Need debunk for Pentagon FDR. Thanks.

Looks like JDX is coming out of the CT closet reguarding the Pentagon:
What does "flown sims on many bombing engagements using CCIP" mean?

He sure likes his acronyms and technical lingo doesn't he? Has anyone reminded him that he's talking to mostly laymen?
 
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16559&st=30

On the second page, JDX admits that the LC admins regularly read posters' PMs. For some reason, this really annoys me. I guess it's the utter hypocrisy.. they read people's PRIVATE messages, then have the unmitigated gall to call others fascists. I should stop reading those threads. They're bad for my blood pressure.
 
What does "flown sims on many bombing engagements using CCIP" mean?

He sure likes his acronyms and technical lingo doesn't he? Has anyone reminded him that he's talking to mostly laymen?
He thinks spouting acronyms makes him smart. CCIP is Continuously Calculated Impact Point, a method of bombing where the pilot releases gravity bombs based on cues in the cockpit head-up display (HUD). Sim is flight simulator software (i.e. video games for JDX).
 
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16559&st=30

On the second page, JDX admits that the LC admins regularly read posters' PMs. For some reason, this really annoys me. I guess it's the utter hypocrisy.. they read people's PRIVATE messages, then have the unmitigated gall to call others fascists. I should stop reading those threads. They're bad for my blood pressure.

He admitted to reading an e-mail that was either sent to or by Russell Pickering to another member using the boards e-mail function. To make sure that "No one was breaking the Invision TOS". Then he posted it.
 
He thinks spouting acronyms makes him smart. CCIP is Continuously Calculated Impact Point, a method of bombing where the pilot releases gravity bombs based on cues in the cockpit head-up display (HUD). Sim is flight simulator software (i.e. video games for JDX).
Ah right, the only thing I could find on Google was a "[SIZE=-1]Common Configuration Implementation Program" for the F-16, which didn't make much sense in that context.

So, uhm, he's basing his expert opinion (in part) on the fact that he has flown bombers in a computer game? I mean, I can't see any reason why he would have flown actual military simulators "on many bombing missions." He has no (claimed) military experience, does he? I guess it's not really important, I just thought it was a weird thing to say.

Does he actually think that they dropped a bomb on the Pentagon? What about the debris, including the light poles? Did they drop that out of a plane on a "bombing run" as well? Fine, it could be possible... But would they really take the FDR from the plane that dropped the bombs, delete the part where it flies over the Pentagon, and then try to pass it off as the real thing?

Come on, no human could possibly be that stupid. I'm sure the people who make the recorders have the means to stream simulated data to one for testing purposes without even leaving their desk. If you read this, John, do you seriously expect us to believe that The Man couldn't properly fake one of the most important pieces of evidence? Give me a break.

Oh well, I can see why he doesn't share his theory very often... IT MAKES NO FRIGGIN' SENSE!
[/SIZE]
 
He admitted to reading an e-mail that was either sent to or by Russell Pickering to another member using the boards e-mail function. To make sure that "No one was breaking the Invision TOS". Then he posted it.
Is he really so paranoid that he has to go through other people's private messages to see if they're talking about him?

Hehehe.

:dc_biggrin::dc_tongue::dc_shocked::dc_unhappy:
 
Is he really so paranoid that he has to go through other people's private messages to see if they're talking about him?
Apparently so...

johndoeX @ Loose Change said:
Emails sent through this site are not private. The disclaimer is right on the message box. So Russ, what is the evidence you are trying to suppress?
As if any further reason was needed why their fora are ignoble places to debate. I don't understand why anyone puts up with that crap.

Mr. Doe X also demonstrates some further ignorance of basic aircraft performance... I still don't have any evidence of whether he's a pilot or not, but he's pretty darn stupid when it comes to the practicals of aerospace engineering:

johndoeX @ Loose Change said:
Listen up all, Russ thinks a 757 has a roll rate better than an F/A-18 Hornet!

Russ, psssst... that airplane is 1 second away from the pentagon wall, according to the NTSB. Unfortunately, it also needs a descent rate in excess for even the Space Shuttle looking at that animation and altitude.
(it also appears Russ ignores the fact i already told him the roll angle is one of the few parameters recorded up to the reported impact time of :45 and shows a RIGHT BANK ANGLE)

Keep playing dumb Russ.. what was that. .number 19 on the disinfo list?
Does anyone have any idea what the F/A-18 roll rate claim is about? The F/A-18 roll rate is something like 220o per second (quoted in High-Tech Warfare, Richardson, Gunston, and Hogg, Salamander Books 1991), I find it extremely hard to believe anything in the FDR or any single witness statement requires this kind of performance!

And on the Space Shuttle, Mr. Doe X has it precisely backwards. In terms of maneuverability, the Space Shuttle is about the worst performing aircraft since the Spruce Goose. The fact that it indeed does have a high initial rate of descent, yet doesn't smack into the ground, proves that even it is capable of pulling out of its dive. Any commercial airliner, therefore, could do the same.

Debating Mr. Doe X would be like taking candy from a baby, if his fingers weren't on the controls.
 
DOH! said:
I agree its real or its fake.

But just because its real does not mean it wasnt planted or recorded remotely, ....

That's gold, DOH!

Straight to the pool room with that one!
 
More gold!

Daniels said:
I've always believed that the light poles were dropped from the C130, based on the eyewitness evidence that said, 'debris rained down for some time after'.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom