Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Newcomer
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > General > Welcome All! > Newcomer Forum
Tashi
Hello to all. I've been extremely interested in 911 truth for a couple of years now, and just recently came across Pilots for truth. Fantastic site! I'm a guitar maker (my dad flew B-47's) and post on Googles groups RMCG. I think it's important to not just preach to the choir, so in the course of guitar related topics I throw the occasional 911 thing in there. I was crucified the first time I posted an off topic 911 thread, character assassination mostly. Now I'm accepted in doing this, there seem to be more politics discussed than guitars. Just a couple of weeks ago I reached an all time record for number of posts in a thread debating 911 truth, 394 posts!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.c...l.guitar/topics

I know some of you probably saw the ridiculous History channel special on debunking 911 truth. I was shocked to see they used as an example of blogs the Google Group Alt guitar! I almost jumped out of my seat. Anyhow I look forward to being a member of this prestigiuos group! Thanks for all the hard work you do here!

Michael Thames
Santa Fe, NM
rob balsamo
Thanks for the kind words Tashi. Welcome to the forum. Let us know if there is anything we can do for you.

Be sure to check out History Channel Hit Piece Consulted "Experts"? where i wrote an article regarding the History Channel hit piece. Scroll down a bit on page.

Regards,
Rob
grizz
Welcome Michael. I'm Class of '67, Santa Fe High School, but I have not lived there since. Beautiful city different!

Looks like you have had more success on your social forum than I did. I've been banned from two Rush (the band) forums for telling the truth lol.
georgie101
Welcome to the forum Tashi welcome.gif
Sanders
Welcome welcome.gif
Tashi
QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Jun 23 2008, 03:12 AM) *
Welcome Michael. I'm Class of '67, Santa Fe High School, but I have not lived there since. Beautiful city different!

Looks like you have had more success on your social forum than I did. I've been banned from two Rush (the band) forums for telling the truth lol.


Thanks Oceams! You go back a little more than I do. I graduated in 74 from Highland High in Albuq. and have been out here off and on since then. I built an off the grid adobe house in Taos we still have it, but we moved down to Santa Fe a couple of years ago.

The nice thing about Google groups is it is unmoderated. You can say anything and not get kicked off. However it's self correcting, people after a while will not respond to you if your too over the top. The only forum I've been expelled from is an early music lute group, for calling an esteemed musicologist on his fabrications.

BTW, I saw Rob Balsamo's excellent movie on flight 77. One question I have is... at the time of the last read out from the FDR how high was the plane, and how far from the pentagon was it?

Michael
Tashi
QUOTE (Sanders @ Jun 23 2008, 07:56 AM) *
Welcome welcome.gif


Thanks Gerogie and Sanders!

MT
Tashi
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 22 2008, 07:00 PM) *
Thanks for the kind words Tashi. Welcome to the forum. Let us know if there is anything we can do for you.

Be sure to check out History Channel Hit Piece Consulted "Experts"? where i wrote an article regarding the History Channel hit piece. Scroll down a bit on page.

Regards,
Rob


Thanks Rob!

MT
Tashi
QUOTE (georgie101 @ Jun 23 2008, 04:17 AM) *
Welcome to the forum Tashi welcome.gif



I'm being eaten alive on the Google forum
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.c...l.guitar/topics

I don't know if it's appropriate to ask for back up?

MT
Tashi
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 22 2008, 07:00 PM) *
Thanks for the kind words Tashi. Welcome to the forum. Let us know if there is anything we can do for you.

Be sure to check out History Channel Hit Piece Consulted "Experts"? where i wrote an article regarding the History Channel hit piece. Scroll down a bit on page.

Regards,
Rob


Rob,
Is this you? I doubt it is . but your character is being slamed by a some one the other chatline.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8445.htm

Please let me know .

MT
rob balsamo
Thats not me Tashi... this is me...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots#Balsamo

Tell the people who are "slamming" the other "Rob Balsamo" they need to do better research and perhaps realize there is more than one "Rob Balsamo" in this world.. (i know of one who lived two towns over from me in NY.. not related too... imagine that..)

although, i was thinking about getting my Series 7 for trading years ago, almost worked for RBC Dain smile.gif


I also read through the exchanges briefly on the google groups link.... send them this link...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/article_corrections.html

They really need to get better at research. Very poor. Tell them they need to read our site, our mission statement atop our home page and press releases found in the left margin before they look more like fools. If they would like to see the most common arguments addressed regarding our work, visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163 so they dont waste more of your time with their piss poor research skills. Feel free to quote me.
Cary
QUOTE (Tashi @ Jun 22 2008, 07:25 AM) *
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 22 2008, 07:00 PM) *
Thanks for the kind words Tashi. Welcome to the forum. Let us know if there is anything we can do for you.

Be sure to check out History Channel Hit Piece Consulted "Experts"? where i wrote an article regarding the History Channel hit piece. Scroll down a bit on page.

Regards,
Rob


Rob,
Is this you? I doubt it is . but your character is being slamed by a some one the other chatline.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8445.htm

Please let me know .

MT



Welcome to the forum Michael. Whoever is slamming "this" Rob Balsamo over "that" Rob Balsamo is making a big mistake. "That' Rob Balsamo was a stock broker and was 37 eight years ago. That would make him 45 now. This Rob Balsamo wasn't a stock broker EVER as far as I know. He's been a licensed commercial pilot and is in his late 30's now. This Rob Balsamo is from the New York area, but I know it's not Brooklyn. Also, that Balsamo got 30 months of jail time. This Balsamo wouldn't have been able to maintain a commercial pilot's license and fly for a commercial airline with a felony and jail time.
Tashi
Thanks Rob I posted your reply over there.

I have a favor to ask can you guys help me put togther a response to Clingers post which I've provide below? Being I'm just a humble guitar maker with little knowladge of cell phone communications in airplanes perhaps someone can point me in the right direct?

Michael said.....
OK Clinger you've now succeeded in convincing me I'm delusional. But
in the fact department your zero for three. Lets hear some facts!
You stated Mr Griffin is wrong please explain his mistakes......


Clinger said.....
I can clear it up for most readers of this newsgroup.
For you, no.
The FBI has *never* denied that Ted Olson received a call
from Barbara Olson while she was aboard Flight 77. That
is a conclusion that Griffin and Balsamo reached with
the help of several leaps of illogic, about which I will
say more below.
The fact that Griffin and Balsamo are attempting to give
the impression that the FBI has denied these calls is one
of their misleading distortions. You fell for it.
As for Ted Olson's interview with Larry King, he didn't
appear to have a clue what kind of phone his wife had
used to call him. That's perfectly understandable, but
Olson dug himself into a hole by pretending to knowledge
he didn't have, in an apparent attempt to come up with a
story that would be consistent with the unverified things
that callers were saying to him. I think that's to be
expected also, considering Olson's occupation, clients,
and the kinds of arguments he has made before the
Supreme Court. The bottom line, however, is that Olson
didn't really know what kind of phone was used.
Before we consider Griffin and Balsamo's misrepresentations
of what the FBI has said about those calls, I want to look
at the central technical claim of their article, which is:
Cell phone calls from an airliner were, as DRG
has argued extensively elsewhere, generally
possible only if it was flying slowly and low,
but Barbara Olson's first call, according to the
9/11 Commission, occurred "[a]t some point between
9:16 and 9:26," when the plane was flying too fast
and too high for cell phone calls to have been
possible.
Note that the source for this technical claim is David
Ray Griffin himself. Griffin is a retired theologian,
with no more technical expertise than RMCG's very own
Jackson or Dicerous. As we shall see later, he seems
to have arrived at his conclusion by misinterpreting
and/or misrepresenting various press releases and
airline's warnings against using cell phones in flight.
Yet he repeats his own bogus claim as though it were
fact. His credulous fellow travelers have repeated
the claim so often that a Google search would give the
impression it *is* an accepted fact.
To anyone with a basic understanding of physics or
familiarity with avionics, however, Griffin's claim
should be a real head-scratcher. Airplanes routinely
use radio to communicate with ground stations, and
those communications are unhindered by speed or altitude.
Altitude, in fact, usually improves the range of radio
communications. That's why the cell phone companies
try to put their towers on high ground, and that's why
they use towers in the first place.
The antennas on cell towers are directional, and are
not designed to transmit upwards, but they do so
anyway. Each directional antenna of a cell tower has
to cover a fairly broad horizontal sweep, typically
90 to 120 degrees. Even if these antennas are more
directional in the vertical than in the horizontal,
as they may well be, there is unlikely to be much
attenuation at 30 degrees to the vertical, which means
the directionality of the cell tower's antenna makes
little if any difference to an airliner ten miles away
and flying at 25,000 feet. That is well within the
range of rural cell towers, which can cover a radius
of 30 to 50 miles. (To reduce interference, suburban
and urban cell towers are designed to have more limited
ranges.)
That 30-to-50-mile range is at ground level, where
obstructions and interference are common. The range
to an airborne cell phone would be greater.
In light of those facts, consider Griffin and Balsamo's
claim that cell phone communications would have been
impossible under these conditions:
According to the Flight Data Recorder information
released by the National Transportation Safety Board,
the plane at 9:16 would have been over 25,000 feet,
which is far too high (as well as too fast: 281 knots
[324 mph]), while at 9:26 the plane would have been
flying at 324 knots (370 mph), which is much too fast
(as well as still too high: almost 14,000 feet).
Nonsense. At 360 mph, it would take ten minutes to
pass through the 60-mile diameter covered by a rural
cell tower.
Handoffs between cell towers would be somewhat less
reliable at speed, but it would be possible to complete
calls of several minutes before a handoff would become
necessary. Not particularly reliable, but possible.
Cell phone communications are degraded when you're
inside an aluminum tube, but that doesn't stop airline
passengers from using their cell phones when the plane
is standing still on the ground. Reliability would
improve once the plane gets off the ground and away
from ground clutter.
On the other hand, cell phone communications are often
unreliable, especially in rural areas. Microwave radiation
is absorbed by moisture (that's how microwave ovens heat
food), so clouds and humidity interfere with airborne
cell phones. On the morning of 11 September 2001, the
skies were clear and dry.
A Google search will turn up some experiments in which
Griffin and Balsamo's fellow travellers report that
their cell phones didn't work aboard airliners at
altitude. These sites tend to report results for
just one flight, and do not report whether clouds
were visible. The fact that a cell phone didn't work
on one particular flight does not prove that cell phones
could not have worked on others.
Indeed, the article referenced by Griffin and Balsamo's
footnote 25, which they cited only to bolster their
contention that Flight 77 had no seatback phones, says
this:
Even before Thursday it was widely known that cell
phones will sometimes work on jetliners. Some travelers
use them surreptitiously. On Sept. 11, 2001, several
passengers aboard hijacked airliners called loved ones.
However, the FAA and the airlines ban them because
they fear that the signals could interfere with
navigational equipment. The FCC bans their use from
planes because the signals reach many cell-phone towers
and have been shown to disrupt cellular networks.
Why do Griffin and Balsamo trust this article on the
relatively unimportant detail they care about, while
ignoring the much more relevant content of those two
paragraphs above? The obvious answer is that Griffin
and Balsamo are misrepresenting the articles they cite.
By the way, the article referenced by footnote 25 isn't
much more than a press release, but the same can be said
for nearly all of the very few technical sources that
Griffin and Balsamo cite. See for example footnotes
14, 17, and 39.
The bottom line is that there is no "extremely strong
evidence that her reported calls could not have been
made on a cell phone, given the cell phone technology
in 2001." Griffin basically just made that up, citing
airline's warnings against using cell phones in flight
as though they were technical statements about the
feasibility of using cell phones in flight. Having
made it up, he is now citing himself as the authority
for that nonsense.
Once you understand that high-altitude cell phone calls
were possible (though not reliable), all of Griffin and
Balsamo's arguments about whether seatback phones were
installed on Flight 77 become irrelevant, and their whole
article basically falls apart.
I promised an analysis of the article's illogic. It
contains too much illogic for me to bother with all
of it, but I will address the illogic from which Michael
Thames erroneously concluded that "the FBI has now stated
[Olson] never received a call from [his wife] while she
was onboard."
I think Michael got that from Griffin and Balsamo's
false and/or misleading statement that "the US government
has now said, implicitly, that Ted Olson's claim about
receiving two calls from his wife that morning is untrue."
Note the word "implicitly". That means the government
didn't actually say what Griffin and Balsamo want you
to think it said. What the FBI did say is that there
were four "connected calls to unknown numbers".
According to the 9/11 Commission, "the FBI and DOJ
believe that all four represent communications between
Barbara Olson and her husband's office." Note that
this is at best a second-hand statement of belief.
For the Moussaoui trial, the FBI remained cautious,
saying the callers were unknown. From this caution
Griffin and Balsamo conclude that "unless its former
solicitor general was the victim of two faked phone
calls, he was lying."
That is a spectacular leap of illogic. It is certainly
a misleading distortion, and I really cannot find fault
with those who would characterize Griffin and Balsamo's
allegation as an outright lie.
I could go through the article and spotlight its illogic
line-by-line. Is that really necessary?
Will
[1] David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo. Could Barbara
Olson Have Made Those Calls?. Online at
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html
rob balsamo
from a delta flight attendant...

QUOTE
I have never seen a cell phone work in flight, although I have seen countless passengers try to find a signal in flight, to no avail. I even tried one myself when I was desperate to get a hold of my mother during an in-flight emergency I wasn't sure I was going to survive. No luck.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10695795


i echo her sentiments... as do many others who are aviation professionals as seen in the thread. Also, be sure to check out the other linked topics in that thread for more technical explanations and diagrams.

The only one being misleading is Clinger (he also has to learn the difference between Indicated, True airspeed and groundspeed.)
thedayofshame.com
HI. I did this site.

www.thedayofshame.com

I'm from Italy


ciao
Tashi
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 24 2008, 03:25 PM) *
from a delta flight attendant...

QUOTE
I have never seen a cell phone work in flight, although I have seen countless passengers try to find a signal in flight, to no avail. I even tried one myself when I was desperate to get a hold of my mother during an in-flight emergency I wasn't sure I was going to survive. No luck.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10695795


i echo her sentiments... as do many others who are aviation professionals as seen in the thread. Also, be sure to check out the other linked topics in that thread for more technical explanations and diagrams.

The only one being misleading is Clinger (he also has to learn the difference between Indicated, True airspeed and groundspeed.)



Rob and everyone thanks for your help I think I was on the computer for 8 hours yesterday doing battle. Im going to take the day off today.

Michael
Tashi
QUOTE (thedayofshame.com @ Jun 25 2008, 02:56 AM) *
HI. I did this site.

www.thedayofshame.com

I'm from Italy


ciao


Looks like a great site. I look forward to sitting down and taking a good look at it. BTW, I'm Italian too! My wife just got her citizenship and in 6 months I get mine though marriage. We have been considering moving to Italy at some point.

Michael
rob balsamo
QUOTE (Tashi @ Jun 25 2008, 01:06 PM) *
Rob and everyone thanks for your help I think I was on the computer for 8 hours yesterday doing battle. Im going to take the day off today.

Michael



You're welcome Michael. Yes, some of these people may actually be paid by the Pentagon as "Bloggers" in order to sow confusion, set up strawmans and switch topics in order to discredit the original topic. Case in point, Clinger switching to the cell phone topic due to the fact he is unable to address the Flight Data Recorder/Press Release in the original post. It appears there are about 2-4 "Govt loyalists" on that thread who have an agenda.

Matt P seems to "get it" though and those with a brain reading through the thread can see the strawmans being set up by the govt loyalists. Try to get them back on topic regarding the Flight Data Recorder. I may even join in when i find some free time. wink.gif

Or, better yet, invite them here.... (i dont suppose Clinger will bring his accusations here though as he will be readily exposed)

This may help you to get back on topic and answer Schulmans question at the same time...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....t&p=9458664

Also, when you quote me, please quote me in full. Feel free to quote this post as well. smile.gif

Regards
Rob
rob balsamo
Tashi... i saw you wrote this on the other forum when a govt loyalist said - "And sending donations to conspiracy websites doesn't count"

QUOTE
Glad you brought that up! I consider Rob Balsamo a true American
hero in the highest sense of the word. After 911 he was ready to quit
his job and enlist. They told him he would better serve to remain a
domestic pilot and get the airlines back up and flying. BTW, John when
911 happened did you re-enlist? Rob then started to question what
really happened on 911. He through much hard work obtained the FDR
under FOIA. He and his peers under anon names began analyzing the
data. Once they found huge inconsistencies with the govt report they
all came out together and announced their finding to the world, safety
in numbers. Rob said he used his own name only after forming a
coalition of professionals to sign off on the findings. Rob said in an
interview he was concerned about loosing his job and worse, but was
willing to put his life on the line to expose the bogus govt loyalist
story.



For someone i just met and for someone who served, i'd like to say thank you for following our work, having a thorough understanding of our progress, and thank you for your support. That was quite a statement. Just one clarification, Undertow and Calum Douglas were the first to obtain the FDR data through the FOIA. Although they are both part of our organization, i just wanted to make that clear. I later received my own. Thanks again my friend. You're a trooper.

Regards,
Rob
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.