IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory , flight 77 , johndoex , rob balsamo

Reply
Old 19th March 2007, 09:31 AM   #1
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
A message from JDX/Rob Balsamo of Pilots for truth

I'll print my reply first:

I was told the thread was deleted. It may as well have been, because I "do not have permission to view that topic"

You had accepted my challenge of a debate. The challenge was: my evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon against yours that it didn't. That IS what's important, isn't it, Rob? That the hijacked plane hit the building and killed all those people? I posted my suggested format on your forum.

You want debate that includes technical subjects to take place entirely during a recorded phone call? Gee, I wonder why scientific papers aren't presented that way. That's nonsensical and you know it.

Final chance: do you accept this debate on my very simple terms? Yes or no?

Paranoid threats and childish name-calling will never, ever make you right, Rob.

Yes or no?


Mr. Balsamo's email to me
Quote:
On 3/19/07, Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote:You're such an idiot... i love it when you do stuff like this..

(got bored this morning and took a gander at your gossip forum)

1. The thread was not deleted idiot...
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...showtopic=4467
all 7 pages... but im not surprised you arent very observant.

2. I have accepted your debate.. your observation skills are so lacking its pathetic...
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...wtopic=4555&hl=

Title "Mark Roberts is Confused"
I have accepted his challenge numerous times to debate (although it was my challenge initially. .it seems Mark declined that challenge by default and tried a bait and switch tactic). Mark Roberts seems he wants an internet debate. I dont have time for that.. so i decline his internet debate.

But i will debate Mark Roberts on a recorded phone call regarding the claims/analysis i have done with the FDR. It seems Mark Roberts cannot debate the FDR, so i have included Anti-Sophist and Apathoid.

Mark Roberts says pilotsfor911truth.org makes the claim that AA77 did not hit the pentagon. I have asked him to quote this claim we supposedly made from our website, he hasnt.

Mark Roberts does make the claim that AA77 hit the pentagon. I say excellent. Prove it to us as the NTSB and FBI doesnt seem very forthcoming with answers nor do they feel the need to prove it to real professionals or family members/victims.

Since Mark Roberts is lying about our claims and trying a bait and switch tactic.. we accpet his attempts at 'debating us' regarding his claim that AA77 hit the pentagon. We look forward to him proving to us that AA77 hit the pentagon. We still await his email... he has not emailed us to date.

Once again.. we accept his challenge based on his claims.. (repeated since it seems Mark didnt comprehend the first 20 times).

We await your email Mark. We refuse an internet debate as we dont have the time to waste with you punching our keyboard. We will put time aside to have a professional, recorded 'debate'.

Mark is not banned from this site and can read this message. If he refuses to come here to read, please feel free to forward it in its entirety.

Also, if anyone has Mark's email address... i will send the same to his email as it seems he doesnt know how to email me at pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org.

Once again, i accept Marks challenge to debate. Does Mark accept my challenge to debate the FDR analysis? He still refuses to email regarding my challenge. So i figure he declines.

Again.. i decline an internet debate as my time on the net is for research and correspondence with other professionals/friends. Does Mark decline a recorded phone call debate? (Anti-Sophist and apathoid can remain anonymous on a recorded line as we already know they are cowards).

Cheers!
Rob

Lets keep this simple shall we? -
Pilots for Truth Claim -
According to the FDR provided by the NTSB, The aircraft was too high to hit the light poles on highway 27 and if trends continue based on this information, also too high to hit the pentagon...
- proven in http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...showtopic=3895 Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two

Mark Roberts (Gravy) Claim -
Quote:
AA77 Struck the pentagon
-not proven, no positive identification has been established by Mark Roberts or the US Govt. We're waiting...
You want a debate? Start with full point by point debunk of Pandora's Black Box...

Freakin moron..lol... get a life and stop trying to suppress people from question their govt.. a govt that constantly lies.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

Last edited by Gravy; 19th March 2007 at 09:35 AM. Reason: typo
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 09:40 AM   #2
JAStewart
Graduate Poster
Tagger
 
JAStewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,521
Quote:
Start with full point by point debunk of Pandora's Black Box...
And he thinks you have enough time for that? That piece of rule8 debunks itself.

Quote:
get a life and stop trying to suppress people from question their govt
"suppress people from question their govt"? (haha, 'from question')

When has mark done that, Robbie boy?

Debunking is not suppression. Idiot.
__________________
Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl

Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60
JAStewart is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 09:41 AM   #3
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Providing the physical evidence, and expert opinion on the various aspects of 9/11 doesn't seem like supression to me. As far as I can tell, that is what you do Mark, you do it very well, but I don't see you doing anything beyond providing the evidence, and debating the evidence provided by others.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 09:49 AM   #4
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
That's so childish of him it's unimaginable. He does nothing but namecalling. He is only willing to debate some technical FDR data and his own movie. What about all the evidence, Rob? Why not debate the damage, passengers, DNA, debris, eyewitnesses? No, Rob wants to debate only about some stuff only he claims to have understood, but doesn't. Argh.

ETA: And what's the deal with him and the recorded phone calls? He wants to do them with everyone.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 19th March 2007 at 09:52 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 09:51 AM   #5
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
When he was over at LCF, as a mod, he did very little actual debating, so I suspect he does not, as he knows very little about the 9/11 attacks except the FDR issue.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 10:13 AM   #6
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by JDX
According to the FDR provided by the NTSB, The aircraft was too high to hit the light poles on highway 27 and if trends continue based on this information, also too high to hit the pentagon...

Only when you assume infinite accuracy and precision and pay no regard to error, whatsoever. Adherence to the existence of phenomena at or beyond the edge of our detection capability is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

When Rob can establish the scientific and statistical significance of these deviations, wake me up. In the mean time, it's plain old pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by JDX
Again.. i decline an internet debate as my time on the net is for research and correspondence with other professionals/friends. Does Mark decline a recorded phone call debate?
Science isn't discussed in "live recorded debates". When he wants a proper debate, he will publish his findings like the rest of the science community. I'll even forego the requirement that it be peer-reviewed.

If he is unwilling to publish his findings and all the necessary data to check his claims, his work is unscientific. We don't "trust" in Science. Especially not known liars with well established mental problems.

Furthermore, a live conversation would consist, entirely of me saying "No, you cannot claim that. Not within the justifiable precision of the measurement". Over and over. Maybe he'll mix in some off-topic references to NASA documents.

In the mean time, the only people that will listen will be truthers... and the only reason JDX is interested in such a high-profile event is to reclaim some of his status among the truthers where him and his no-planer friends have been relegated to the fringe of their own movement.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

Last edited by Anti-sophist; 19th March 2007 at 10:15 AM.
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 10:17 AM   #7
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by ref View Post
ETA: And what's the deal with him and the recorded phone calls? He wants to do them with everyone.
Just to reiterate. He wants material for upcoming videos, he wants reasons to get his name "in lights" around the conspirosphere. It's propaganda to help him and his status in the conspiracy community.

He's very hurt that he's been relegated to the fringes of his own fringe community. He's desperate for credibility.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 10:20 AM   #8
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
What, no death threats this time? He must be in a good mood.
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 10:56 AM   #9
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,556
Originally Posted by Anti-sophist View Post
Just to reiterate. He wants material for upcoming videos, he wants reasons to get his name "in lights" around the conspirosphere. It's propaganda to help him and his status in the conspiracy community.

He's very hurt that he's been relegated to the fringes of his own fringe community. He's desperate for credibility.


Would one of the laywer-types here be able to write up some sort of contract, that would allow someone like Gravy to have control over how these recordings might be used, should they decide to have a go at it?

I certainly wouldn't want to allow them to record me if I suspected they'd do the usual quote-mining and misrepresentation they always do, but if we had some means to hold them to account for such acts, it might be worth the risk. Imagine a clear court decision holding that one of the leading twoofers had violated a contract by misrepresenting a debate. Wouldn't that be good?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:00 AM   #10
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Would one of the laywer-types here be able to write up some sort of contract, that would allow someone like Gravy to have control over how these recordings might be used, should they decide to have a go at it?
I'd insist on some form of agreement on the intellectually property and copy rights. I'll be damned if JDX is gonna quote-mine me and sell it in his next trashy video.

I've put aside any thought of an actual debate though, until he can meet the most basic requirements of science.. namely.. open and checkable work, (e-)published in written form. I'd also add that he starts acting like an adult. No one wants to debate Rob "TELL ME WHO YOU ARE SO I CAN FIGHT YOU" Balsamo.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:07 AM   #11
Calcas
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,466
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
...one of the leading twoofers...
Wouldn't he like to think so.
Calcas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:09 AM   #12
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
in a few minutes I will post the following to that thread on "Pilots for 911 Truth".

My proposal would completely eliminate the 'debate' and go right to the heart of any technical issue, that is to publish one's findings.

If you want to put your POV forward then perhaps developing a technical paper including all data and calculations done using that data and a statistical analysis showing the error margins would be the best way to go about it.

You do not seem in the least interested in addressing the issues surrounding the event on 9/11 at the Pentagon other than the FDR data so a technical paper would seem to be the logical way to go.

You have a video out that could be an appendum to the paper but the ONLY way to actually put any technical subject out there is to produce a technical analysis.

This would be devoid of all emotional references and stick entirely to the technical issues.

I am sure that you know of many aviation magazines that could be approached with such a paper. I also suggest Scientific American.

If your work is sound it will get published. If there are problems with the analysis then I believe that they will be passed on to you and undertow.

This path would avoid any 'pissing match', it would avoid any ad hominem attacks that are sure to bog down any debate, and it ensures that the technical aspects are conveyed to the public. The latter of which is simply not possible in a telephone debate. It is not possible to show the FDR data and the calculations done using that data in a verbal debate.

This would of course require that undertow overcome his puzzling reluctance to relaese the work he performed for review. Certainly the same data is available to all (or at least so says undertow and I have no reason to disbelieve that claim) but what is required is the method by which this data was utilized. that is only possible to disseminate in a manner that allows claculations and references to be displayed.


Now this may take a while since all of my posts must be reviewed by a mod at P4T before they are posted.

My prediction is that one of the following will result;

a) the post never gets posted in the thread or gets posted as a new thread so that anyone reading it will have to search to find the context in which it was written
b) it gets posted but edited by jdx or another mod (edited also reffering to additions to what I said
c) it will get posted and jdx/undertow will refuse the suggestion and either offer lame excuses why, or give no reason whatsoever why they won't even bother to try it.

I also predict my upcoming banning at P4T and a thorough slagging by the usual suspects at P4T
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:10 AM   #13
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Would one of the laywer-types here be able to write up some sort of contract, that would allow someone like Gravy to have control over how these recordings might be used, should they decide to have a go at it?

I certainly wouldn't want to allow them to record me if I suspected they'd do the usual quote-mining and misrepresentation they always do, but if we had some means to hold them to account for such acts, it might be worth the risk. Imagine a clear court decision holding that one of the leading twoofers had violated a contract by misrepresenting a debate. Wouldn't that be good?
My stipulation to Balsamo was that all debate negotiations, and the debate itself, be in writing on the internet, for all to see. Simple. He doesn't seem to be aware that I have a huge volume of evidence on my side.

Rob, since you're reading this, you claim that I said Pilots for Truth claims that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. I don't recall saying that, but it's certainly the impression that I get from you, Rob Balsamo. You seem desperate to find any evidence that confirms your beliefs...so desperate that you've twice called for my execution, although you've never once shown that I've gotten anything wrong.

I haven't seen your video, so I don't know where you leave that question. So what is your position, Rob? Based on all the evidence that's publicly available, do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Dylan Avery doesn't have the courage to answer that question. I hope you do.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:16 AM   #14
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Based on all the evidence that's publicly available, do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Dylan Avery doesn't have the courage to answer that question. I hope you do.
Answering yes to that question would kill a huge bunch of their theories. Wonder how it feels to know you're lying, but still not admit it. Wonder how it feels to know what happened, but trying to create anything, anything at all that could possibly make it seem to be otherwise.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:25 AM   #15
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,078
Originally Posted by Anti-sophist View Post
I'd insist on some form of agreement on the intellectually property and copy rights. I'll be damned if JDX is gonna quote-mine me and sell it in his next trashy video.

I've put aside any thought of an actual debate though, until he can meet the most basic requirements of science.. namely.. open and checkable work, (e-)published in written form. I'd also add that he starts acting like an adult. No one wants to debate Rob "TELL ME WHO YOU ARE SO I CAN FIGHT YOU" Balsamo.
He would do just as Griffin does, as you said quote-mine you, and then build his lie around it.

JDX/johndoeX/RB has some problem with the government. He is trying to harass the C-130 pilot who saw flight 77 on 9/11. He harasses the NTSB, the FBI etc. He must be on a lot of watch lists for someone most likely to go McVeigh. JDX seems kind of unstable. He will only phone debate? Why? He talks about keyboard commandos or something. Is he challenged on typing? He could be a Pre-School typing level guy. He is real upset he can not place flight 77 with the FDR data while I think I can.

JDX must not realize if you are not a PFTF member you can not see PFTF junk. What a dolt! He tell Gravy the stuff is where Gravy can not see it! Dumber than dirt and still kicking. When will the leader of such a small group of nut case pilots give up and find a real job? There may be enough nut cases out there to buy his DVD, too bad it is about flying. Most pilots know his stuff is BS when they look at his very stupid statements in his youTube/GoogleVideo junk. Too bad he has choosen such a narrow CT topic!
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:25 AM   #16
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
I think Dylan knows for sure, that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. He just can't admit to it anymore. He's in too deep. Bermas might not believe likewise yet, he might still be in denial. He is so passionately explaining his stuff. Rob, I don't know. I get the feeling he just focuses on the FDR and doesn't even think further.


BTW, I earlier sometimes thought Bermas might be JDX They had something in common in their style of expression.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:28 AM   #17
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
I notice there are google ads on that site... am I correct in my belief that doh'boy has no control over the google ads, nor does he get any money for them since it is an invisionfree site? Wouldn't it be funny to advertise the JREF there? Or the SLC if the JREF won't allow this? I'd donate a few dollars for that...
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:36 AM   #18
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Mark Roberts says pilotsfor911truth.org makes the claim that AA77 did not hit the pentagon. I have asked him to quote this claim we supposedly made from our website, he hasnt.

Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
. So what is your position, Rob? Based on all the evidence that's publicly available, do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Dylan Avery doesn't have the courage to answer that question. I hope you do.
I guess he thinks it the Pentagon, but the NTSB faked the FDR to make it look like it didn't hit. Makes perfect sense.
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 11:49 AM   #19
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,556
Originally Posted by Anti-sophist View Post
I'd insist on some form of agreement on the intellectually property and copy rights. I'll be damned if JDX is gonna quote-mine me and sell it in his next trashy video.

...

I'd also add that he starts acting like an adult. No one wants to debate Rob "TELL ME WHO YOU ARE SO I CAN FIGHT YOU" Balsamo.


That's part of what we'd want. Creative control over the end-product, so any resulting video would need your approval. Some sort of up-front fee, and percentage of the gross. Also, JDX (or whoever, this could apply to others) would also have to indemnify you for any use others make of the footage (in case he "looses" a copy at a friend's place, say).

With enough protections in it, and some real money on the line, I think he might be inspired to act like an adult.

Or we could add a bit about who he has to fight if he doesn't want to pay



Originally Posted by Calcas View Post
Wouldn't he like to think so.

Well, yeah, but we could use this as a model contract for any such "debates".



Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
My stipulation to Balsamo was that all debate negotiations, and the debate itself, be in writing on the internet, for all to see. Simple. He doesn't seem to be aware that I have a huge volume of evidence on my side.


Understood, but I think it's clear that he will never agree to such a thing. I'm trying to think of ways we can have a debate that won't allow them to misrepresent your positions or arguments, or allow them to exploit your work for their sole profit (since that's what PfT is all about, anyways).

We could also stipulate that the recording be done by a neutral third party, so we could get complete copies of all footage as well, and publish it ourselves.

Just some ideas, is all.....
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 12:03 PM   #20
pagan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 399
When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event. There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.
But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.

As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.
pagan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 12:58 PM   #21
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
 
juryjone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by pagan View Post
When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event. There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.
But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.

As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.
Thank you for showing so clearly the level of debate of which twoofers are capable.

Could you please give us the noun that the word "most" is modifying in the sentence "But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77"? I'm sure your intention was not to say that "But most [people] tend to believe it wasn't AA77." Because that would be wrong.
__________________
"Humanity is slipping into the void of ignorance while you cheer and wave." - Tirdun, in reference to geggy and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists
juryjone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 01:10 PM   #22
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by pagan View Post
As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.
All this time I've been pretending to be a liberal who can't stand Bush, but pagan has found me out. I confess. I attacked the Pentagon.


__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 01:22 PM   #23
Augustine
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by pagan View Post
When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event. There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.
But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.
What exactly about the Pentagon "event" was "very enigmatic"?
Augustine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 01:36 PM   #24
scooby
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 700
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
I'll print my reply first:
I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

scooby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 01:39 PM   #25
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
felonius Rob

Balsamo would never agree to a hardfire debate. would he? of course not, he cannot defend his own work. How many have peer reviewed his work? answer "0". Is he afraid to be seen in public because of a risk of arrest as a felon?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 01:39 PM   #26
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by scooby View Post
I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

I am I the only one who doesn't know what that means?

Intellectual cowards are a dime a dozen, scooby. Care to take up my Pentagon challenge?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 01:42 PM   #27
Augustine
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by scooby View Post
I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

I imagine that you are completely unaware of the irony of that statement coming from you.
Augustine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 01:42 PM   #28
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by scooby subaru where are you View Post
I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

The argument has already been won. Rob will not release his data. he wont even debate it for all to see. He just wants audio that he can edit to his liking. he has been defeated.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 03:29 PM   #29
TheGrunion
Critical Thinker
 
TheGrunion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by Anti-sophist View Post
Just to reiterate. He wants material for upcoming videos, he wants reasons to get his name "in lights" around the conspirosphere. It's propaganda to help him and his status in the conspiracy community.

He's very hurt that he's been relegated to the fringes of his own fringe community. He's desperate for credibility.
QFT.

JDX thought he was going to make money off of his lies. His latest antics reek of desperation. I suspect that he'll fade away soon enough if we just ignore him.
TheGrunion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 05:23 PM   #30
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,592
Originally Posted by pagan View Post
When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event.
Setting aside your incorrect grammar, please explain what is even mildly, much less very, "enigmatic" about the Pentagon hit.

Quote:
There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.
Opinions are not evidence.

By the way, ever wonder why the "truth movement" has yet to provide a single and comprehensive alternate explanation for the events of 9/11?

Quote:
But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.
One can "believe" in something all one wants. Absent of evidence however, one shouldn't expect others to share in the belief.

Quote:
As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.
Really, it's never too late to grow up.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 05:26 PM   #31
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,592
Originally Posted by scooby View Post
I suppose if you can't win an argument elsewhere, you can always go home and "he-said she-said" it to death on mothers knee.
There there. Sshhh.

No evidence for an inside job? Really? None?

You'd think that would cause a person to pause and contemplate for a moment or two.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 06:26 PM   #32
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by ref View Post
That's so childish of him it's unimaginable. He does nothing but namecalling. He is only willing to debate some technical FDR data and his own movie. What about all the evidence, Rob? Why not debate the damage, passengers, DNA, debris, eyewitnesses? No, Rob wants to debate only about some stuff only he claims to have understood, but doesn't. Argh.

ETA: And what's the deal with him and the recorded phone calls? He wants to do them with everyone.
My assumption based on my limited exposure to his silliness is that he plans to have them computer doctored and possibly try to convert so Mark appears to be saying something that Rubbub could use for a false libel suit - but I'm probably thinking something above his technical prowess by several factors of 10 (again, besed on viewed postings of his).
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 06:39 PM   #33
Calcas
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,466
Originally Posted by Anti-sophist View Post
Science isn't discussed in "live recorded debates". When he wants a proper debate, he will publish his findings like the rest of the science community. I'll even forego the requirement that it be peer-reviewed.

If he is unwilling to publish his findings and all the necessary data to check his claims, his work is unscientific. We don't "trust" in Science. Especially not known liars with well established mental problems.

Furthermore, a live conversation would consist, entirely of me saying "No, you cannot claim that. Not within the justifiable precision of the measurement". Over and over. Maybe he'll mix in some off-topic references to NASA documents.

In the mean time, the only people that will listen will be truthers... and the only reason JDX is interested in such a high-profile event is to reclaim some of his status among the truthers where him and his no-planer friends have been relegated to the fringe of their own movement.


You still said it best...
Calcas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 07:59 PM   #34
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
I posted my suggestion to jdx on his forum and he replied.

He chafed at the idea of a paper on the subject.
I further responded(hope no one here minds me keeping a record of what was said )




Originally Posted by johndoeX,Mar 19 2007, 10:55 PM
Im not familiar with any scientific 'journals' that publish aviation facts. Most scientific journals post theory and undergo peer review.
Actually many magazines including science and technology ones, do run articles on both the triumphs and pratfalls in the tech feild. Scientific American ran an article slamming the gov't on their so-called 'successful' tests of anti-ballistic missile systems in which although the test missile did not even come close to hitting or intercepting the incoming missile they simply rewrote the test objectives after the fact.

There are many other magazines, DISCOVER, and TECHNOLOGY REVIEW come to mind. Their essays often are not what the present administration would charcaterize as friendly. If you can come up with a well written paper pointing out, without emotion or vitriol, that the FDR data from Flight 77 does not indicate that the aircraft could have hit the lamp poles or the Pentagon you will get more people working on this, you will have disseminated your work to a wider audience.

That is what you want, I am correct in that am I not?

Originally Posted by johndoeX,Mar 19 2007, 10:55 PM
We have approached a few organizations for comment such as ALPA, they have evaded the issue. Next we record them (they were nervous we were recording them the last time).
If you had a paper explaining in detail that the FDR data does not illustrate an aircraft that could hit the lamp posts or the Pentagon you could simply send that paper to as many organizations as you care to and ask for comment. In this way they can study your work carefully and develop a proper response.

Originally Posted by johndoeX,Mar 19 2007, 10:55 PM
Our presentation is based on information provided by the govt...

We are trying to get answers for that information.
,, and I am attempting to illustrate another tact by which you can do this.

Originally Posted by johndoeX,Mar 19 2007, 10:55 PM
It seems you are not concerned with getting answers for the very same information which conflicts with the govt story. A govt who is filled with proven liars, felons, and corruption.

You feel its better to make excuses and fight those looking for answers.
A gov't is a 'what' not a 'who'
I am quite comfortable with anyone seeking to find out why the FDR data does not corresspond with an aircraft that could have hit the lamp posts or the Pentagon.
However, if you begin any corresspondence to any organization with the sentiment that any gov't organization or official is felonious, untruthfull and corrupt I don't think you will get much in the way of well thought out response.

In this thread I have not said anything whatsoever to contradict your findings. I have not attempted to draw you into a debate. I have simply and solely attempted to suggest another tact by which you can get your word out.

Originally Posted by johndoeX,Mar 19 2007, 10:55 PM
JAStewart.. why dont you use your more well known name to post here?
I am not that person.
Since it is so important to you, I was beebop at the new LC. (I was banned at the LC for daring to continue illustrating the idiocy in the crap that spews from Klowntown's head - something it seems we are in some agreement about) I was never a member of the old LC. I am jaydeehess on BAUT and on JREF

It is by odd coincidence that my initials, JDS (hence the jaydeehess) are somewhat similar to your moniker, JDX, since until I started posting at the new LC I had never even heard of this forum or you.

Originally Posted by johndoeX,Mar 19 2007, 10:55 PM
All our work is shown for peer review. Many of my peers have reviewed it.
I assume by peers you are refering to other members of the "Pilots for 911 Truth"
jdx that is refered to as preaching to the choir. I had assumed that you wished to disseminate your work here to a wider audience. Was I incorrect in that?

It seems you are keeping something to yourselves as illustrated in this exchange in this very thread:
Quote:
JDX: "Word Frames"
My reply - Can i tell him about this one yet UT? I'll let you take care of this one. Bottom line - Anti-Sophist no longer has even his '2 seconds of error'.


UNDERTOW: Rob, you asked me something early and I suggest No.

And, for this latest round of "show me all your raw material, work, data, etc".

BITE ME

Everyone and thier grandma has access to the same data I have.
I am not satisfied with the 'findings' or 'validity' of the NTSB provided data.

If you are, and can't find any sources of 'error' on your own. Then scamper off.



What is it that undertow suggests jdx not "tell him"?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 19th March 2007 at 08:13 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 08:07 PM   #35
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by JDX @ Wanna-Be Pilots For Wanna-Be Truth
Im not familiar with any scientific 'journals' that publish aviation facts. Most scientific journals post theory and undergo peer review.
Wow.

He couldn't possibly be more wrong. There's the AIAA for one. IEEE holds an Aerospace conference every year, and publishes its proceedings; if that's not scholarly enough for you, some of those papers go into IEEE Spectrum or other publications.

Heck, I'd even settle for Aviation Leak.

Whoever this guy is, he sure isn't a big wheel in piloting circles.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 08:51 PM   #36
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,078
Originally Posted by pagan View Post
When it comes to the very enigmatic Pentagon event. There are a lot of different opinions in the truth movement. Boeing, Plane, no-plane, or missile.
But most tend to believe it wasn't AA77. I keep an open mind.

As far ar I'm concerned. It might have been a missile in the form of Gravy in a batman suit. I don't think he would complain. As he constantly proves by sucking up to the Gov't and all sorts of authorities.
I was going to say you left you mind open and the part that was responsible for rational thinking left for greener pastures. That is impossible, but now I am not sure.

I was going to say truthers would have to have brain rot and severe mental retardation to not know flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The evidence and proof, including the FDR recovered at the Pentagon prove what happen on 9/11. It is very hard to figure out how dumb you have to be to have missed the facts on 9/11. But who will ever know why people fall for fraud?

What are the reasons the truth movement are not convince? Are they all challenged on doing research and to easy in believing lies so called experts?. If you find yourself incapable of finding facts on 9/11 then you may suffer from a rare form of terminal stupidity. The only cure is tons of education.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 09:24 PM   #37
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
jdx has replied to my second post in that thread.
As expected:
Quote:
Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.

The error returned was:

Sorry, you are not permitted to use this board
It appears I am banned.

,,, and I never even questioned his findings about the FDR. All I did was suggest a new tact for getting his message out.

Freedom of speech, Rob Balsamo style. Quench even the hint of dissent.
Not sure why he thought I was JAStewart.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 19th March 2007 at 09:33 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2007, 09:32 PM   #38
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
jdx has replied to my second post in that thread.
As expected:


It appears I am banned.

,,, and I never even questioned his findings about the FDR. All I did was suggest a new tact for getting his message out.
[gomer]
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
[/pyle]
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2007, 05:26 AM   #39
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Originally Posted by Pilots for 911 Truth
And, for this latest round of "show me all your raw material, work, data, etc".

BITE ME


Rofl.

In fact, I remember the first time I read Einstein's "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" when he was all like "Let it be known that E=MC^2. If you want to see how I got there, BITE ME".

This is what psuedoscience looks like. Findings are given in press conferences... science is hidden in the background.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2007, 06:04 AM   #40
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Here's the next exchange:

Quote:
On 3/19/07, Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> wrote: Mark,

Debates start with a claim for each side. Do you not know this?

It is up to each team to prove their claim.

We have made our claim, you and the govt have made yours.

We can prove ours, we look forward to you and the govt proving yours.

Wherever and whenever you want to hold this 'debate', let me know and i will start to assemble our team of professionals, family members and victims.

Bring NTSB and FBI members as those are the people who we are currently dealing with mostly. Also bring Lt Col O'Brien of the ANG along with John Anthony of the FAA.

Can you prove your claim or not? Yes, we accept your challenge. It is noted you have side stepped ours and declined by default.

Rob

Me:

Quote:
I was going to reply on your forum, but although registered, I am unable to post there. I wonder why.

Actually, debates start with an agreement to the debate terms.

Wherever? On the Internet. For all the world to see. The JREF will suit me fine. They won't delete the thread.

Whenever? Starting today. I'm ready to go.

The debate: my evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon against yours that it didn't.

Last chance (for the umpteenth time, that is: don't say I haven't given you the chance, even after you've twice publicly called for me to be killed).

Give me a one word answer. No excuses, no b.s. about assembling teams and synchronizing Verizon accounts.

ETA: Since I can't post on your forum, Rob, and you read this one, I thought I'd mention this. In Terrorcell's hilariously inept flight 93 thread at P4T, you posted some photos of the US Air flight 427 crash, to show that it left a lot of debris compared to flight 93. However, according to flight 427's FDR, it was traveling at 261.7 knots when it hit the ground. Flight 93, as I'm sure you know, struck the ground at over 500 knots.

Failing to make that distinction is bad form, old sport. Don't you agree?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

Last edited by Gravy; 20th March 2007 at 06:32 AM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.