doi

Did they bother to read the incdent report, you know the piece of paper the DZSO must fill out after all incidents. No mention of the 2 out, or the fact that the pair was under canopy when the unit fired. Did I mention the incident report...? All sounds like half baked damage control to me. Where are the facts....

No I believe all AAD companies should be treated evenly. So if one AAD company is grounded based on the unit not acting as it should (say 3-4 times) and compromising the airworthiness of the system, then all AAD companies should be treated the same. Or none of them should be grounded and we can make our own decisions for ourselves... how does that sound? If an AAD company lies in a safety bulletin, then they should also be held accountable for that... though they are separate issues.

Yes. Plain and simple, not many here can quite grasp that suggestion though it seems eh...

Do you really believe that? Airtec have stated that they were told nothing about any injuries when the incident was reported, and that no other info filtered its way up to them until it started being talked about this year. They do play their cards close to their chest. While I can't prove anything either way, I just don't see them lying in the bulletin about injuries when anyone could have blown the story in some online forum. I what I know for sure; There were injuries. I witnessed the bruising, massive bruising around the pelvic region and he also had a split anus. He had a 2 out from an unwarranted Cypres fire when he was already under a Tandem canopy somewhere between 1000 and 2000 feet. His canopy was open at normal altitude around 5000 feet. It wanted to down plane at the last minute. Where was any of that in the report? Mark 9and others) wants Aviacom to get the microscope out and repeat the malfunction before he is sure, though Airtec are allowed to assume and manipulate the report to their advantage. While I was not present, I know for sure it happened like that as I know the injured, many people witnessed it and it was widely discussed in Australia (Queensland). The incident report would have been published by the APF in the ASM magazine as is every major incident. And Airtec published in a global bulletin about the (2 separate) misfired Cypres2 unit incidents (in Australia around that point in time) falsely indicating that nobody was hurt. Andre had contacted them by email on more than one occasion and received no response from them. So they obviously did not do the right homework and in doing so lied to each and every one of us and also showed us they are incapable of being comprehensive in their approach to the situation, though this is expected from Aviacom to stay in business. If anyone wants to refute this, contact the APF and see what the incident report says.

The PIA published a letter suggesting all manufacturers reconsider the approval of the units; this was before any investigation had been carried out. Once the investigation had been carried out it became evident that there was a foreign object in the cutter. The PIA put pressure on the industry before all information was known, that is pure incompetence and it left large gap in the market. Meanwhile Airtec lie in a safety bulletin, suggesting no injuries were sustained when their unit failed, there were multiple injuries and one tandem pair was lucky not to have been killed and that is perfectly OK? As long as they ignore the multiple emails from the injured then I suppose they were not injured at all? You can attack my standpoint all you like, but your outspoken opinion on the subject tells us you have some sort of interests to protect. I could care less about any of the AAD companies; maybe the Argus should be banned, maybe not. What is clear is that the industry has not used the correct procedure and retracting the ban is now essentially admitting fault.

They banned the units under pressure from the PIA. The suspected unit was not inspected before the ban took place and heated discussion endured. At least one member of DZ.com was permanently banned from these forums for discussing the subject openly. This member was warned to not speak about the subject via PM from the moderators; he asked what rule was being broken... no answer... He continued to discuss the subject and was warned again. He then asked (again) what rule had been broken to avoid doing it again, again no answer from the moderators. A further comment was made and the next day he was completely banned from any discussion from this website. He asked why he was banned via email.... nothing. The way this situation has been treated is absurd, and yes, heads should roll. If a company is found by a court of law to have purposefully damaged the reputation of another for financial gain while causing the financial loss of many individuals in the sport, then they should be sued. You break the rules, you pay. The PIA has some serious explaining to do. Meanwhile Cypres' and vigil's Pop'n off at will is perfectly OK? What a rort... what causes more danger to the industry, a unit firing out of its parameters and placing an entire planeload at risk, or the off chance that a container might lock closed on someone that is already essentially dead. Wishing to ignore the situation to avoid any damage to the industry is a feeble and weak excuse. Only a dickhead would turn a blind eye to corruption… And this is pure corruption.

Hi there, I cannot seem to open the discussions once inside the speakers corner. There is a certain conversation in there (10 years later) where many violently oppose my viewpoints. As heated as the discussion has become, the only persponal attacks have been directed at me and anyone else with a similar standpoint. I am not sure if this is a glitch or I have been blocked. I am a relatively new user and some of the posters that are not happy with my stance on the subjects seems quite 'local' and basically gang up on anyone with thoughts other than thier own. I suspect the rules apply to any memeber and pushing out opposing points of views is not what should be expected in a forum called the speakers corner. Can somebody please clarify what is going on with that. Politics is something that interests me considerably. If I have done something wrong then I would appreciate knowing what it is. Cheers, D

I take it if I told you to go fuck yourself or called you an asshole ouright you would consider that a personal attack. and would warn me. Then you read past two people making such comments and let them slide..

hmm Lets see. When anybody, be it me or anyone else mentions the reality of the situation in Afghanistan (or iraq, 9/11 etcetera), the straw man tactic of ad hominen is used and the coinversation strays away from the subject into a discussion about the integrety of the person asking the questions rather than addressing the subject. This conversation is a text book example. Try laying off the propaganda.

I take it you comprehention skills are not very good. I clearly stated a number od posts back that A.H. is my abbreviation for Ad Hominem. The amount of times I have had to use this word is unprecedented because it seems it is all many of the folk here have to go on when it comes to discussion US foreighn policy

As that subject interests me considerably, I have read many of the threads here about it. Rhys did have some ideas that were not quite in line with my own in those conversations but for the most part his thoughts and comments, though often uncouth, were quite in line with my own. It was the science that we shared and that science is yet to be acknowledged let alone debunked by official sources or yourselves. It is all part of the IMC jigsaw puzzle, each piece is part of a very transparent end product, though fear, dissonance, ridicule and social pressure are used to ensure that the majority do not become (openly) aware of the extent of the real situation. An unprecedented amount of energy has been invested into ensuring that this remains the case for the official 9/11 dogma. I saw many posts indeed where Rhys and other truth advocates’ comments were replied purely with ad hominem (I have to use that word surprisingly often around here) as a basis for the argument, I am surprised he spent so much energy trying to explain his standpoint to unwilling minds. I do not want to hijack this thread, but neither you nor anyone else managed to successfully rebut Rhys or any of the other truth advocates, you simply scared them off with childish name calling and unprofessional conduct. If you could use sound science in a professional manner rather than insult and ad hominem in a childish affectation then you may have a point. I have and open mind about everything and have no real theory other than a strong belief that we are most often not told the truth. To get this conversation back on track, the very same tactics used by the senators to the official 9/11 myth are used by the church in order to ensure they can continue their stronghold on society. A free thinking mind is a great threat to the oligarchy.

No that is completely incorrect, scientists base their hypotheses on conclusions based on sound scientific principals that are repeatable or observable. Unfortunately for the creationists, talking reptiles and giant vessels that carry mating pairs of all living creatures do not fall into this category. Christianity is based on impossible fables. Science has nothing to do with it. In the old days if you did not adhere to the status quo or had scientific hypothesis that were contrary to the bible or the church, you would likely be killed in an excruciating fashion by the hierarchy.

I am quite surprised with how childish many of the people here are, I had been warned but this discussion has clarified that considerably. Some very valid points have been presented based on a decade of experiences we have all been exposed to, which are pertinent to the future and stability of our current civilisation. I'm sure the Afghanistan and Iraqi citizens will be more aware than the lazy-boy warriors here. Unfortunately the fear of acknowledging the truth is so immense that ad hominem and personal attacks are all that can be presented to the contrary of these points by people that suggest they have a deep understanding of the subject. Ego is likely the main reason these discussions end up this way, humans are quite reluctant to admit fault at the best of times. This is the attitude that allows the oligarchs to ransack your country and remove the basic rights which your ancestors paid with their lives for. Time to wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late, or is it already? Seems that way, or is that just me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4y_twnvSxU&feature=youtu.be

A.H.

Zeitgiest There are 3 versions all different and covering different aspects of modern civilisation. You will need an open mind or yoy need not bother. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com it is free to watch.

I believe the president does not have that power anymore; the president is a puppet for the military industrial complex primarily due to them paying for him to get there. There will only ever be a willing withdrawal when the geopolitical objective is achieved. I believe you are well aware of this but are not willing to openly admit it as it will put your reason into question and expose your weakness and faults. Freedom, democracy and homeland security has nothing to do with it. Do you know anything about the history of Afghanistan and the seemingly continuous war that has taken place there over the past couple of hundred years?

I certainly hope the moderators make an example of you for that comment, not only is it ad hominem but it is a text book personal attack and against the forum rules. If you are not willing to appologise, I am not willing to further dialogue with you.

That seems like a very conservative estimate, where did you get that figure from?

If that is your logic then you are not worth an iota of energy.

Straw people that use ad hominem rather than addressing the argument seem very common in here. In this instance I will give you a reply, but from now on I will use the simple abbreviation A.H. to suggest you (or your buddies) are using ad hominem rather than a valid argument. Do not confuse this abbreviation with ass hole. I will not post my details as I do not need to in order to make a valid argument, and you obviously wanted to use those details to judge me in some way or another. In another discussion I was assaulted with A.H. insults. Is that all you people have. Why not try some integrety? It is peculiar that in discussions face to face in real life with real people at the drop zone and round and about I do not face such ridicule. I would be interested to see how this discussion would end up if we were all actually sat round a bonfire with some beer and a few hours on our hand. Don’t kill the messenger, respond to the message please.

This is just the first incidence I cam across. There are more, whay are you so unaware? So the President may have wanted a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan due to public pressure but the Generals want to stay and are urging him to. How does democracy work again? I was under the impression that the Generals answered to the President and the President answered to the people. Not while the Patriot Act is still in place though, eh?

Not bad!

When the Generals dictate to the President what will happen, then the military runs the government.

What I find interesting is that very valid points have been presented and instead of acknowledging the points, ad hominem is used (once more) to avoid the inevitable. You can not throw trillions of dollars and a decade at this war against a third world enemy that has nowhere near the capacity that you have and continue call yourself the greatest military might in the world. You would only be lying to yourself. But I would bet you still believe that you are. America in every respect this century, has not been anything other than a complete failure. The disturbing aspect of all this is that you laugh about it while your economy is rotating down the toilet bowl and you export your manufacturing and basically your entire economy to the biggest threat you have (China). You cannot and will not beat the Taliban, and you are threatening the Pakistanis (and inadvertently the Chinese), while spreading your military thin around the world. You may laugh now but you will not be laughing when you see the blood spilled in your own country. If your (USA) arrogant and ignorant attitude prevails it will only be a matter of time beofre you see that happen. This is what you are up against in the next episode; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3yNgcpdQ-w&feature=related

Not that anybody here would have been bothered learning about it, but the future of money is quite simply in tangible commodities. The Gold Dinar and silver Dirham are fast overtaking paper money in many places around the world and they seem to be resisting the inflation of the paper money in those same places. Gaddafi announced he wanted to trade his oil in Dinar, he made the same fatal mistake that Saddam did (Saddam wanted to trade in Euro). The push to stop such from happening by the banking elite is in vein. The Dollars collapse and the countries defending it are becoming more and more in debt to the Federal Reserve. These bullion currencies remove the dependance on the federal reserve banking system. The transition is not going to be pretty but it is going to happen sooner than many will be willing to acknowledge. I am not stating only Dinar and Dirham will be the future of money but more so the use of gold and silver instead of a worthless pieces of paper issued by despicable criminals. Bitcoins are a novel idea but they are not tangible so IMHO they will never be a mainstream currency. We all know gold and silver and we trust them.