Rob Balsamo Proposes a Debate

[pomeroo]

I received a call from Rob Balsamo, who was apparently stung by my remark on the SLC blog that some JREFers believe he is ducking debates. He proposes a debate on the subject of the Pentagon, his contention being that flight recorder data does not support an impact. Naturally, I offered 'Hardfire' as a venue, but he seems reluctant, for whatever reason. He asked me to assemble a team. I suggested Mark Roberts (of course), Beachnut, Apathoid, AMTMAN, and Anti-Sophist. Balsamo thinks we can hammer out an agreement over the next 2-3 months. Would the previously-mentioned individuals offer their thoughts on this project, please?

[Wartrac]

http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[Anti-sophist]

My primary thought is that Rob is unqualified to have that debate. Does he plan on having someone there that is?

[Comsat Angel]

"Balsamo thinks we can hammer out an agreement over the next 2-3 months."

It takes him that long to type out "yes"? Why, he couldn't be thinking up crafty semantic dodges, could he?

I would be happy to see him face the metaphorical hammer if Gravy et al turn up!

Keep us updated on how this turns out. I get the feeling that there may be a long, long negotiating process with JDX that somehow falls at the last hurdle "due to PFT undergoing unforeseen circumstances"

[rwguinn]

"Balsamo thinks we can hammer out an agreement over the next 2-3 months."

It takes him that long to type out "yes"? Why, he couldn't be thinking up crafty semantic dodges, could he?

I would be happy to see him face the metaphorical hammer if Gravy et al turn up!

Keep us updated on how this turns out. I get the feeling that there may be a long, long negotiating process with JDX that somehow falls at the last hurdle "due to PFT undergoing unforeseen circumstances"

What you said.
2-3 MONTHS?
Days, maybe. Weeks, a little excessive. Months is just insane...




Oh. Cap'n B. we're dealing with.
"Nevermind"

[Gravy]

Long ago, Balsamo repeatedly accepted my challenge to debate whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then declined and said he wanted to break my jaw, then said publicly for the second time that I should be executed as a traitor.

Assemble a team? He won't even debate me. Take 2-3 months to hammer out? That's a joke, right?

I think Balsamo has amply demonstrated that he's a coward and a fraud with no credibility who is filled with violent fantasies. He's now buddies with Lyte Trip. The guy is unwell. Why give him the attention that he and his sinking rowboat of nuts crave?

If you doubt what I'm saying, then tell him what the next Hardfire show date is and ask him if he'll commit, now, to do it with me. He lives in the NYC area, by the way.

[chran]

Never going to happen.

(do I win a million dollars, now?)

[SpitfireIX]

Never going to happen.


:pigsfly :pigsfly :pigsfly


(do I win a million dollars, now?)


:pigsfly :pigsfly :pigsfly

:p

[Anti-sophist]

Why give him the attention that he and his sinking rowboat of nuts crave?


Let me go ahead and say my part here, on more serious note then before.


Let me start with my lesser concern: How exactly do you have a live debate about FDR data? You gonna stop the taping every 2 minutes so I can spend 10 minutes looking up numbers and checking the math? You gonna give me time to make graphs of trends or plot scatter plots or whatever to debunk his points?

This is, after all, a giant collection of numbers we are talking about. Without graphical aids, what exactly do you expect to happen?

Rob: The final heading is 61.2 degrees, that won't hit the light poles
Me: Yes it will. Plot it.
Rob: I have. It won't.
Me: You ****ed up. Plot it again.

My most serious concern is that Rob has been saying the -same- things for over a year now. He doesn't understand the data, even the "new" data he's received. He still repeats things that his own people don't agree with. He still repeats the same tired lies and the same tired fallacies. He's not even trying anymore.

He pops up every few months trying to get a "proper" debate. Nevermind the fact that a live debate about FDR data is entirely improper. My suspicion is he is an utter attention whore trying to cash in like Dylan Avery etc. Loose change's website doesn't have a giant 'DONATE' (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/) button showing the credit-cards they accept on the front page. Does loose change sell tote bags (http://www.cafepress.com/911pilots.83522317)? I'm not even sure.

He's message hasn't changed but he's become very good at making noise. I am utterly convinced this is about $$$ with Rob, and nothing more.

I am ethically opposed to helping this charlatan make money. I am more then happy to discuss the merits of his "research" to the ends of the earth and likely to the great detriment of my free-time. However, his "research" hasn't moved an inch. He's just making noise now. I have major ethical problems with going in there just to repeat myself and others just so he can post this crap all over 911blogger and try to sell some coffee mugs (http://www.cafepress.com/911pilots.82734224).

Rob has refused a "proper" debate with me for months. Publish your results in a white-paper to be studied properly. He considers this form of debate to beneath him and worthless. This is despite the fact that the scientific community has used it for thousands of years. We all know that all the ground-breaking physics discoveries are "published" in youtube videos with creepy music, right? (this next section stolen from somewhere i don't remember) We all remember the time that Einstein thrashed those Newtonian-physicists in that live debate to finally win over the scientific community. Right?

[~enigma~]

In either case IF and that is a HUGE if...Rob actually shows up have some type of security on hand because that fruitcake WILL be a belligerant piece of dirt and will cause problems. Physically i am sure any of you can restrain Rob but why invite him? Are you looking for trouble?

[~enigma~]

He's message hasn't changed but he's become very good at making noise. I am utterly convinced this is about $$$ with Rob, and nothing more.

Russell pickering posted over at LCF before Rob got himself banned as I changed the name of Pilots For 9/11 Truth to Guides Who Lie™. You are exactly right abut Rob's motivation and he did ask Russell how to make money from 9/11. He is a dishonest, money hungry rule 10.

[DGM]

I think a formal debate like the one between Doc (?) and Pdoh a few months ago would work better for this type of subject. Too many facts and figures to grasp to make sense to the average watcher.

Just my $.02

[NickUK]

If it does go ahead, make sure there's a decontamination chamber ready after it Ron. That much stupid won't wash off with soap alone.

[Civilized Worm]

Here's how I envisage Rob's Hardfire appearance:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1644546f19b02321a5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8426)

[Hyperviolet]

Long ago, Balsamo repeatedly accepted my challenge to debate whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then declined and said he wanted to break my jaw, then said publicly for the second time that I should be executed as a traitor.

Assemble a team? He won't even debate me. Take 2-3 months to hammer out? That's a joke, right?

I think Balsamo has amply demonstrated that he's a coward and a fraud with no credibility who is filled with violent fantasies. He's now buddies with Lyte Trip. The guy is unwell. Why give him the attention that he and his sinking rowboat of nuts crave?

If you doubt what I'm saying, then tell him what the next Hardfire show date is and ask him if he'll commit, now, to do it with me. He lives in the NYC area, by the way.

Gravy, if i were you, i'd seriously consider skipping a face to face debate with such a lunatic.
.....Unless you plan on bringing a taser.

[Spins]

Long ago, Balsamo repeatedly accepted my challenge to debate whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then declined and said he wanted to break my jaw, then said publicly for the second time that I should be executed as a traitor.


Yeah exactly, Rob Balsamo on Hardfire would probably end up like this...

30JxUjiDTCs

[Gravy]

Gravy, if i were you, i'd seriously consider skipping a face to face debate with such a lunatic.
.....Unless you plan on bringing a taser.This raises two issues. One is that Balsamo uses the violent psycho routine when he's cornered, to try to discourage debate. The last time he did that I ignored it and continued to press him to debate. He ran away. He's pure coward.

The other issue is the questionable wisdom of sharing a stage with people who are mentally unwell. I did that with Fetzer because he had been influential, but it wasn't a happy experience. I don't take any pleasure in beating up on people who aren't mentally competent. For the same reason, I recently turned down Kevin Barrett and Ace Baker's invitations to debate. These people want to sell DVDs and they want attention for their imaginary "movement," which they cannot get through honest means.

So, part of me relishes the idea of publicly embarrassing a fraud like Balsamo, but the other part says that my decision to no longer deal with no-planers is the right approach, and long overdue.

[pomeroo]

I have had several phone conversations with Rob Balsamo and can report that he's been quite pleasant. He stresses that he apologized to Mark for an admittedly intemperate remark fueled by booze and testosterone and wonders why we can't move on. He wants Anti-sophist to know that he "gives him the 61.2 degrees." He claims that Anti-sophist knows about the "new" information, but has refused to address it.

To me, this has the makings of a real debate. Balsamo complains about the ad hominem attacks on this forum. I assured him that the 'Hardfire' shows have been models of decorum (hey, I'm biased). He contends that the flight recorder data do not support an impact and claims to have "people in uniform" who will back him up. Can we assemble a qualified team? Failing that, would anyone care to engage Balsamo in a disputation?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Conspiracy Theory: This whole planned "debate" is just a scam by Balsamo to get his opponents personal information.

Evidence: Balsamo was pushing real hard to get peoples info just a couple days ago on SLC (http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=%20screwloosechange%20&comment=2804369033405755703).

Discuss.

[Civilized Worm]

I have had several phone conversations with Rob Balsamo and can report that he's been quite pleasant. He stresses that he apologized to Mark for an admittedly intemperate remark fueled by booze and testosterone and wonders why we can't move on.


Maybe because he keeps on doing it?

[scissorhands]

Do you have any chair restraints?
The man is clearly not very well, potentially violent and I cant see how much more could be achieved by this format compared to a moderated internet debate.
Apart from the risk factor involved of course.

[contra]

The main issue is that if you win, they say it was not fair, for whatever technical reason they work out. That is obviously assuming it happens.

I'm pretty sure if All you people were asked to debate tomorrow, you easily could. Mostly due to their points rely on not having information, misinterpretations and being vague enough to pass for real.

but thats a generalisation.

I'll wait for the debate...

[~enigma~]

I have had several phone conversations with Rob Balsamo and can report that he's been quite pleasant. He stresses that he apologized to Mark for an admittedly intemperate remark fueled by booze and testosterone and wonders why we can't move on. He wants Anti-sophist to know that he "gives him the 61.2 degrees." He claims that Anti-sophist knows about the "new" information, but has refused to address it.

To me, this has the makings of a real debate. Balsamo complains about the ad hominem attacks on this forum. I assured him that the 'Hardfire' shows have been models of decorum (hey, I'm biased). He contends that the flight recorder data do not support an impact and claims to have "people in uniform" who will back him up. Can we assemble a qualified team? Failing that, would anyone care to engage Balsamo in a disputation?
Ron,

I personally have seen plenty of his threats and his Hitleresque diatribe and been one of Rob's threatenees. I, along with many others, laugh since NOTHING Rob says is truthfull. If you want to believe his apology was genuine you are free to do so but for the sake of friendship I must tell you that you are wrong. Rob is an untrustworthy lying sack of rule 10.

[Gravy]

I have had several phone conversations with Rob Balsamo and can report that he's been quite pleasant. He stresses that he apologized to Mark for an admittedly intemperate remark fueled by booze and testosterone and wonders why we can't move on.And I would like to stress that he is lying to you. Balsamo never apologized for these remarks, which he made on his forum in February, after he had accepted my debate challenge.

I would actually like to get in an official ring with Mark Roberts to break his jawThen:

Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....

I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. that is a promise.

...If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head...He is a disgrace to America.

[pomeroo]

And I would like to stress that he is lying to you. Balsamo never apologized for these remarks, which he made on his forum in February, after he had accepted my debate challenge.

Then:


Look, I can only repeat what he's telling me. He says he went over the top during a Super Bowl party and he regrets saying that crazy stuff. My only dealings with him have been in these recent phone conversations, so I simply can't judge his sincerity. He has been polite and he says he's sorry for the traitors' death business.

[Matthew Best]

I don't see any good coming out of this. All you're doing is giving Balsamo "the oxygen of publicity", as the Blessed Margaret once put it.

[Drs_Res]

Look, I can only repeat what he's telling me. He says he went over the top during a Super Bowl party and he regrets saying that crazy stuff. My only dealings with him have been in these recent phone conversations, so I simply can't judge his sincerity. He has been polite and he says he's sorry for the traitors' death business.

Well, if that's the case, why did he not apologize to Gravy personally?

An apology through a 3rd person does not impress me.

[DavidJames]

It’s clear to most of us that the 9/11 CT movement is in decline. I suspect Rob’s business is suffering as a result and he is desperate to keep his gravy train afloat.

While that alone may be enough to keep him from using your show as his personal infomercial, I have to second Anti-sophist’s comments as this material is not conducive to the brief audio debate format.

[~enigma~]

Look, I can only repeat what he's telling me. He says he went over the top during a Super Bowl party and he regrets saying that crazy stuff. My only dealings with him have been in these recent phone conversations, so I simply can't judge his sincerity. He has been polite and he says he's sorry for the traitors' death business.
Ask him if he apologized to the admins at LCF, TxGy or any of the other posters at LCF that didn't buy into his bs. Ron, please tell me you don't believe him.

[DGM]

Ask him if he apologized to the admins at LCF, TxGy or any of the other posters at LCF that didn't buy into his bs. Ron, please tell me you don't believe him.
Personally he strikes me as a person that may drink too much. I don't want to label him because I've never met him, but his "mood swings" seem to point that way to me.

[Gravy]

Look, I can only repeat what he's telling me. He says he went over the top during a Super Bowl party and he regrets saying that crazy stuff. My only dealings with him have been in these recent phone conversations, so I simply can't judge his sincerity. He has been polite and he says he's sorry for the traitors' death business.Yeah. And he can't present his "evidence" to the authorities or the press because of a tragic Cheez-Wiz accident during the Country Music Television Awards show.

Think he's honest, Ron? Then ask him if he'll agree to do your next show with me.

[pomeroo]

It’s clear to most of us that the 9/11 CT movement is in decline. I suspect Rob’s business is suffering as a result and he is desperate to keep his gravy train afloat.

While that alone may be enough to keep him from using your show as his personal infomercial, I have to second Anti-sophist’s comments as this material is not conducive to the brief audio debate format.


Please understand that Balsamo claims that his associates are reluctant to appear on 'Hardfire' because they associate me and the show with the JREF. I strongly suspect that none of this will come to fruition, at the least the 'Hardfire' part, but I'd like to see Anti-sophist, or Beachnut, or Apathoid lay to rest definitively these claims about the flight recorder data. Balsamo denies that he believes that no plane hit the Pentagon. But, what then?
Someone here (I think) had a beautiful line. Beautiful, I called it--it's actually beyond praise. He said that many twoofers are coming around to the position that the hijackers were in on it.

[~enigma~]

Personally he strikes me as a person that may drink too much. I don't want to label him because I've never met him, but his "mood swings" seem to point that way to me.
Or drugs but you don't have to label him, I will :)

[~enigma~]

Please understand that Balsamo claims that his associates are reluctant to appear on 'Hardfire' because they associate me and the show with the JREF. I strongly suspect that none of this will come to fruition, at the least the 'Hardfire' part, but I'd like to see Anti-sophist, or Beachnut, or Apathoid lay to rest definitively these claims about the flight recorder data. Balsamo denies that he believes that no plane hit the Pentagon. But, what then?
Someone here (I think) had a beautiful line. Beautiful, I called it--it's actually beyond praise. He said that many twoofers are coming around to the position that the hijackers were in on it.
Why should anybody have to waste their time with an idiot that claims the FDR found in the pentagon's rubble proves that the plane carrying the FDR never hit the pentagon?

[Gravy]

Balsamo denies that he believes that no plane hit the Pentagon. But, what then?And this is why he won't appear with me. This year I've listened to and watched quite a few of his interviews, and taken notes on them. This denial you mention is another lie, and I can prove it.

[PhantomWolf]

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a proper formal debate where both sides have time to put a case forward, produce their evidence, and rebut the opposition, but I honestly doubt that the other sides can a) provide a consistant line, b) produce evidence, or c) rise above a shouting match.

[AMTMAN]

I have had several phone conversations with Rob Balsamo and can report that he's been quite pleasant. He stresses that he apologized to Mark for an admittedly intemperate remark fueled by booze and testosterone and wonders why we can't move on. He wants Anti-sophist to know that he "gives him the 61.2 degrees." He claims that Anti-sophist knows about the "new" information, but has refused to address it.

To me, this has the makings of a real debate. Balsamo complains about the ad hominem attacks on this forum. I assured him that the 'Hardfire' shows have been models of decorum (hey, I'm biased). He contends that the flight recorder data do not support an impact and claims to have "people in uniform" who will back him up. Can we assemble a qualified team? Failing that, would anyone care to engage Balsamo in a disputation?

I have to admit a bit interested. There's a part of me that would like to believe if confronted on an open forum about the airphones he would concede he was wrong. However there the realist in me says that won't happen. I can see why Mark and Anti-sophist are a bit hesitant to take part. So far he has shown that even when confronted with over whelming evidence he will just dig in harder.

With that said I'm open to it. Now if Rob says he's bringing his "source" from AA along it would be hard for me to say no

[jberryhill]

"people in uniform" who will back him up.

http://users.rcn.com/msavino.ma.ultranet/orderlies.jpeg

I believe that it is therapeutically correct not to directly challenge delusions, so the guys in uniform behind him... with the big net... might be said to back him up, yes.

[Brainster]

This might be worth the effort for some of the guys to get a little blood on the cheeks, but I'm solidly in the camp that says debating minutiae just grants the minutiae freaks with their 15 minutes of fame.

The Pentagon cranks deserve to be isolated and starved of discussion, just like the Flight 93 kooks.

[Pardalis]

Why should anybody have to waste their time with an idiot that claims the FDR found in the pentagon's rubble proves that the plane carrying the FDR never hit the pentagon?

I agree a debate with Balsamo would be a waste of time. I think if there's a debate it should be with someone who is more level-headed, knowledgeable and articulate.

[chillzero]

pomeroo,
I think it is most unwise to engage even the possibility of this.

The man makes threats - a death threat - against someone, and then asks you to help get him in the same room as that person. I'm sorry, but there is no amount of apology or politeness that would ever make me think that the risk is worth it.

[Gravy]

In an email today, Balsamo said he now lives in Tennessee, and that he's willing to debate the other forum members mentioned by Ron. I assume this means by telephone.

[RedIbis]

I don't know Balsamo or what he asserts. I'm only curious why Pomeroo is setting up a team to debate him. Does it really take a team? This appears a bit unfair.

[Horatius]

I don't know Balsamo or what he asserts. I'm only curious why Pomeroo is setting up a team to debate him. Does it really take a team? This appears a bit unfair.



Can't you guys get anything right?


Naturally, I offered 'Hardfire' as a venue, but he seems reluctant, for whatever reason. He asked me to assemble a team. I suggested Mark Roberts (of course), Beachnut, Apathoid, AMTMAN, and Anti-Sophist.



The idea of a "Team" came from Balsamo. If he doesn't think it's unfair, why should we?

[T.A.M.]

I think he will likely put together a similar team from PFT, but I am speculating.

TAM:)

[CurtC]

I think anyone proposing a live debate should go and watch the debate between Kent Hovind and Michael Shermer. Anyone unfamiliar with the facts would have gotten the impression that Hovind won, for this reason: Hovind can spout out more lies in one minute, than can be properly addressed in an hour.

Live debates aren't the right way to hold something like this. A written public debate would be much more informative.

[T.A.M.]

The truthers refuse to hold a written public debate against Mark...I have yet to see one do so.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

I think anyone proposing a live debate should go and watch the debate between Kent Hovind and Michael Shermer. Anyone unfamiliar with the facts would have gotten the impression that Hovind won, for this reason: Hovind can spout out more lies in one minute, than can be properly addressed in an hour.

Live debates aren't the right way to hold something like this. A written public debate would be much more informative.Informative, yes. I challenged Balsamo to a written debate and he declined. In terms of communicating to the public, though, Balsamo would be one of the easiest truthers to expose as a fraud in a live debate. It's child's play.

[The Doc]

Informative, yes. I challenged Balsamo to a written debate and he declined. In terms of communicating to the public, though, Balsamo would be one of the easiest truthers to expose as a fraud in a live debate. It's child's play.

I still have a forum (911debates.com) you can hold this on if Balsamo ends up (for some strange reason) agreeing to do this. Although I consider that a highly unlikely possibility, I thought I'd just throw that out there.

[Pardalis]

I think it would be impossible to debate with him, as seen in the last Hardfire show, he keeps jumping haphazardly from one subject matter to the other.

Don't waste your time and energy on that loon.

[Calcas]

I think it would be impossible to debate with him, as seen in the last Hardfire show, he keeps jumping haphazardly from one subject matter to the other.

Don't waste your time and energy on that loon.

Who is "he?"

Balsamo has never been on "Hardfire" nor ever appeared publically, to my knowledge.

But. I agree on the "loon" part.
__________________

[apathoid]

I don't think it's a good idea, personally. Even if Rob commits to a Hardfire debate, I don't think it'd be a suitable venue to properly address the FDR claims. As Anti-Sophist alluded to, you cant just say that a claim is wrong and move on to the next, you must show why it is wrong and there simply wouldn't be enough time to do that, especially given the technical nature of the subject. In fact, you could probably spend the entire show talking about any one single claim(such as the 61.2 degree claim mentioned above) because it'd take half the show just to translate Rob's jargon for the viewers.

A written debate would be the way to go, IMO - but since there would be no soundbytes or DVD selling potential, Rob wouldn't be interested.

[Pardalis]

Who is "he?"

Balsamo has never been on "Hardfire" nor ever appeared publically, to my knowledge.

But. I agree on the "loon" part.
__________________

Wasn't he the first caller in the live taping?

ETA: I see I mistook him for Paul Isaak. Sorry.

[eeyore1954]

I think John doe should pony up some money and take his black box data to a couple of independent experts who interpret the data for a living. If he is really interested in the truth.
If there is a debate the subject matter is too technical for the average guy to know which person is correct. The Pilots for Truth (I use the word truth lightly) expert will certainly say a lot technical mumbo jumbo and all the truthers will believe him/her.

Although I suspect I know this will not be done.

[SpitfireIX]

I don't know Balsamo or what he asserts. I'm only curious why Pomeroo is setting up a team to debate him. Does it really take a team? This appears a bit unfair.


Jay Windley, unquestionably the world's foremost expert on fake moon-landing conspiracy theories, addressed this issue while declining a one-on-one debate with noted conspiracist Interdimensional Warrior a couple of months ago. Following is an excerpt from one of his posts (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/62835-wondering-if-i-can-set-up-one-one-debate-jay-apollo-hoax-question.html#post1040510) on bautforum.com:

I will happily discuss any points you may wish to raise here. But I absolutely do not consent to exclude from a debate those who have a contribution to make, on either side of it. This is a forum for public debate, not for showboating or deck-stacking. . . .

[T]he question of the authenticity of Apollo is a matter of ideas and facts, not a matter of individual charisma or skill. The intellectual process respects information and arguments from all sources. You seem to see this as a battle to be faced and fought rather than a question to be decided. It is that attitude to which I object. [emphasis added]

[beachnut]

I received a call from Rob Balsamo, who was apparently stung by my remark on the SLC blog that some JREFers believe he is ducking debates. He proposes a debate on the subject of the Pentagon, his contention being that flight recorder data does not support an impact. Naturally, I offered 'Hardfire' as a venue, but he seems reluctant, for whatever reason. He asked me to assemble a team. I suggested Mark Roberts (of course), Beachnut, Apathoid, AMTMAN, and Anti-Sophist. Balsamo thinks we can hammer out an agreement over the next 2-3 months. Would the previously-mentioned individuals offer their thoughts on this project, please?
You told Rob, JDX, JohnDoeX, the superpilot, that a FDR purpose is not to show evidence of an impact?

Did you tell him the p4t have confirmed the FDR was from flight 77 since the p4t show the FDR had all the data for many flights of flight 77, even showing it landing at the airport 77 took off at on 9/11?

P4t have confirmed the FDR was from Flight 77.

[pomeroo]

pomeroo,
I think it is most unwise to engage even the possibility of this.

The man makes threats - a death threat - against someone, and then asks you to help get him in the same room as that person. I'm sorry, but there is no amount of apology or politeness that would ever make me think that the risk is worth it.


Well, Balsamo insists that he did not make any sort of "death threat." What he acknowledges having said, that Mark deserves to die a traitor's death, is idiotic and indefensible, but he claims that he has repeatedly apologized for it.

For the record, I do not expect Rob Balsamo to show up in the studio to tape 'Hardfire.' He has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he regards the show as Mark's "home turf." When he talks about finding a "neutral venue," I point out that he doesn't need me for that. All I can offer is 'Hardfire.'

A few observations that, I think, are not without interest: When Balsamo agreed to "give" anti-Sophist the 61.2 degrees, I commented that he's kind of blowing his friend Craig Ranke out of the water. I further commented that I regarded Ranke as a cynical fraud whose sole interest lay in hawking worthless DVDs. Balsamo declined to explore the obvious implications of his concession.

I reiterated the point I have hammered at in several "Lyte Trip" threads: why not take this "evidence" to a real news outlet? Balsamo replied that he had done so, but they didn't do much with it. My point is that "they" did absolutely NOTHING with what is arguably the biggest story in the history of journalism.

My purpose is to shine a light on the data provided by the flight recorders. If Balsamo's wildly implausible claim that the data indicate no impact were to prove correct, what conclusions can be drawn? There are, after all, other ways of showing that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

As I said to Rob Balsamo, he is either right or wrong. He can't expect to continue existing in the shadows making claims that offend reason. He must show us what he has and allow his claims to be subjected to scrutiny. The "people in uniform" who support his claims must be shown actually to exist. Ranke's game is to find three people out of a hundred who describe an impossible flight path. The next step--obviously--would be for him to ask those three to resolve their mutually-exclusive claims. Do they want to repudiate their memory of a plane hitting the Pentagon or do they want to reconsider the flight path? Naturally, Ranke will NEVER take his research to this level because he is, to repeat, a complete fraud who understands perfectly well that the three cherry-picked witnesses will not back off from the memory that is deadly to his fantasy.

[pomeroo]

I don't know Balsamo or what he asserts. I'm only curious why Pomeroo is setting up a team to debate him. Does it really take a team? This appears a bit unfair.


Why do you never think before posting? If I am trying to form a team, it is obviously because Balsamo has proposed a team-debate. I stated, as you may remember, at the beginning of Mark's debate with the Loose Change boys that I had asked two of them to be present to avoid the appearance of a lopsided situation in which Mark and the admittedly partisan host gang up on a lone fantasist. Balsamo himself points out that he doesn't profess expertise in all the technical matters he expects to be debating, that he will require more knowledgeable associates to help out.

[pomeroo]

You told Rob, JDX, JohnDoeX, the superpilot, that a FDR purpose is not to show evidence of an impact?

Did you tell him the p4t have confirmed the FDR was from flight 77 since the p4t show the FDR had all the data for many flights of flight 77, even showing it landing at the airport 77 took off at on 9/11?

P4t have confirmed the FDR was from Flight 77.


Beachnut, anti-Sophist, Apathoid, and you were the people I had in mind to examine Balsamo's claims. Can you explain more clearly exactly what you're saying here? What is the p4t? What can we expect to learn from the flight recorder data? What about Balsamo's claim that the data placed the aircraft too high above the ground at the time of impact?

[parky76]

Its like debating whether the Earth is round. Even if you agree that it is indeed flat...who cares?

[~enigma~]

In an email today, Balsamo said he now lives in Tennessee, and that he's willing to debate the other forum members mentioned by Ron. I assume this means by telephone.
In that email though I bet Rob didn't mention that he will be relocating to NYC shortly. The guy is a horrible liar. He even claims Guides Who Lie™ (group formerly knon as P4T) were banned from LCF when the truth is that he was. I seriously question the integrity of ANYONE who believes he is honest.

[Reheat]

In that email though I bet Rob didn't mention that he will be relocating to NYC shortly.

Well, there is an active thread on p4t in which he said he's just renewed his driver's license. From the context it seemed to have been for TN.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, anti-Sophist, Apathoid, and you were the people I had in mind to examine Balsamo's claims. Can you explain more clearly exactly what you're saying here? What is the p4t? What can we expect to learn from the flight recorder data? What about Balsamo's claim that the data placed the aircraft too high above the ground at the time of impact?
p4t, little dumb pilots for truth, got the raw FDR data for flight 77. On the data they confirmed they have all the 25 hours of flight information for the airframe in question, Flight 77. The data tracks the last 25 hours of flight 77 from airport to airport, within seconds, within a few thousand feet, Flight 77 FDR is confirmed by p4t.

Rob has information that confirms the FDR is from flight 77, he is too challenged to figure it out.

The too high claim is funny. Rob's crew decoded data that has the final DME from the DCA VOR. The distance is 1.5 NM from the VOR on the Airport. You can take Google earth and mark 1.5 NM from DCA. If you know what a VOR looks like you can see it next to the Pentagon at the airport about a mile or so away. Plot 1.5 DME from DCA, take the final heading or course, 61.2 degrees. Where 1.5 DME hits the final course of 61.2, prior to the Pentagon is the final position the FDR gives you. The navigation data on 77 would only give you 1000 to 3000 feet where the plane really is, but the DME is the KEY. !.5 DME is in NM, that is 6076 feet or so for each NM. So 9,000 feet plus from DCA on a course of 61.2 degrees heading towards the Pentagon is one place flight 77 actually passed through as seen by witnesses. Rob, and p4t, are the ones who decoded this information, but have failed to use it to tell the truth.

Rob, he actually does real research, he is just too dumb to figure it out. Rob is not connected to reality.

Rob is not after the truth, he is selling DVDs filled with bs, you can buy he calls the truth for 16 bucks.

[pomeroo]

Well, there is an active thread on p4t in which he said he's just renewed his driver's license. From the context it seemed to have been for TN.


Damn! P4t--Pilots for Truth! I'm frequently dazed, but this is worse than usual!

Incidentally, Balsamo did tell me he was relocating to NY.

[R.Mackey]

Rhetorical question, if I may:

What makes Mr. Balsamo any more attractive a debating opponent than Ace Baker?

Good ol' John Doe X is every bit as daft as Ace, but adds a shockingly short and violent temper. To Ace's credit, I never saw him threaten anyone.

Guy's a loser, and he brings nothing to the table that I can discern.

[~enigma~]

Damn! P4t--Pilots for Truth! I'm frequently dazed, but this is worse than usual!

Incidentally, Balsamo did tell me he was relocating to NY.
Which wasn't in the email he sent Gravy or...

[dudalb]

I think debating somebody with Balsamo;s temper is like..to steal a quote from Bob Heinlein...wrestling a pig in the Mud: You can't really prove anything,you get dirty,and the pig likes it.

[Reheat]

Did you tell him the p4t have confirmed the FDR was from flight 77 since the p4t show the FDR had all the data for many flights of flight 77, even showing it landing at the airport 77 took off at on 9/11?

In the interview he did with Dennis Cimino (a retired Navy "electronics expert") there was a discussion about an electrical fault in the processor that caused it to reboot several times during the aircraft's history. The point seemed to be that it should have been replaced as there would have been a fault display on the caution panel.

Perhaps, this might be the reason there appears to be several seconds missing from the data.

I know AMTMAN has painfully listened to that interview. Perhaps it would be enlightening if others who have more knowledge of the FDR system would listen and offer some insight.

Another point..... The altitude information was coming from the Radar Altimeter whose antenna would be on the bottom of the fuselage. Since the aircraft hit several poles and a tree starting as far back as the VDOT building, it possibly could have been damaged, as well. I agree that's not likely as it would show up in the data, but it's a long shot. I think more likely something happened to cause several seconds of missing data, possibly the electrical issue mentioned earlier.

[beachnut]

In the interview he did with Dennis Cimino (a retired Navy "electronics expert") there was a discussion about an electrical fault in the processor that caused it to reboot several times during the aircraft's history. The point seemed to be that it should have been replaced as there would have been a fault display on the caution panel.

Perhaps, this might be the reason there appears to be several seconds missing from the data.

I know AMTMAN has painfully listened to that interview. Perhaps it would be enlightening if others who have more knowledge of the FDR system would listen and offer some insight.

Another point..... The altitude information was coming from the Radar Altimeter whose antenna would be on the bottom of the fuselage. Since the aircraft hit several poles and a tree starting as far back as the VDOT building, it possibly could have been damaged, as well. I agree that's not likely as it would show up in the data, but it's a long shot. I think more likely something happened to cause several seconds of missing data, possibly the electrical issue mentioned earlier.

The Radar Altimeter data backs up the pressure altitude along the path and the terrain matches the area 3000 feet away from the Pentagon, 1.5 DME from DCA on a heading of 61.2 degrees. If someone wanted they could take the pressure altitude and radar altimeter during the last 2000 feet of descent and match the path 77 flew with ground data, like a cruise missile in reverse.

[Mangoose]

p4t, little dumb pilots for truth, got the raw FDR data for flight 77. On the data they confirmed they have all the 25 hours of flight information for the airframe in question, Flight 77. The data tracks the last 25 hours of flight 77 from airport to airport, within seconds, within a few thousand feet, Flight 77 FDR is confirmed by p4t.


Make sure he is asked if there is a "STOP" button in the cockpit to make the FDR stop recording the moment the Pentagon explosion occurred.

Can't believe they can't put two and two together.

[PhantomWolf]

Make sure he is asked if there is a "STOP" button in the cockpit to make the FDR stop recording the moment the Pentagon explosion occurred.

Can't believe they can't put two and two together.

No, but there is a circuit breaker....

[Obviousman]

Just skimming the thread, so apologies if I am repeating anything / ignoring / whatever.

What sort of forum would be appropriate for a debate considering the issues raised?

Perhaps a dedicated board might be an idea.

Only five or six poster from each side of the debate. One Moderator nominated by each side. That way you can put up various data, images, etc, and take time to show why something might be right or wrong. Ground rules about personal remarks set before hand; essentially it will be "play the ball, not the man" - address post contents, not the poster (remembering most everyone else will be a spectator only).

Is something like this worth considering? I see it as being as fair as possible for both sides.

Edited to Add: Oh, and I would suggest that the Moderators may NOT take part in the debate per se; they can only moderate the debate.

[PhantomWolf]

Just skimming the thread, so apologies if I am repeating anything / ignoring / whatever.

What sort of forum would be appropriate for a debate considering the issues raised?

Perhaps a dedicated board might be an idea.

Only five or six poster from each side of the debate. One Moderator nominated by each side. That way you can put up various data, images, etc, and take time to show why something might be right or wrong. Ground rules about personal remarks set before hand; essentially it will be "play the ball, not the man" - address post contents, not the poster (remembering most everyone else will be a spectator only).

Is something like this worth considering? I see it as being as fair as possible for both sides.

Edited to Add: Oh, and I would suggest that the Moderators may NOT take part in the debate per se; they can only moderate the debate.

There is a place, but few of the CT's are willing to debate in writting where they have to stick to one subject and provide evidence and a consistant story.

[Mangoose]

Ah, thre's a circuit breaker....So I guess this is how it went down....

The airliner plunged down towards the Pentagon on the wrong flight path, and barely flew over it when the explosion occurred...right on cue, the pilot throws the circuit breaker, and the airliner heads to the airport, lands unnoticed and the passengers are sent to destinations unknown. Then they take out the FDR and take a sledgehammer and beat the crap out of it, then roll a tank over it. Meanwhile, crews of secret agents scattered "aircraft debris" on the lawn of the Pentagon and the five lamp posts on the originally-intended flight path were taken down and faked damage at the top of the poles without anyone noticing....I guess the lamp pole crew had a perception filter in place (apologies to Torchwood fans). Then the heavily damaged FDR was taken into the Pentagon and planted and body parts of the passengers of the plane liberally scattered all over the place.

Isn't that what a "FDR is real but no plane at Pentagon" theory would have to claim if pushed to its conclusion?

[celestrin]

IMO, there's nothing much to debate with PfT. This simple google find (http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2000/aa1420/anim_summary.htm) takes care of Balsamo's old "infallible NIST animation" claims, and, ironically, aa77fdr.com (http://www.aa77fdr.com) takes care of his "too high to hit light poles/Pentagon" claims. As Beachnut said, radalt can be fit to the terrain. Guess where this leaves the last position of the plane, Robbie?

[psyexplorer]

I have read this thread. Why bother hounding the guy? I'd say he's already lost.

[chillzero]

Well, Balsamo insists that he did not make any sort of "death threat." What he acknowledges having said, that Mark deserves to die a traitor's death, is idiotic and indefensible, but he claims that he has repeatedly apologized for it.

Well, Gravy denies this, and quoted a separate theat - about happily spending bullets on him.

I would believe Gravy over anyone else on this.

I think a written internet debate would be more appropriate. If he is open to discuss the topic, he should have no real reason to refuse this.

[Oliver]

I'm all for a gun duel live on the Hardfire show. :catfight:

[apathoid]

In the interview he did with Dennis Cimino (a retired Navy "electronics expert") there was a discussion about an electrical fault in the processor that caused it to reboot several times during the aircraft's history. The point seemed to be that it should have been replaced as there would have been a fault display on the caution panel.



I would be very curious to know how Cimino deduced that. All it takes is a momentary power interruption to cause the FDR to reboot. Off the top of my head I can think of about a dozen ways the power could be interrupted, but they're not something that would happen often. He is right about one thing though - an FDR(or DFDAU) fault will trigger a caution message and would require action by maintenance. However, if it was something outside of the FDR or DFDAU causing it lose power(say, a lazy air/ground relay which carries the 115V to the unit), then you would likely not get a fault annunication, just an "OFF" light on the FDR control panel.



Another point..... The altitude information was coming from the Radar Altimeter whose antenna would be on the bottom of the fuselage. Since the aircraft hit several poles and a tree starting as far back as the VDOT building, it possibly could have been damaged, as well. I agree that's not likely as it would show up in the data, but it's a long shot. I think more likely something happened to cause several seconds of missing data, possibly the electrical issue mentioned earlier


The aircraft was at something like 220' AGL in the last recorded frame. Beach and I are both of the opinion that the last frame of data was recorded in the vicinity of the Navy Annex, around a half mile away from impact.

[Disbelief]

I would be very curious to know how Cimino deduced that. All it takes is a momentary power interruption to cause the FDR to reboot. Off the top of my head I can think of about a dozen ways the power could be interrupted, but they're not something that would happen often. He is right about one thing though - an FDR(or DFDAU) fault will trigger a caution message and would require action by maintenance. However, if it was something outside of the FDR or DFDAU causing it lose power(say, a lazy air/ground relay which carries the 115V to the unit), then you would likely not get a fault annunication, just an "OFF" light on the FDR control panel.



How often is there maintenance on FDRs anyway? I changed a grand total of 1 in the AF and repaired about 2 cables.

[apathoid]

How often is there maintenance on FDRs anyway? I changed a grand total of 1 in the AF and repaired about 2 cables.


Pretty often actually. I've changed quite a few FDRs for various reasons. We've also been adding DFDAU parameters steadily over the last few years, and we did a mod recently where we added whats called a mini Quick Access Recorder(mini-QAR) to the system. Its basically a mini FDR which can be downloaded in a matter of minutes and returned to the aircraft. We do QAR downloads during service checks and overnight checks. We also periodically replace the ELT pingers, which are time limited, which typicially require the FDR and CVRs to be removed(the pingers are bolted to the FDR/CVR casing).
For a system that will not get used on 99.9% of our aircraft, it sure gets alot of attention. I've probably changed more FDRs than batteries...;)

[R.Mackey]

I'm all for a gun duel live on the Hardfire show. :catfight:

Now, now, Oliver, no violence. And nothing that could possibly be misconstrued as a threat.

I'll gladly go best 3-of-5 rounds of speedball against him, though. :D

That's a paintball game in an arena setting.

[AMTMAN]

I have had several phone conversations with Rob Balsamo and can report that he's been quite pleasant. He stresses that he apologized to Mark for an admittedly intemperate remark fueled by booze and testosterone and wonders why we can't move on.

Great, a pilot with a drinking and anger management problem. Rob says why can't we move on. It's rather odd he would say that since he's the one who continues to cling to this fantasy that the air phones on flight 77 were still operational.

[lapman]

This may be off topic, but what whe the VSI showing on the last frame?

[Anti-sophist]

The Radar Altimeter data backs up the pressure altitude along the path and the terrain matches the area 3000 feet away from the Pentagon, 1.5 DME from DCA on a heading of 61.2 degrees. If someone wanted they could take the pressure altitude and radar altimeter during the last 2000 feet of descent and match the path 77 flew with ground data, like a cruise missile in reverse.


That's actually an interesting idea. If I get what you are saying, you are proposing mixing the pressure altitude data with the RADALT data to get a contour of the ground, and use that to place the aircraft along the 61.2 heading?

[WilliamSeger]

There's no doubt in my mind that Balsamo is simply looking for publicity. If P4T has some legitimate argument based on the FDR data, they should simply publish it on the Web so it can be examined in detail. But Balsamo seems to be primarily interested in finding an angle to make money from it. My guess is that he has become obsessed with setting up some kind of "live debate" because he plans to have his "experts" try to coldcock Gravy or whoever with a pile of techo-jabber which can't be responded to off the cuff, and he will then slap this "P4T experts destroy debunker" on one of his Short Attention Span Theater DVDs. In my "debates" with him on the DU board, I found him to be an extremely dishonest person who will offer up fraudulent evidence when his primary tactic of tossing out a dozen red herrings mixed with insults isn't working, and who has on several occasions made threats when cornered for his false assertions and faulty arguments. Balsamo is probably right in thinking that those tactics will work much better in a "live" debate than they do on the Web, especially for his target audience. In my opinion, nothing productive will come from any telephone of TV "debate" with that guy, unless the question you're interested in is, "How nutty is Rob Balsamo?" Frankly, that's not a question I'd want to investigate.

[Mince]

I am ethically opposed to helping this charlatan make money...and try to sell some coffee mugs (http://www.cafepress.com/911pilots.82734224).

$17 for a coffee mug!? My freakin' god! Trust me, he is making no money charging $17 for a coffee mug.

[NYCEMT86]

Now, now, Oliver, no violence. And nothing that could possibly be misconstrued as a threat.

I'll gladly go best 3-of-5 rounds of speedball against him, though. :D

That's a paintball game in an arena setting.



X-ball is where its at cuz its for us beastly ballers :D


Now I return you to your regularly scheduled thread....

[NickUK]

$17 for a coffee mug!? My freakin' god! Trust me, he is making no money charging $17 for a coffee mug.

He's marked that up $5. The basic price for these on Cafepress is $11.99

Of course, $5 mark-up on zero sales is still zero dollars, but still :D