instrument error, as ±4%.

[Note that CAS is generally most accurate at sea level & at intermediate speeds. The accuracy degrades at higher altitudes & low & high speeds.]

Next, there is a standard empirical equation (i.e., "an approximation) from CAS to True Airspeed (TAS) that compensates for changes in air temp & density. This equation ain't exact & adds another error to the total. (We'll stay tight & add another 1% error.) So, my rough estimate of True AirSpeed errors is ±5%. In its normal operating range.

For the high speed run-in, we've got to speculate. The errors are going to be higher. How much? Without data, you can only use judgment. I'd say "add 1% error" to CAS and 2% to TAS". Arbitrary, but reasonable. And justifiable until someone presents test data. Note well: not correct, "reasonable & justifiable").

So, here are the numbers. (Note that I've reversed the column order in this listing compared to my previous table.)

And note well the "?"s under the Ground Speed. These are clearly going to be based on GPS locations. These have their own errors built-in. They are not zero. I was going to go look them up, but decided that the whole exercise is more instructive if I didn't.

Now you can see that the ground speed is typical of numbers that are quoted without error bands. But, if you don't know the error bands, you have no idea how accurate those numbers are.

Finally, since I do know how the numbers & assumptions built into this analysis work, I would never quote the average speed for the final maneuver as "324.6 ±17.9 kts".

If I were in a conversation that required precision, then I'd quote the average airspeed for the 330° turn as "310 ± 16 knots". And for the whole maneuver, including the final run-in, as "325 ±18 kts".

Of course, if I were not doing an engineering analysis, I'd just say "about 310 knots" or "approximately 325 knots".

And I, and every engineer, would understand that there were (unstated) error bands associated with those numbers.

But, apparently this is too complex for Robby.


Tom

PS. And Robby, as you can see, 310 ±16 knots is quite a bit different from YOUR "430 kts thru the dive". (The number that you STILL have posted on your web site.)

And it is also significantly different from YOUR mangling of my posted numbers as "372 kts".

Cripes, Rob, it's a trivial speed-time-distance calculation. How did you manage to achieve such Olympian levels of cluelessness?

 

[beachnut]

Well, ain't that a surprise.

And here, he's had numerous opportunities to correct me when I've said that... and yet he chose to say nothing.

How, uh, un-surprising.

LoL. I wonder what other accolades he's had his sycophants claim about him, has never corrected, and left everyone to assume that they were correct.


Tom

Balsamo sells lies on DVD just like he likes to spread rumors. He keeps saying I had a stroke, but he is the person with 2,223 gs of stupidity.

He will not retract his "level AOA", he pulls out a number due to his stupidity and calls it level AOA.

The sad part of his mental illness (or fraud to sell idiotic ideas on DVD) he claims the cockpit door was never opened so 911 was an inside job. He posts this new smoking gun after sitting on this evidence for how many years?

Not one of the pilots in his core has come forward reporting the tripe Balsamo has to the FBI to expose the vast conspiracy only present in the delusional mind of Balsamo.

The final RADALT (RADAR altimeter) from the FDR seals Balsamo's fate again, just like 77's impact on September 11, 2001 did. Only a few dirt dumb posters at the p4t forum support Balsamo's delusions, so far not a single pilot on his list of failed pilots on 911 has shown up to support the 2,223 g failure Balsamo.

Balsamo gave up on the altimeter when he figured out the errors are real and he can't 2,223 g them away except for the few dolts who support his idiotic offer no theory delusions. I thought 11.2 g was bad, but he dug down deep into his paranoid schizoid mind and came up with 2,223 gs. Who had the stroke? Looks like Balsamo has one each time he makes a new 911 idiotic revelation.

 

[tfk]

Indicated Angle of Attack

OK, a graphic on "what's wrong with the 'Indicated AoA' data."

Yep, it's true that the FDR data shows -15.6° IAOA, both on take off roll, and in level cruise at 33,000'.

Several people (including me) have noted that the IAoA data can not possibly be AoA. But, from to correlation to Pitch Angle, it is clearly some parameter related to AoA.

Celestrin proposed a reasonable interpretation: that it is really the Pitch Limit Indication, "the difference between the current AoA & the angle until stall warning starts sounding".

I made the point that this number is not AoA over at P4T, saying

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19325&view=findpost&p=10781408

Except for the teensy little point that that data was NOT AoA... And the additional little annoyance that none of these planes ever flew at all, much less level, at a -15° AoA.

To which Robby replied: ( http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19325&view=findpost&p=10781375 )

Tom ... [says that] AOA data that could "never show -15.6 deg" (yet that is exactly what it shows in the data and it seems you still dont even know why...lol)

OK, Rob, if you INSIST that these numbers are really AoA, here ya go. A couple of graphics to illustrate your aviation knowledge.

Rob's idea of a 757, cruising in level flight:

Because that IS the attitude of a 757 at -15.8° AoA, Rob.

Gotta be a bear to push those service carts up & down the aisles, eh Rob?!!

And here's one of Rob's idea of a 757 on take off roll. Yeah, THAT plane is just about to get into the air...

BTW, where'd you pimp your ride, Robby?

Sure, Cap'n Clueless knows his AOAs ... Nothing anomolous in the data set would ever get by his astute powers of observation...




Tom

 

[bje]

And here's one of Rob's idea of a 757 on take off roll. Yeah, THAT plane is just about to get into the air...

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7954/robbyspimpedout757.png

BTW, where'd you pimp your ride, Robby?

Tom

Robby learned that in basic training:

 

[nicepants]

Wow, bobby really doesn't like you...you must be right on the money

LOL just saw this gem over there, posted by Rob:

So first he admits making that claim, then says that it's a strawman. Seriously, this guy can't get ANYTHING right. I'm glad he's not allowed near the flight deck of any planes that I fly on!

 

[tfk]

NP,

Wow, bobby really doesn't like you...you must be right on the money

Yeah, I noticed.

That's actually the response that I prefer out of pompous, arrogant & incompetent technobabblers.

It's when those guys start to like you that you have a problem.

You'll note that "incompetent technobabblers" describes all 5 of his sycophant posters over there. Just the kind of people that Robby counts on to support his ego & sell his DVDs.

LOL just saw this gem over there, posted by Rob:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/141894b4f5ac22f2b4.png

So first he admits making that claim, then says that it's a strawman. Seriously, this guy can't get ANYTHING right. I'm glad he's not allowed near the flight deck of any planes that I fly on!

Yeah, he pulls the same nonsense that any child does: "My erroneous conclusions aren't MY fault. Somebody else gave me bad information."

He doesn't realize that professionals are always responsible for their conclusions. That part of what makes a professional is doing the due diligence to make sure that you have the right information, that you understand what your information really means, and that you stay on topics with which you have some depth of knowledge.

The REALLY amusing part is that he blames the 911 Commission Report for his erroneous conclusions. Even tho the information that he used from the 911 Commission Report (which they were given by the NTSB) is correct. And only his math & his conclusions are wrong.

And when he finally gets completely backed into a corner & busted, he simply lies, runs away (as he did over at AboveTopSecret) or rewrites history. And now, he just sticks to his own little sandbox, where he can censor, isolate & ban anyone who disagrees with him.

Oh yeah, then he threatens people. Others warned me about this. Recently he told me that I was "playing with fire". LoL. Typical keyboard Rambo. Pompous buffoon. Undoubtedly a complete coward face to face.

He is even too cowardly to allow me to post over at his site. Wouldn't want to wound the cash cow with too many facts...

LoL.

Tom

 

[beachnut]

The p4t have problems with reality of flying because the purpose of p4t is selling delusions for dolts on DVD. Instead of AOA the p4t are out to get the bad guys, anyone who opposes their delusions of 2,223 gs.

With paranoid statements like this attacking fellow Americans Balsamo is letting his failure to become a left seat heavy jet captain (a goal achieved my me before I was 30 years old) guide his paranoid delusional life.

(truthNAZI saysWe all know that this govt lies to us time and time again. They have been proven to be corrupt. They have been proven to hide the truth as stated by Lee Hamilton himself - Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission.

Those who support and make false claims to support criminals can and will be tried in a court of law under obstruction of Justice. Anything you say can and will be used against you.

Think of it this way, if we are wrong for asking for an new investigation, seeking the truth, etc... we have nothing to lose. We find out the truth either way.

But if you are wrong in the end, by supporting criminals through spin, obfuscation, strawman arguments and ad homs, you are an accomplice and you are an obstruction of Justice. Take heed.

Perhaps this is the reason most so-called "Debunkers" want to remain anonymous. I dont blame them. If you are not being paid to intentionally derail arguments through spin(as many of you attempt to offer as 'debate'), you may want to rethink your position.

p4t are pure trash talk from one 2,223 g paranoid pilot. Balsamo's NAZI like rant threating to take us all to court when morons rule the world.

His ghetto for posters who see through his thin veil of stupid are segregated to the debate section because you can't debate the "nut-case" truth they manufacture for those fringe few who refuse to think for themselves.

What is the "level AOA" value that Balsamo came up with? Does he really thing the AOA is zero at normal cruise? Then what is the AOA when Hani is flying a heavy jet which Balsamo will never do? Hani has flown better than Balsamo who says he can't hit the largest buildings in the world; then how does Balsamo land on 150 foot wide runways? What is "level AOA", a new term made up by Balsamo because he does not have a clue what AOA is, he has never used AOA, he never will use AOA even though the planes he flew know.

After doing some of that old engineering stuff from work I did at Wright labs; I have come up with some AOA of 0.21 at 0.83 MACH for level flight at FL350 derived from the FDR information.
Thank you mom for making me become an engineer, it gave me something to think about while taxiing and flying the tricycle around the world.

When did I have the stroke Balsamo is spreading rumors of? No, my terrible writting skills are not the result of the stroke I never had; got to go start LE for the 25 percent clone...

This looks like the T-38 AOA vane/transducer; reheat and I used the products of this as we flew the white rocket for 100 hours or so for half of one year. Does AOA support impact at the Pentagon? Yes, the AOA was one of the missing words from the FDR when 77 impacted the Pentagon and the FDR stopped.

FDR supports 77 impacting the Pentagon, and ruins Balsamo's DVD industry of implied offer no theory delusional garbage from failed pilots for lies.

This was the cockpit I first used AOA; where is the display? Color?
(>o< rotated up or down)

 

[tfk]

NP,

This is typical "Balsamo BS".

I was discussing the meaning of the Indicated Angle of Attack.

There is something fishy about the IAOA numbers (being as highly, constantly negative as they are). I was comparing the IAOA to the Pitch Angle (Capt) in that graph above. The two track each other (as you'd expect for the AOA) until time = -4647 sec. in that graph. At which point, the Pitch angle continues to rise, but the IAOA decreases. This was peripheral to the argument that I was making, and I speculated that this could be flaps coming up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5496540

In that post, I speculated that:

The decrease in "indicated AoA" during the climb out (even tho pitch angle increases to about 19°) is probably due to reconfiguring the wings (retracting flaps).

Robbie jumped on that and claimed here http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19325&view=findpost&p=10781375 that it was increasing speed, not flaps:

Furthermore, the decrease in AOA on climbout is due to increase in speed, not due to retraction of flaps/slats..

At that point, I looked at this specific data (that wasn't pertinent before this point), and found out what the answer really was. That I'd been wrong, it wasn't the flaps. That Robby was wrong, it wasn't the speed either. It was clearly the gear coming up.

So I posted the proof in the chart here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5502277 .

Rather than just saying, "Oh, that makes sense", and moving on, Robby chose this reply:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19325&view=findpost&p=10781496

Ahahahahahahaha!

I just took a gander in the cesspool. Little Cessna Boy thinks the Gear was retracted after the flaps which is what caused the AOA to re-stablize in the climb.

What a freakin moron and further shows this amateur Tommy will NEVER be a professional.

You'll note two things:

1. Robby doesn't address his incorrect statement that "it was speed".
2. He chooses to concoct a complete fantasy, & claim that I said that the flaps came up before the gear.

Of course, Robby won't be able to point out any place where I said that the flaps came up before the gear came up. Because I never believed it or said it.

This is simply Cap'n Clueless' consistent way of tossing out misdirection, technobabble & insults.

Rob's just a angry little boy with a shelf full of DVDs that he can't sell anymore. And who is given technical support & backing by zero, count 'em, ZERO professional pilots on his websites.

The ONLY folks who stick up for him used to be Turbofan (no longer), and now JFK & dMole (whomever these credulous bozos might be).

Sad...

The last Pfffter should remember to shut out the lights.

Happy...


Tom

 

[tfk]

Ooops, Looks like another one bites the dust...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=347089&t=2758649

Because I refuse to re-enter PFT after the way in which I was backstabbed by both you and Rob for defending Warren's work ...

Now why don't you scurry back off to there before you really piss me off again and I do something you will regret.

You have burnt your bridge regarding my defence of your and Aldo's constant belittling of members here whether they deserve it or not.

There is no rebuilding of that.

Robby's minions are going down like, well, dominos from friendly fire.

Well, maybe not-so-friendly fire...

LoL.

Tom

 

[WildCat]

Ooops, Looks like another one bites the dust...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=347089&t=2758649



Robby's minions are going down like, well, dominos from friendly fire.

Well, maybe not-so-friendly fire...

LoL.

Tom

Wow, the LC forum is really dead these days. Not many truthers left lol.

 

[A W Smith]

Ooops, Looks like another one bites the dust...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=347089&t=2758649



Robby's minions are going down like, well, dominos from friendly fire.

Well, maybe not-so-friendly fire...

LoL.

Tom

Looks like JFK banned Craig and Aldo

 

[tsig]

Looks like JFK banned Craig and Aldo

Apparently each one of the truthers will wind up with their very own private dung hill to defend.

 

[stewieg]

Ooops, Looks like another one bites the dust...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=347089&t=2758649



Robby's minions are going down like, well, dominos from friendly fire.

Well, maybe not-so-friendly fire...

LoL.

Tom

It's hilarious that JFKlueless sounds so surprised that Rob and Craig turned on him. Hasn’t he been reading what they have been saying for the past couple years? It's almost cliché how those two operate. Anyone who has a difference of opinion is immediately and viciously attacked by those two clowns. That includes people who let you stay at their place when you don't have a place of your own.

JFK is just as bad as Rob and Aldo. To quote him You have burnt your bridge regarding my defense of your and Aldo's constant belittling of members here whether they deserve it or not.. It's okay to attack other people but as soon as JFK is set upon, LOOK OUT!

Craig and Rob seem to be losing a lot of friends lately. I wonder how long it will be before they turn on each other. With only two cannibals left on the island one will eventually eat the other.

 

[WildCat]

It's hilarious that JFKlueless sounds so surprised that Rob and Craig turned on him. Hasn’t he been reading what they have been saying for the past couple years? It's almost cliché how those two operate. Anyone who has a difference of opinion is immediately and viciously attacked by those two clowns. That includes people who let you stay at their place when you don't have a place of your own.

JFK is just as bad as Rob and Aldo. To quote him You have burnt your bridge regarding my defense of your and Aldo's constant belittling of members here whether they deserve it or not.. It's okay to attack other people but as soon as JFK is set upon, LOOK OUT!

Craig and Rob seem to be losing a lot of friends lately. I wonder how long it will be before they turn on each other. With only two cannibals left on the island one will eventually eat the other.

Nope, Aldo will eat both of them.