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.

 

CIT's (latest) Theory Pulverized

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Funny how with all of his witnesses, he has YET to come up with one single flight path with the math to back it up.




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Maybe you'd like to try and debunk my post at the very top of page 3 of this thread then?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Every single "Duh-Bunker" here is encouraged to email us for a debate. We can put together an on-air debate in short notice and/or recorded session for those who feel they need more time. Not surprisingly, every single "Duh-Bunker" here prefers to remain behind their screen and anonymous instead of stepping up to the plate. I think one of their "own" said it best....




What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience. - Ron Weick: Host Of Hardfire and expressed his disappointment in Mark Roberts numerous times.. forums.randi.org...


Those of you who continue to argue behind your screen while making excuses to not debate "face to face", remember this...




Signed,

Your Friendly Neighborhood Realist


(PS, Bogbert, cant wait to speak with you.. but i gather you would prefer to remain behind your screen.. prove me wrong. Email me for my number.. if not, i'll be getting yours shortly.. be sure to have the recorder ready.. as i will...)



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Rob,

You put out these challenges yet you can't answer to one that you messed up on. I beleive it was last March you were asked to fix a math error. Has that been done?

Thank you

:TY:



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex


(PS, Bogbert, cant wait to speak with you.. but i gather you would prefer to remain behind your screen.. prove me wrong. il me for my number.. if not, i'll be getting yours shortly.. be sure to have the recorder ready.. as i will...)



1st of all look look at this.(in bold) That my friend is STALKING. You wonder why people "HIDE" behind screennames... internet people like you sir.

Someone should post the not 1 but 2 death threats you made to Mark Roberts.


EDIT TO ADD:


“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”
–"Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo


[edit on 20-6-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Originally posted by johndoex




What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience. - Ron Weick: Host Of Hardfire and expressed his disappointment in Mark Roberts numerous times.. forums.randi.org...



Rob,

How come you only posted to Ron's only thread? Why not to the responses that came after he states that?

Here.. allow me to assist...

forums.randi.org...


Originally Posted by Ron Weik
"I just received another call from Rob Balsamo. He was quite civil and impressed me with his sincerity in wanting a substantive debate on the FDR and related matters. "

O'RLY? Did that mutt apologize for this:


[THIS IS YOU SAYING THIS ROB... REMEMBER??]
"So we have decided to scrape the bottom of the barrel and invite internet "debunkers" who spend their days and nights obsessed with our work (although now they are using the excuse they dont want to give us any "attention" when a debate challenge arises)."

Tell Rob to post his math. We will accept nothing less. He will be ignored until he can explain his calculations.

Civil my a*s. Sincere? Tell that incompetent SOB to support his flight path



With all due respect, he blew his opportunity to debate here and his minions are apparently unable to debate either. He doesn't want to debate, he wants an unchallenged diatribe.

Of course, he could alwayd open up his own forum for debate but as we all know he's too much of a coward to do that.



Ron;
if he wanted to debate he would have opened up his pft forums to the pilots and crash scene investigators, technicians etc that are on this forum. But as soon as you disagree with his conspiracy, you are gone. You cannot debate numbers and equations or aerial photos and paths over a phone. And he Knows that! Theres nothing to debate, the math does not work for him. Its a publicity stunt. If they themselves were convinced, They should be contacting authorities not talk show hosts.



Why not bring that up to him, though?

You can't just let his foolishness go unchallenged.



Well, for those of you who were listening to

www.wethepeopleradionetwork.com...

which is a prelude to tomorrow night's program, but as expected I got cut short. My questions were interrupted by commercials and a political figure on a rant replaced me on the call in schedule.

Of course, I got accused of being a gubmint shill with the usual witness preemption of all other issue and then the commercial break.

So much for the other side of the coin. It's a joke.

ETA: Is it any wonder that I don't want to travel somewhere or even call in again to one of these sites that's willing to host these jerks?



Don't be fooled, Ron. His "sincerity" is phony. Balsamo evades inconvenient questions and will do so on the air. Just like Ranke and Aldo. I have to agree fully with Mark Roberts on this matter and not give them the time of day.






[edit on 20-6-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


I beleive that was already taken care of:


P.S. Apologies as my initial response didn't address your math. Just three (key) points: the plane was traveling at more than 370 MPH at impact according to the FDR and your witness positions (if I understand you correctly, and I may not) are incorrect. Lastly, your impact point is incorrect. Or am I mistaken and your contesting the impact as well?

Even if we use your speed, the stall speed for the aircraft would be exceeded to execute the turn (flaps up, gear up as per the FDR)



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Sorry Rob but are you referring to me with "bogbert"?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Every single "Duh-Bunker" here is encouraged to email us for a debate. We can put together an on-air debate in short notice and/or recorded session for those who feel they need more time. Not surprisingly, every single "Duh-Bunker" here prefers to remain behind their screen and anonymous instead of stepping up to the plate. I think one of their "own" said it best....




What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience. - Ron Weick: Host Of Hardfire and expressed his disappointment in Mark Roberts numerous times.. forums.randi.org...


Those of you who continue to argue behind your screen while making excuses to not debate "face to face", remember this...




Signed,

Your Friendly Neighborhood Realist



Not surprisingly, Rob Balsamo is still desperately avoiding having to deal with actual evidence having refused to produce any witnesses from the other side of the Pentagon who saw AA77 fly over the Pentagon.

Rob wants you to believe it is possible for AA77 to be seen flying over the Pentagon from one side of the Pentagon, but impossible to see either AA77 or a flyover from the opposite side. What kind of bozo would keep making such an assertion as Balsamo does?

As with Ranke and Marquis, Rob Balsamo has refused to present any statements from those who saw and handled the wreckage from inside the Pentagon. Perish the thought that Balsamo would have to deal with actual physical evidence.

So, Rob, when are you going to answer the questions on the table? Why are you SO afraid of actual evidence?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Glad to know we are so on the mark that you, personally, feel the need to respond.

Whether or not I debate you personally has nothing to do with the correctness of the argument.

Again, that's a straw man. That is, either I debate you personally or everything I have to say is incorrect. That's an argumentative technique and does not answer the question:

GOT MATH?

[edit on 21-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Personally if i was Craig , I would put this little band of debunkers, who show up in every thread concerning his word or his name. So yes, he must be getting closer to the truth.

This man has the patience of a saint. Thank goodness the Truth movement has level headed people like him, WHO ACTUALLY DO FIELD work. Yes in the field, not from thier home computer, or office in whatever group your little band of debunkers work for.

I think he comes here because even though he is usually out numbered, he ends up with more starts to his posts than all the debunkers combined. By lurkers and by people like me and I suppose the other usual truthers.

The guy is doing solid work and going wherever the evidence takes him. Many in Law enforcement might not see this as the way to operate. But IT IS THE RIGHT WAY.

But me personally. again If I was Grraig I've built up enough of a following without selling anything.

OMG imagine even if he did sell a DVD, it's not ok for truthers to, but Debunkers galore right books and produce DVD's all the time, but thats ok, go figure.

Face it, you don't like Craig because his information scares you. At the very least it make you think twice, which I know people in authority positions Have tunnel vision and will rarely change from thier first suspect, even if they need to tell saiddefendent they have evidence they don't. Sleep, food deprivation, and bingo confession. Or if the person is poor, a little Bull-pen therapy will have them signing a plea within a few short weeks.

Craig, put these 5-7 guys on ignore, and continue your work. They are just trolling, trying to change the subject, they throw out a little dis-info, and lies, and the sheeple believe it. Because they sleep better at night thinking a Dark Skinned Man in the middle east did 9/11, not our own government working with them.

I don't know how you do it, you have some thick skin, as shown on the Howard Stern aftershow.

Keep working at it, and I hope you find the truth whatever it may be.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

In contrast to this post, the government not been able to publish any numbers relative to the physics of the events on that day either. the difference being of course that I did not pay CIT a single penny for their work, and I did pay uncle Sam out of my own pocket.

If there is any conspiracy involved, it certainly is better for the perpetrators if we are left arguing each other on web forums that out questioning those responsible for the answers that no one has provided as of yet.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

In contrast to this post, the government not been able to publish any numbers relative to the physics of the events on that day either.


The governemnt does not have to publish numbers. The FDR matched witness statements. And the flight path the FDR shows an aeodynamic possibility. UNLIKE the flyover theory.

Debunkers only want CIT or PFFT to come up with a flight path that is consistent with their witness statements.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 

Do you really believe that Craig is getting "closer to the truth" because people debate him on an internet forum?
That was a joke right?



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Every single "Duh-Bunker" here is encouraged to email us for a debate. We can put together an on-air debate in short notice and/or recorded session for those who feel they need more time. Not surprisingly, every single "Duh-Bunker" here prefers to remain behind their screen and anonymous instead of stepping up to the plate. I think one of their "own" said it best....




What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience. - Ron Weick: Host Of Hardfire and expressed his disappointment in Mark Roberts numerous times.. forums.randi.org...


Those of you who continue to argue behind your screen while making excuses to not debate "face to face", remember this...




Signed,

Your Friendly Neighborhood Realist


(PS, Bogbert, cant wait to speak with you.. but i gather you would prefer to remain behind your screen.. prove me wrong. Email me for my number.. if not, i'll be getting yours shortly.. be sure to have the recorder ready.. as i will...)


Rob are you going to call me or what?
I get an extra grand thrown into my NWO lap dance fund if you do!
Plesae hurry!



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


TOP FOR ROB.
Are you going to call me or what?
PM me for my number.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join