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.

 

Rob Balsamo - Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth - Verified Current Pilot

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
OK folks, lets have all your rumors, insinuations, and facts of why you think Rob Balsamo is a nut job, along with the numerous aviation professionals he has attracted to place their names, in just 4 short years.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Those to throw the first stones, be sure to have some "stones" for yourself and put your own name behind your claims.

Thanks!

(I start this thread because I'm tired of the off topic replies found in others due to the fact some people cannot debate the topic. So you now all have a Rob Balsamo bash thread)

Those who feel Rob Balsamo/Pilots For 9/11 Truth is full of American hero's, feel free to chime in as well.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Here is a video to give you all a bit of insight to Rob Balsamo's personal life during the year 2008 into 2009. Keep in mind, during this time he produced, written and directed "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon", "The North Flight Path" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

vimeo.com...

Password is - p4tlife20082009



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
The people who are the nutjobs are those who have the arrogance to disagree with the highly experienced, professional pilots (even one who flew Flight 93 and Flight 175) who appear in Balsamo's film "SPEED - Scene from "9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK" and ridicule as impossible the official approach speed of Flight 175 to the South Tower of 510 knots. It's a smoking gun that what flew into the South Tower was not a commercial Boeing 767, because such a speed greatly exceeded its maximum velocity at sea level set by Boeing of 360 knots before mechanical failure sets in.

Instead of making ad hominem attacks, which are the last resort of those who have lost the argument in a debate, how about addressing the SCIENCE of the issue? After all, that is what ATS is supposed to be about, not "stonings" and personal attacks intended to evade the real questions raised by 9/11 researchers.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by micpsi]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 



Instead of making ad hominem attacks, which are the last resort of those who have lost the argument in a debate, how about addressing the SCIENCE of the issue? After all, that is what ATS is supposed to be about, not "stonings" and personal attacks intended to evade the real questions raised by 9/11 researchers.


I don't know - it is hard to resist what you call ad hominem attacks when the lion's share of the argument is an appeal to authority. If you propose and argument that is basically unfounded in anything resembling facts and then post resumes to back it up you have no choice but to address the resumes.

Also, there is neither and issue here or anything that resembles science. Someone posts a graph that they clipped off the internet and fudge some numbers on it isn't exactly science. The only thing you get when you question the arts and crafts presentation is some kind of silly appeal "well look at all the experts that agree with me". Then the even sillier argument that every "expert" in the world agrees with the argument because they either signed up at some website, or agree because there is no "counter" website to join.

And then the constant spam for some other website.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
OK folks, lets have all your rumors, insinuations, and facts of why you think Rob Balsamo is a nut job


I have to admit the cockpit door fiasco and all the ensuing personal drama was quite funny. Not to mention the "flyover" nonsense.


... put your own name behind your claims.


Kinda funny considering the source.


So you now all have a Rob Balsamo bash thread


Pretty sure "bash threads" are not allowed in this forum. Maybe the mods can chime in about it.

Maybe this thread should have been titled "Rob Balsamo - Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth - Meh - Who really cares?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by micpsi
 



Instead of making ad hominem attacks, which are the last resort of those who have lost the argument in a debate, how about addressing the SCIENCE of the issue? After all, that is what ATS is supposed to be about, not "stonings" and personal attacks intended to evade the real questions raised by 9/11 researchers.


I don't know - it is hard to resist what you call ad hominem attacks when the lion's share of the argument is an appeal to authority. If you propose and argument that is basically unfounded in anything resembling facts and then post resumes to back it up you have no choice but to address the resumes.

Also, there is neither and issue here or anything that resembles science. Someone posts a graph that they clipped off the internet and fudge some numbers on it isn't exactly science. The only thing you get when you question the arts and crafts presentation is some kind of silly appeal "well look at all the experts that agree with me". Then the even sillier argument that every "expert" in the world agrees with the argument because they either signed up at some website, or agree because there is no "counter" website to join.

And then the constant spam for some other website.


It is an appeal to authority to believe a pilot on the basis that he is a pilot, this is correct. However once that person provides information relative to that field it is the information that is to be analyzed. You my friend are still analyzing the source of the information and not the information itself, which is as they say on the internets, fail.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


First, the information was "analyzed" and determined to have been some homemade chart, when question, the proponent of the "chart" basically fell back to personal attacks and appeals to authority.

The analysis requires the poster to present the original information as devloped by the manufacturer and also to answer some fundamental questions, these are being avoided like the plague.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
OK folks, lets have all your rumors, insinuations, and facts of why you think Rob Balsamo is a nut job, along with the numerous aviation professionals he has attracted to place their names, in just 4 short years.


It doesn't matter if Balsamo is being serious, or whether he's a nutjob, or whether he's running a con game trying to sucker gullible people out of their money. His true motives aren't my concern. The fact is, there were plenty of eyewitnesses in the Pentagon area who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the thing, so the moment Rob Balsamo attempts to suggest anything to the contrary of what the eyewitnesses all agree on then he is necessarily wrong.

Yeah, it's one thing to insist the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, but it's another thing entirely to insist the Zapruder film and all the eyewitnesses in Dallas are all lying and that JFK was really killed by a bomb. Two plus two still equals four regardless of whatever impressive credentials a mathmatician may have who insists it's really five.

Religiously grasping onto his theories simply becuase his theories happen to agree with what you yourself want to believe doesn't help his credibility. It only hurts your credibility.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
OK folks, lets have all your rumors, insinuations, and facts of why you think Rob Balsamo is a nut job, along with the numerous aviation professionals he has attracted to place their names, in just 4 short years.


Oh my Lord. This has got to be the absolutely funniest, most vain, most egotistical post I have ever, ever seen anywhere, anytime on the Internet in my entire life!

I've heard of Vanity Plates....but a Vanity Post? There *has* to be some psychological basis to this - some big-fancy-fangled name to this need, this burning desire to see your name up in "Big Internet Posts".

I swear...you never let us down!

[edit on 27-8-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



(I start this thread because I'm tired of the off topic replies found in others due to the fact some people cannot debate the topic. So you now all have a Rob Balsamo bash thread)


Great thread,
your right, most of these debunkers, or OS believers cannot debate the topic as we see in their posts more negative rants from the debunkers, no wonder educated minds don’t want to come in here to discus the evidence, because too many debunkers are in complete denial and don’t want to hear, or talk about the truth and continue with their emotional “ad hominem attacks.” Their “opinions” are their facts and nothing else matters.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
OK folks, lets have all your rumors, insinuations, and facts of why you think Rob Balsamo is a nut job, along with the numerous aviation professionals he has attracted to place their names, in just 4 short years.


It doesn't matter if Balsamo is being serious, or whether he's a nutjob, or whether he's running a con game trying to sucker gullible people out of their money. His true motives aren't my concern. The fact is, there were plenty of eyewitnesses in the Pentagon area who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the thing, so the moment Rob Balsamo attempts to suggest anything to the contrary of what the eyewitnesses all agree on then he is necessarily wrong.

Yeah, it's one thing to insist the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, but it's another thing entirely to insist the Zapruder film and all the eyewitnesses in Dallas are all lying and that JFK was really killed by a bomb. Two plus two still equals four regardless of whatever impressive credentials a mathmatician may have who insists it's really five.

Religiously grasping onto his theories simply becuase his theories happen to agree with what you yourself want to believe doesn't help his credibility. It only hurts your credibility.



You used "all" and "plenty" interchangeably there.

Let me debunk your example;

2.5 + 2.5 = 5
2 +2 =4

2 out of 2.5 is plenty.
2.5 out of 2.5 is all.

Are you using all the evidence to arrive at your conclusion or are you using plenty of it?

Hint: All of the information is not available. So when you come to your conclusion about 911 (anyone) you are dealing in an approximation.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join