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.

 

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
CO, we are certain he is lying as pointed out above.

Your desperation using the same old argument of BBQ aprons and DVD sales is getting really stale and very apparent the only thing you attempt to trot out when you are unable to debate. Unfortunately, it happens on almost every exchange i have with you. Post reported for off topic. Thanks.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by johndoex]




posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Sorry Rob... I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I will remove that statement.

I am just overjoyed at the thought of you proving Ryan Macky is a liar. Let me know when you guys get it done.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Anti-Sophist is not Mackey and doesnt change the fact Mackey said we are "hiding the FDR data" which is in fact a lie.

But since you bring up Anti-Sophist. You see him run when we called him out of the FDR being "Debunked!"

Even his own people disagreed with him. Good stuff.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by johndoex
 


Sorry Rob... I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I will remove that statement.

I am just overjoyed at the thought of you proving Ryan Macky is a liar. Let me know when you guys get it done.



Feel free to download the FDR data yourself if you havent already and you will see exactly where Mackey has lied. However, we will address it in full and lay it out for those who would rather not do the leg work on their own. Keep an eye on the original article and linked common arguments thread.


pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Thanks for the offer, but I refuse to give your website any hits. I'll wait for somone to post it here or at Jref.

CO



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
11.2 gs? Who did the math so poorly? Does he need some help?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
CO, we are certain he is lying as pointed out above.

Your desperation using the same old argument of BBQ aprons and DVD sales is getting really stale and very apparent the only thing you attempt to trot out when you are unable to debate. Unfortunately, it happens on almost every exchange i have with you. Post reported for off topic. Thanks.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by johndoex]


I am happy to debate the evidence with you, Rob, but as you know, you'll have to do it here since you severely limit debate on Pilotsfor9/11 Truth for anyone who questions your claims. In fact, as you wrote me when I questioned your claims and asked for evidence, you stated:


"Those who blindly follow the govt story are asked to keep their discussions in the Debate section, we do not accept the conspiracy theory offered by the govt as evidence in other areas of the forum. This forum is mainly a research forum, not a debate forum. "


I am happy to start a topic here for you, I, and others, to discuss all of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon. Are you game?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Hi Jay,

Saying we severly limit debate on P4T is like saying ATS severely limits 9/11 Conspiracy threads because they have a specific forum for such.

We have a debate forum. Go in there to debate to your hearts content after you come back from breaking forums rules which i warned you 3 times to read.

By the way, i didnt "write that to you", or "state it". I copy and pasted it from our forums rules you failed to read the first 3 times i asked you to.


As far as starting a thread here for debate, be my guest. I cant promise there will be timely replies considering your past arguments and (lack of) understanding regarding positive ID.


Edit to add: At the risk of getting off topic... our claims are simple WRT the pentagon. I will repeat it....

The data provided by the NTSB does not support AA77 impact with the pentagon. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. AA77 has never been positively identified as the object which caused the damage at the pentagon either through radar, parts or eyewitneses. This is fact and undisputed by any govt agency or entity.

Regards,
Rob

[edit on 18-3-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Hi Jay,


My name is John. I go by jthomas.


Saying we severly limit debate on P4T is like saying ATS severely limits 9/11 Conspiracy threads because they have a specific forum for such.


Correct, you severely limit discussion of the evidence on your Forum. You disallow the evidence about AA77 and The Pentagon from The Pentagon Forum where other evidence of AA77 and The Pentagon is being discussed because of your claim that I was one of "Those who blindly follow the govt story are asked to keep their discussions in the Debate section, we do not accept the conspiracy theory offered by the govt as evidence in other areas of the forum. This forum is mainly a research forum, not a debate forum. ". You do recall your e-mail, I trust.

So, it is selective evidence that you permit being discussed in the appropriate forum according to your arbitrary definition.


We have a debate forum. Go in there to debate to your hearts content after you come back from breaking forums rules which i warned you 3 times to read.


I followed forum rules. I wasn't "debating", as you well know.


By the way, i didnt "write that to you", or "state it". I copy and pasted it from our forums rules you failed to read the first 3 times i asked you to.


You gave that as your "reason", remember?


As far as starting a thread here for debate, be my guest. I cant promise there will be timely replies considering your past arguments and (lack of) understanding regarding positive ID.


As you well know, and have just admitted again, as your use of that Red Herring demonstrates, you are scared to acknowledge that the wreckage was identified without the need for serial numbers.

And that's why you banned the discussion of the 1,000+ people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage from the inside of the Pentagon from your Pentagon Forum.

Craig Ranke has refused to discuss what those people saw for well over one year now.

Are you willing to address the evidence here, or anywhere, Rob?

In the meantime, R. Mackey once again refuted your group's claims.





[edit on 18-3-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

... the wreckage was identified without the need for serial numbers.



Call your local NTSB office (or any NTSB office for that matter) with the above claim. You can find the numbers at ntsb.gov. Be sure to record the call and post the results. I would like to hear the amount of laughter over the phone.

I apologize for the mistake in your name.

The rest of your post is semantics and is a waste of time to reply. Bottom line, you want to post on our forum, you follow our rules. Same as ATS or any other forum. If you dont like it, start your own.

s9.invisionfree.com...

Regards,
Rob



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by jthomas

... the wreckage was identified without the need for serial numbers.


Call your local NTSB office (or any NTSB office for that matter) with the above claim. You can find the numbers at ntsb.gov. Be sure to record the call and post the results. I would like to hear the amount of laughter over the phone.


As you well know, the FBI took over from the NTSB, but had their assistance. Also, as you should no as a pilot, the NTSB would be siding with me, since they know they don't need serial numbers from any of the four flights that crashed on 9/11 either to know what the wreckage was from.

It is very silly for you to make such a statement and it just further demonstrates your evasion of the evidence of 9/11 and your lack of knowledge of forensic investigations.


The rest of your post is semantics and is a waste of time to reply.


As you well know, what I wrote is the truth about your forum, as anyone who wishes to register on your site can readily learn. It is rather bizarre the lengths to which you all need to go to avoid evidence inconvenient to your claims.


Bottom line, you want to post on our forum, you follow our rules.


Bottom line is I have no intention on posting on your so-called "forum" anymore. You can remove my account right now. It is not a place where you have any intention of discussing the evidence.

In the meantime, you are invited to discuss the evidence here at ATS, an actual forum for discussion and research. That way, I can demonstrate further that you really lack any knowledge about the subject matter.

Are you game or not, Rob Balsamo?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
John,

I know you like to derail threads, but please try to stick to topic.

You have an area to post all your "evidence" to your hearts content on our forum., You choose to be angry that we dont let you spam our multiple forum sections as you have demonstrated in the past.

Very pertinent questions are awaiting you at our forum. Choose to ignore them or engage with your "evidence". Either way, it doesnt really matter i suppose as it appears many people have addressed your concerns, you just seem to not like the reply.


As for the NTSB, you are very wrong. But you are certainly entitled to be wrong. After my brief time engaging you here and at our board, I can understand why you would make excuses rather than making the call. Im sure many others understand as well.

Please stick to topic. Any further posts/spam/attempts at derail from you that are off topic will be reported. Thanks.

Regards,
Rob

ETA: As for starting a thread here, im not sure why you asked again as it has been addressed above (well, i guess i do, after learning your posting style).

[edit on 19-3-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
John,

I know you like to derail threads, but please try to stick to topic.


Please read again: "In the meantime, R. Mackey once again refuted your group's claims."


You have an area to post all your "evidence" to your hearts content on our forum


I did, thank you.


Very pertinent questions are awaiting you at our forum. Choose to ignore them or engage with your "evidence". Either way, it doesnt really matter i suppose as it appears many people have addressed your concerns, you just seem to not like the reply.


Thanks for illustrating my point, Rob.


As for the NTSB, you are very wrong.


Please stick to the topic, Rob. You may start a thread here detailing your claim of NTSB's necessity for having serial numbers in order to know what flight a wreckage is from. The topic of this thread is clear: "Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible." What we are concerned with here is your group's claim that topography and obstacles made the "final leg" of AA77 impossible. Of course, we have to consider ALL evidence, as you well know.

Since ALL of the evidence demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon, including the identification of the wreckage, we know that AA77 followed did indeed follow an unimpeded trajectory.

I'll await your evidence that AA77's trajectory into the Pentagon is an issue at all.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Hi Jay,

Saying we severly limit debate on P4T is like saying ATS severely limits 9/11 Conspiracy threads because they have a specific forum for such.

We have a debate forum. Go in there to debate to your hearts content after you come back from breaking forums rules which i warned you 3 times to read.

By the way, i didnt "write that to you", or "state it". I copy and pasted it from our forums rules you failed to read the first 3 times i asked you to.


As far as starting a thread here for debate, be my guest. I cant promise there will be timely replies considering your past arguments and (lack of) understanding regarding positive ID.


Edit to add: At the risk of getting off topic... our claims are simple WRT the pentagon. I will repeat it....

The data provided by the NTSB does not support AA77 impact with the pentagon. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. AA77 has never been positively identified as the object which caused the damage at the pentagon either through radar, parts or eyewitneses. This is fact and undisputed by any govt agency or entity.

Regards,
Rob

[edit on 18-3-2008 by johndoex]
Are you going to fix the math and physics error of 11.2 g?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

11.2 g is still posted. Do you understand you have the math wrong? If you need help I can do the math; gee, your tax dollars sent me to grad school. It would be a return on your investment.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

[edit on 18-3-2008 by johndoex] Are you going to fix the math and physics error of 11.2 g?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

11.2 g is still posted. Do you understand you have the math wrong? If you need help I can do the math; gee, your tax dollars sent me to grad school. It would be a return on your investment.


beachnut,

Is there a record of members of pilotsfor911truth.org ever correcting their own errors? Just curious.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


JT... as of last night. There is nothing on his website correcting his errors. This is not surprising at all.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I stand corrected....


03/20/08 - Update: For those who have been following the thread linked in the right margin, this will be redundant. The calculations below used for the purpose of this article are in error. We are currently reviewing the calculations and will publish a revision with the proper formula(s)/calculations consistent with the premise of this article. We apologize for any confusion and thank you for your understanding.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Wow... Rob ADMITTED he was in error!! Quick someone check the temperature in hell !!

Anyway... Good job Rob. I'm almost impressed that you finally admitted your made a mistake.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I stand corrected....


03/20/08 - Update: For those who have been following the thread linked in the right margin, this will be redundant. The calculations below used for the purpose of this article are in error. We are currently reviewing the calculations and will publish a revision with the proper formula(s)/calculations consistent with the premise of this article. We apologize for any confusion and thank you for your understanding.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Wow... Rob ADMITTED he was in error!! Quick someone check the temperature in hell !!

Anyway... Good job Rob. I'm almost impressed that you finally admitted your made a mistake.


What Rob is saying that his conclusion is correct and he will now try to come up with some other calculations to fit the conclusion.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Wow. A person makes a mistake, admits it but then still gets jumped on by people.


BTW, I have yet to see certain posters here admit to their mistakes. Just shows who is who and what is what IMO.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


JT... he will not be able to. This will sit on his website for a couple weeks then he will remove it. His theory has been proven false. I just like the fact that he admitted he was wrong. There is a first time for everything i guess.


Griff.. .are you talking about me? I'm never wrong!!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join