It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pilots for 911 Truth Airphone Claim - debunked

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Wow.. no reply AMTMAN? You follow me around the net constantly, reply within a few mins .. and no reply to the bottom of page 6?

Im being sarcastic if you cannot tell...

AMTMAN.. im not surprised you remain anonymous and refuse to give Pat/James your name.

Even if your paperwork shows up in the AA dBase... it is clear you are a shill.. might not be intentional.. but look in the mirror. Im sure you never heard of the statement "Pencil-Whippping"? C'mon.. tell us... shill.

I dont blame you for not wanting to be interviewed... as you have refused since 2 days after we published our article..

Let me know if you change your mind.. but i dont think you will... you're too much of a coward to put your name on your claims.

typo

[edit on 21-9-2007 by johndoex]




posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
So what's the name of Rob's source?



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
So What's the name of Rob's source?



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
There was a lot of talk about "cell phones," as well, right? When someone calls me from a "cell phone" number come in, it's going to be obviously different than from a cell phone. I've done my own experiements on several airlines including Frontier, Southwest, United, Delta, and U.S. Airways. I have had a 0 percent success rate from pretty much any elevation at all after take off. I also had two different cell phone providers, Cingular and T-mobile. Used 3 different phones. The Motorola color V60, Motorola Razor, and I currently have a Blackberry... I distincly remember people calling from cell phones at cruising altitude.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
And scientists have done cell phone studies from altitudes and have been successful making calls from planes. It's been well proven that it is more than possible and there have been plenty of threads covering this. So just because one person was unable to make calls does not mean it's impossible or that the other people who have indeed made successful calls are all wrong or lying.

Also, regardless of the silly debates over authenticity, the fact of the matter is that no one has proven that the airphones were removed before the flight.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I've made at least 100 calls from my own phones while traveling in air.. I've got nothing. I'm not necessarily a "truther" but my own results speak for themselves. I have had what looks to be maybe 1 bar of service on 2 differenct occasions but the calls don't go through. I don't need a scientist to tell me if this works or not. Try it for yourself and see if you have better luck.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Could it be that you started a thread suppossedly "debunking" his website? I really don't feel it is his responsibility to verify your document. Especially after the way you've been treating him here. For one, calling him a liar.


Hey Griff ~

First of all I have stated that the document obtained from SLC is not verfiied. This document and other evidence that has been shown in the posts from AMTMAN lead me to beleive it is legit. Even if it isn't, the evidence Rob shows is misleading.

The way I've been treating him? Have you read the thread? He has created several accounts in here trying to discredit me, and calls others "shills" for refuting his crap.


He's already stated that they are stonewalling his investigation. How would he get veryfication then? Since you are for the official story and AA is for the official story, I'd imagine they would talk to you over Rob.


First of all, what ever he posts on his website will have to get pasted in here, I will not give that money seeking scum website one more click to add to their total. Stonewalling? I thought he had a source at the airlines?
Good point though about talking to AA. I have had pretty good success with others as long as I'm not looking to expose the government.



And all the polititions and their cronies who are lying their nads off and making a killing are A-OK with you? Guilliani for one. Care to look into how much he gets paid for just speaking about 9/11?


I agree, and I am NOT a fan of Guilliani..... so it ISN'T ok with me. They only way I would be ok with money being raised is if it goes toward charity. Guilliani: besides his presidential campaign, I can't say where his blood money goes to.

Rob: I have questioned him in this very thread about his making a profit off of his website and has yet to respond with anything.

So, Griff, since you ask about Guilliani, I assume you are not a fan. So, am I safe to assume that you are NOT ok with Rob making money selling his Aprons and coffee cups?



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 


It's a good rule of thumb to trust yourself before all others. I'm flying again tomorrow... I'll update you with some more unscientific results.. I'm guessing 0-105 or so. But you know? What's 0% success rate with my personal experiences?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
AMTMAN, why do you contradict John Hotard who states he contacted Tulsa and Tulsa told him that the Engineering Change Order for deactivation was issued prior to 9/11.

This was not a "decision made in the Ivory Tower" as you contend. Hotard clearly states the deactivation Engineering Change Order was issued prior to 9/11.

Why did you show up 2 days after our article was published with your claims, yet refused to have an interview with me to post on our front page disputing the documents posted?


Well Rob if you want to play that game I can point out that he also said that there was no evidence that the air phones were deactivated prior to 9/11. This of course contradicts your claim and “evidence”. Here's the score card so far. You have a 23-19-00 dated 1/28/2001. I have the TR for 23-19-00 that says that first sentence regarding deactivation did not appear until April 2007. I also have ECO F0871 stating that the Claircom system was being deactivated dated 3/2002 along with the accomplishment dates all of which were in April 2002. Do you have any documentation to refute any of this?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Why did Chris Christensen of AA Legal Dept not want to go on record nor able to provide the same document as you prior to publishing our article? AA Legal and American Airlines googled my name and clammed up after. It was fun to watch. AMTMAN shows up two days after with a document stating the deactivation not even referenced in the 757 AMM page as the deactivation order.


Call up any legal department at any Fortune 500 company and ask them if you can record your conversation and they will tell you no. Real smart Rob harassing an airline, it would be a waste of time sending a resume to AA that's for sure. Also Rob I did not show up two days after you came out with you little fantasy.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

AMTMAN, why will you not give James or Pat your name? Our source has given us his...

Why are you, an anonymous internet poster able to produce this document which contradicts Hotard, but AA Legal dept was not able to do the same in the months prior to publishing our article? Remember, AA Legal said they were willing to help.. its all recorded.

Wanna dance AMTMAN?


There seems to be a recurring theme to your posts. You imply that since JamesB and Pat don't have my real and YOU have the name of YOURS along with the fact that I won't do an interview with YOU YOUR side of the story is correct. It appears that the only way a story is legit is if the ROB BALSAMO believes it to be true. Basically this whole thing is one big ego trip for you.

My guess as to why AA legal did not give you any info is that they feel no obligation to do so. Why would they give anything to someone who is saying that either AA is in on this "conspiracy" and/or the people working for it are completely clueless?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Wow.. no reply AMTMAN? You follow me around the net constantly, reply within a few mins .. and no reply to the bottom of page 6?

[edit on 21-9-2007 by johndoex]


Rob I evidently don't have a job that allows me to cruise the net all day long.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Even if your paperwork shows up in the AA dBase... it is clear you are a shill.. might not be intentional.. but look in the mirror. Im sure you never heard of the statement "Pencil-Whippping"? C'mon.. tell us... shill.


[edit on 21-9-2007 by johndoex]


So your admitting that it shows up in AA's data base? Why is it Rob that the only thing you seem to be capable of doing when someone says your wrong is to either threaten them or call them a shill?

When someone says something has been "pencil whipped" it usually means that they are saying they did something when they actually did not. Is that what you are trying to say? That the Claicom system was not really deactivated even though guys signed their name stating it was? If so that would pretty much contradict everything you have said so far. Are you trying to tell us that every A&P at AA who signed off on this did not actually do it? What are the chances of this occurring on every 757 in AA's fleet?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

shill.

I dont blame you for not wanting to be interviewed... as you have refused since 2 days after we published our article..


[edit on 21-9-2007 by johndoex]


That's a lie Rob, I did not refuse two days after you published your article. It's more like two weeks.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Let me know if you change your mind.. but i dont think you will... you're too much of a coward to put your name on your claims.



[edit on 21-9-2007 by johndoex]


Your source who has no name, who has yet to appear on any forum that I'm aware of to defend his story on his own, who uses you and Craig as cover to protect himself. Yet I'm the "coward".

P.S. I agreed with Ron to a debate on Hardfire yet you seem to be a bit hesitant.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Could I get the document verified? I will have to know who could do this. Thats why since Rob claims to have connections I asked him to verify it for me. He refuses to!


Could it be that you started a thread suppossedly "debunking" his website? I really don't feel it is his responsibility to verify your document. Especially after the way you've been treating him here. For one, calling him a liar.


Rob can do this with a couple clicks of his mouse and refuses!


He's already stated that they are stonewalling his investigation. How would he get veryfication then? Since you are for the official story and AA is for the official story, I'd imagine they would talk to you over Rob.

Question. Have you even tried to verify your document?


but he is dishonest and makes money off the tragedy on 9/11.


And all the polititions and their cronies who are lying their nads off and making a killing are A-OK with you? Guilliani for one. Care to look into how much he gets paid for just speaking about 9/11?


Why don't you ask Rob for an explanation for the TR that pertains to 23-19-00 along with some documentation to refute the accomplishment dates for F0871? Since Rob has a source at AA he should be able to do this rather easily.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Why don't you ask Rob for an explanation for the TR that pertains to 23-19-00 along with some documentation to refute the accomplishment dates for F0871? Since Rob has a source at AA he should be able to do this rather easily.


Why don't you? You seem to have plenty of contacts and info. yourself. Why don't you shut him up? So far, all I've seen is you and CO calling him a liar without backing up your claims. At least Rob is backing his claims up. At least it appears to me for I have no clue on what FO871 and the like is.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Why don't you ask Rob for an explanation for the TR that pertains to 23-19-00 along with some documentation to refute the accomplishment dates for F0871? Since Rob has a source at AA he should be able to do this rather easily.


Why don't you? You seem to have plenty of contacts and info. yourself. Why don't you shut him up? So far, all I've seen is you and CO calling him a liar without backing up your claims. At least Rob is backing his claims up. At least it appears to me for I have no clue on what FO871 and the like is.


Thank you for proving me right first of all. You really could care less about the truth. The fact that you won't ask Rob any hard questions proves me right.

TR for 23-19-00 dated April 2007 proves that Rob is lying. Just as the accomplishment dates for ECO F0871. So much for backing up his claims.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Thank you for proving me right first of all. You really could care less about the truth.


You know me that well huh?


The fact that you won't ask Rob any hard questions proves me right.


What hard questions? You are the one trying to debunk him. The onus is on you my friend. Not me.


TR for 23-19-00 dated April 2007 proves that Rob is lying. Just as the accomplishment dates for ECO F0871.


All I have seen from you in this thread is numbers and call signs and nothing to back them up. Why? If you have these documents, let's see them. If not, you are calling someone a liar without any real proof yourself.


So much for backing up his claims.


I could say the same for you.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Thank you for proving me right first of all. You really could care less about the truth.


You know me that well huh?


The fact that you won't ask Rob any hard questions proves me right.


What hard questions? You are the one trying to debunk him. The onus is on you my friend. Not me.


TR for 23-19-00 dated April 2007 proves that Rob is lying. Just as the accomplishment dates for ECO F0871.


All I have seen from you in this thread is numbers and call signs and nothing to back them up. Why? If you have these documents, let's see them. If not, you are calling someone a liar without any real proof yourself.


So much for backing up his claims.


I could say the same for you.


Thank you once again for proving me right.

What does Rob have to back up his claims? He has a page from AA's maintenance manual without an explanation for the TR. Again here's that TR from 23-19-00.

< img131.imageshack.us... >

Unless Rob has something to refute it then logic says he's lying



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join