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.

 

An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level. (hoax)

page: 26
95
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Members who wish to participate in subjects such as this should be aware of recent developments.

Apparently because of my contributions in this thread, Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder of "Pilots for 911 Truth," has been sending me taunting emails with vulgarities, lies, and has even gone so far as to monitor when/if I visit their website, in order to send more taunting emails to me.

This is the unfortunate tactic of aggressive/insulting indignation for anyone who dare disagree with any portion of their stated platform. It's just more of the detestable techniques introduced into the "9/11 Truth" modus operandi by Nico Haupt more than ten years ago.

A couple years ago, we were forced to place a hiatus on new threads and posts to the 9/11 forum because of extreme incivility from various people who claimed to be from a collection of "9/11 Truth" groups (including pilots). You must ask yourself about the ethics and sincerity of such groups whose default methodology is that of insults and rage directed toward those who simply disagree… and the complete lack of professionalism exhibited by the sending of taunting emails to those who should be seen as a potentially cooperative and sympathetic partner.





Sad.




posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
And the above post somehow inspired what looks to be an attempt at a "board war," with another email to me, this time with my email address copied to an unknown number of "P4T" members.

These tactics are sad. AboveTopSecret.com has been a sympathetic partner to various 9/11 groups over the years, but because some of our staff and members disagree with their methods and portions of their "platform," aggressive attacks and unprofessionalism is the chosen response.

I will remind all members that "Board Wars" are against our Terms and Conditions. Feel free to participate in any discussion anywhere off ATS, however, if your actions are seen as antagonizing other forum operators/members on behalf of ATS, your account here may be in jeopardy.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Now how would old Rob know you were here and contributing? I thought he was looooong gone.

It just goes to show how blind fanaticism leads to such behavior. If this is how their message is suppose to go across, it is not helpful in the least bit. I have yet to meet a "9/11 Truth" member that did not in the end result to such high school tactics.
edit on 1/9/2014 by GenRadek because: just another 2 cents



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

GenRadek
Now how would old Rob know you were here and contributing?

Based on the content of the very first email -- and the email address copied -- it looks as though the thread author alerted him to this thread once staff started became involved. Apparently because it's not okay for our staff to have opinions and care about subjects.



If this is how their message is suppose to go across, it is not helpful in the least bit.

I tried banging that drum at more than one meeting of the NYC 9/11 Truth group at St. Mark's church in Manhattan several times, many years ago. I don't understand why it doesn't stick.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

GenRadek
Now how would old Rob know you were here and contributing?

Based on the content of the very first email -- and the email address copied -- it looks as though the thread author alerted him to this thread once staff started became involved. Apparently because it's not okay for our staff to have opinions and care about subjects.



If this is how their message is suppose to go across, it is not helpful in the least bit.

I tried banging that drum at more than one meeting of the NYC 9/11 Truth group at St. Mark's church in Manhattan several times, many years ago. I don't understand why it doesn't stick.

Pics or it didn't happen!


Could you post some screenshots of those emails, or at least the content?

I'm not doubting you, I'm just interested in the exact and full content of the messages.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

soulwaxer
I'm not doubting you, I'm just interested in the exact and full content of the messages.

Sorry, but I won't.

I'm one of the (increasingly rare, apparently) people that believes there is an expectation of privacy when someone sends an email. So I'd never share the content of an email from someone on a public forum. That's incredibly bad Internet manners.

Sorry.

edit on 9-1-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Hi S.O.

I am really sorry to hear that. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but i firmly believe that everyone, no matter what their viewpoint, ought to be treated with a certain respect, civility, and professionalism, and that they should be able to freely express themselves and to surf the web freely without being taunted, or intimidated.

I have of course accessed their research and consulted with one or two of their pilots in the process of putting together the research contained in this thread, but i had no intention whatsoever to provoke anyone against anyone.

Some people hold a grudge i guess, but i'm not one of them, and I shouldn't be held responsible, for another person's actions which I cannot control.

I've only been operating here on the basis of what my conviction tells me is the right thing to do, nothing more.

Best Regards,

NAM

Edit to add:


SkepticOverlord

Based on the content of the very first email -- and the email address copied -- it looks as though the thread author alerted him to this thread once staff started became involved. Apparently because it's not okay for our staff to have opinions and care about subjects.


That's not what happened. I'd been accessing their research and consulting with some of them all along, and i guess he noticed, in following the thread, when a number of the staff seemed to suddenly appear and enter into the discussion.

I complained to no one and did not attempt to provoke anyone to do anything, and again I can't control another person's actions and therefore should not be held accountable for those actions.

All i wanted was more information, more data, more research, to try to deal with everything that was being thrown at me in this thread, that's all. I didn't even complain about it, even though i was getting a little frazzled by what was coming at me.


edit on 9-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

soulwaxer
I'm not doubting you, I'm just interested in the exact and full content of the messages.

Sorry, but I won't.

I'm one of the (increasingly rare, apparently) people that believes there is an expectation of privacy when someone sends an email. So I'd never share the content of an email from someone on a public forum. That's incredibly bad Internet manners.

Sorry.

edit on 9-1-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

I don't really care about names, the content of their messages to you is fine.

I am interested in these people's line of thought towards you and your staff.

I consider myself a member of the 911 truth movement, and so it interests me what my fellow members feel about the staff of the website I frequent so often.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


If you haven't already seen Balsamo in action I assure you, it's a sight to behold. And I doubt you'll be wanting him on your team even if you consider yourself part of the broadest of churches.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Please just leave it alone...

Moving on...?

There's no need for this thread or it's content to be derailed by this.

Thanks for your understanding.

NAM



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Please just leave it alone...

Moving on...?

There's no need for this thread or it's content to be derailed by this.

Thanks for your understanding.

NAM

I understand.

And thank you for your relentlessness in this thread of yours. I have nothing but respect for that.

Moving on.

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

JuniorDisco
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


If you haven't already seen Balsamo in action I assure you, it's a sight to behold. And I doubt you'll be wanting him on your team even if you consider yourself part of the broadest of churches.

Here is an interview with Robert Balsamo, which applies to, and is very much consistent with what the OP has presented:


I would LOVE him on my team!

soulwaxer



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

soulwaxer
There's no need for this thread or it's content to be derailed by this.

As is the case with any extraordinary claim, the credibility of the claimant must be a determining factor.

Tactics speak to ethics (or lack thereof)… which speaks to integrity… which speaks to credibility.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

soulwaxer
There's no need for this thread or it's content to be derailed by this.

As is the case with any extraordinary claim, the credibility of the claimant must be a determining factor.

Tactics speak to ethics (or lack thereof)… which speaks to integrity… which speaks to credibility.


NAM just asked to drop this. I went along with his request. But since you continue, and you own this site, please allow me to respond. (Disregarding the fact that the above is not my quote, but NAM's response to a post of mine).

If you are going to accuse me of a lack of ethics, please be specific and point out what you are talking about. After that, we can talk about integrity and credibility.

Extraordinary claim? Why is my claim more extraordinary than yours?

ETA: I am claiming that 911 (definitely one of the most advanced attacks ever) was carried out by the most advanced power in the world. Nothing extraordinary about that, unless you allow your personal views to get involved.

soulwaxer
edit on 9-1-2014 by soulwaxer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I agree wholeheartedly, and it's always a two way street or a double edged sword, Civility is..

To the degree that I myself have gone a little over the edge in this thread, i would hereby like to offer a sincere apology, as I have no desire to overtly offend anyone, and i don't care who they are or what i perceive they may have done to "trespass against me".

At the same time, one cannot just roll over or run away, where it may be necessary to take a stand from time to time, and it's been said (don't have time to look up the quote and cite the source at the moment) that "a true gentlemen is someone who never hurts another person's feelings, unintentionally."

Thus, sometimes, depending on the circumstances, it may take an extraordinary degree, not only of courage, but also awareness, to take a stand for what we truly believe, in our innermost heart of hearts, is the right thing to do, and if we end up getting persecuted for it a little bit, or a lot, in the process, then so be it.

There's also a saying that in matters of communication, we have to be straight in what we're communicating, and then take whatever we get as a result.

As far as I'm concerned, there's just no other way to operate capable of doing justice to the truth. It's painful though sometimes I have to admit, but i can take it.


I have no ill will towards you S.O., or for the good men of pilots for 9/11 truth (they should have more women as members) or anyone that's participated in this thread.

People are, for the most part, fundamentally good and well intentioned, and are simply doing the very best they can and know how to do with the resources available to them. In that I have great faith, and it's not even about me, or you, or anyone else in particular, just the common good for the sake of what i like to call.. our enlightened mutual best interest.

Best Regards,

NAM

P.S. Let's move on now if we could, in a spirit of relative good will..?

P.S.S. Who is your new avatar, and why does he have a wandering eye..?


edit on 9-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

People are, for the most part, fundamentally good and well intentioned, and are simply doing the very best they can and know how to do with the resources available to them. In that I have great faith, and it's not even about me, or you, or anyone else in particular, just the common good for the sake of what i like to call.. our enlightened mutual best interest.

Best Regards,

NAM

P.S. Let's move on now if we could, in a spirit of relative good will..?


edit on 9-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

I put three boys on this planet. They are pure innocense, full of life and full of dreams. I feel responsible for the world they have to live in because they did not choose it. I helped shape it and am still doing so.

I have had a much better life than the majority of the world's population, and most of the members here probably have too. I have received more than I ever imagined, and now it is my turn to do something for the next generation. That is the one thing that can add additional value to my life, and it is my only motive here.

soulwaxer
edit on 9-1-2014 by soulwaxer because: ETAA



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

soulwaxer
If you are going to accuse me of a lack of ethics,

I wasn't referring to you. Sorry you took it that way.



ETA: I am claiming that 911 (definitely one of the most advanced attacks ever) was carried out by the most advanced power in the world. Nothing extraordinary about that, unless you allow your personal views to get involved.

There's an extraordinary spectrum of plausible, believable, and manageable speculative theories that run counter to the accepted "story line" of 9/11, yet still include the probable conclusion that hijackers did indeed take over control of normally scheduled passenger jets; as it's the most simple to execute.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

There's an extraordinary spectrum of plausible, believable, and manageable speculative theories that run counter to the accepted "story line" of 9/11, yet still include the probable conclusion that hijackers did indeed take over control of normally scheduled passenger jets; as it's the most simple to execute.


Just for the record, I'm not suggesting that there were no hijackers, nor even that the original planes, including flight 175, did not take off that day.

Let us not forget, however, the "coincidence" of the 9/11 War Games Operations that were taking place on 9/11, some of which involved the very thing that happened ie: (simulated) hijacked aircraft being flown into landmark buildings...

More on that to follow, if given the opportunity to share that information and research here at the ATS 9/11 Conspiracies Forum.

Best Regards,

NAM


edit on 9-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Hello BenReclused (btw are you really a government shill?)

Howdy "NewAgeMan" (TAYQ: Well, I disagree with the premise of your OP, so I must be...),


The text you sourced, is from the Navy.

navyflightmanuals.tpub.com...

How many Civilian Commercial Boeing 767-222's are operated by the US Navy?

From what i've been able to gather, the Navy is not regulated under the Federal Aviation Regulations. The Military have their own rules and modify civilian aircraft as they see fit ie: in the conversion/modification of civilian aircraft like the 767 series for tanker operations, etc.

It also appears from that source, that it's dealing with predominantly structural G-force issues, as well as operations at altitude, not near sea level.

With that said, from what i've found, the text is right, there is a 150% margin set, based on G limits.

G forces ARE NOT the only forces that an aircraft's structure MUST endure. Excessive airspeed can cause many failures that are unrelated to G forces. Why do you insist that there is no "design margin", that extends beyond an aircraft's Vd?


Look up FAR 25.1505 and the associated FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulations) referenced in 25.1505.

Been there, done that...

Unfortunately, and like you, it doesn't address any of the questions that I've been asking.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

SkepticOverlord

soulwaxer
If you are going to accuse me of a lack of ethics,

I wasn't referring to you. Sorry you took it that way.



ETA: I am claiming that 911 (definitely one of the most advanced attacks ever) was carried out by the most advanced power in the world. Nothing extraordinary about that, unless you allow your personal views to get involved.

There's an extraordinary spectrum of plausible, believable, and manageable speculative theories that run counter to the accepted "story line" of 9/11, yet still include the probable conclusion that hijackers did indeed take over control of normally scheduled passenger jets; as it's the most simple to execute.


You know, I was about to say that I wish I could agree with you. But all that would do is project the same evil on someone else, with a foreign culture in a far away land.

Evil exists in every culture, including our own.

soulwaxer



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join