• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Retired NASA "expert" Inspires Balsamo Fraud?

I've been posting a bit on DebatePolitics - a couple of old colleagues there occasionally.

Generally not high intellect stuff - dominated by 3trolls and 1 poe plus a few "helper trolls".

The "debunker" side content to play "whack-a-mole" against repetitive trolling.

I was lured there for about a week this summer by a troll I knew from Yahoo Answers. Not many debunkers there at the time and I couldn't take the brain damage of dealing with the 3 resident trolls on my own.
 
I was lured there for about a week this summer by a troll I knew from Yahoo Answers. Not many debunkers there at the time and I couldn't take the brain damage of dealing with the 3 resident trolls on my own.
Same scenario till recent invasion of two P4T clowns - the other trolls (2 Trolls and a Poe IMO BTW) being relatively mild in their personal attacks. The P4T types use personal attack as first priority.

The resident debunkers content to play "whack-a-mole" responding at the level of the "argument" put by the trolls. Actually not much difference in principle to JREF over last year or so - here we have only had one or two active threads most of that time- the rest trolling and counter trolling. Except, believe it or not E, CM and MM would put a bit of variety in their trolling. Not so on DP. Same garbage time and again.

I employ my same "rules of Engagement";
1) Don't feed trolls;
2) Only respond on those occasions that the troll says something that is a bit reasonable;
3) Ignore Personal Attacks

And I have deliberately written a few low level language but higher level explanations to "calibrate" level of interest. Zero.
 
Anyone can get a hand held GPS... I don't know the avionics... but I am confident that the plane had an AP which would steer to a waypoint.
It wouldn't really be needed. It was a clear day and NYC has plenty of easy landmarks. Any (even novice) pilot could find the trade center.

Hint: From Boston, fly west, find Hudson river, follow south.
 
Last edited:
Anyone can get a hand held GPS... I don't know the avionics... but I am confident that the plane had an AP which would steer to a way-point.

175, He saw the building from over 40 miles away, lined up and hand flew it. He was homing, meaning he had no clue what to set as the drift, he had no experience. The wind was drifting him, and he would constantly change heading to line up, over 20 to 40 miles away, homing in. An experienced pilot could see his target drift, and set the heading to stop the drift, we do it on final to land along with a constant check of airspeed. Two things the terrorist pilot did not care about, drift and airspeed. Things the Korean Flight did not do, airspeed. No wonder why the Boeing jets can go so fast, they can also go very slow and almost land in one piece, 35 knots slow is incredible, going fast is easy in a clean jet.

It would be easiest for the terrorists pilot, to use VOR, set a VOR close to NYC and home in, this is what Hani did, a VOR next to the Pentagon.

Did the FBI find evidence for GPS units, boxes, instructions, etc? GPS might be too high tech for idiots like those who only real skill was crashing. I did use GPS for flying, my own in 2001, but I used it like a VOR, and to back up my VOR, and I hand flew everything. But unlike the idiot pilots, I would ask for UBL to demo the mission first... then go home to Saudi Arabia and play soccer in the sand, and play volleyball in course quartz crystal sand, red quartz, large grains...
 
Obviously the towers can be easily seen from 50 miles at sea level and probably 100 from aloft. More of less straight flight seems not very difficult except for cross winds and leeway or drift... as in sailing you don't point the bow to where you want to go but slightly upwind.... not intuitive for an inexperienced helmsperson. However it would seem to hit a target while executing a turn of any radius would seem very difficult for anyone especially a novice. The plane that hit 2wtc did appear to travel in a arc to hit the tower... or perhaps I am mistaken and the last bit was pretty much straight.
 
Obviously the towers can be easily seen from 50 miles at sea level and probably 100 from aloft. More of less straight flight seems not very difficult except for cross winds and leeway or drift... as in sailing you don't point the bow to where you want to go but slightly upwind.... not intuitive for an inexperienced helmsperson. However it would seem to hit a target while executing a turn of any radius would seem very difficult for anyone especially a novice. The plane that hit 2wtc did appear to travel in a arc to hit the tower... or perhaps I am mistaken and the last bit was pretty much straight.
A slight arc, the lens, the cameras were exteme telephoto.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/radar_ual175_path_line.jpg
http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ual175_ewr_jfk.jpg

At 510 knots unless the aircraft is banked up to the extreme, there is no major turn, a slight bank high speed, slight turn.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111RADESPROVES175ATWTC.jpg

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/RDHall/yellowboxes.jpg

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/RDHall/175ntsbfig2.jpg

If needed we can take each point and average the course to the impact to find the variation, it was pretty much a poor pilot homing in on the WTC with light winds, a high wind day may of been failure for the idiots, and weather would have stopped them from hitting any targets.
 
Not sure it even matters...but wasn't there radio-navigation equipment broadcasting from the top of one of the towers? I may be remembering that wrong. ILS for LGA or a VOR station maybe?
 
Not sure it even matters...but wasn't there radio-navigation equipment broadcasting from the top of one of the towers? I may be remembering that wrong. ILS for LGA or a VOR station maybe?
No, and that would be a bad, real bad idea to have a VOR on a tall building. Did I say bad?

it is funny

ILS would be dumber.
 
Not sure it even matters...but wasn't there radio-navigation equipment broadcasting from the top of one of the towers? I may be remembering that wrong. ILS for LGA or a VOR station maybe?

IIRC there was a broadcast antenna - so ADF target at least. But it was VMC for the Eyeballs(SkullEmbedded)Mk #1.

Still I'm a sewage engineer so what would I know. :boggled:
 
Anyone can get a hand held GPS... I don't know the avionics... but I am confident that the plane had an AP which would steer to a waypoint.

Yeah, my only point was that there would be no autopilot flying the plane to a GPS coordinate. Still, it would appear that approach was visual from a long way out. They were the tallest structures on the skyline and WTC2 was marked by a miles long smoke plume from WTC_1.

Even if cappy bobby is correct, just what was the velocity of flt175 as it approached WTC2 ? If it was at 500 mph only within seconds of impact so the freak what? Is the pilot worried about permanent damage to his aircraft? No! Is he worried that parts will break off and the aircraft will become unflyable? No! If it remained at or below Vne until the last few seconds cappy bobby is urinating into the wind.
 
Ahhh looked at your graphs there beachnut. Of course! It can only show groundspeed not kcas. So we can know that it was at approx 500 knots groundspeed for quite some time but cannot know what the other various iterations of speed were such as kcas or kias. What is apparent is this pilot was not using the normal care that pilots of 767s do when descending since this is an aircraft that can over speed fairly easily. Its almost as if he were a relative novice on this type and/or had complete disregard for the safety of craft and occupants.

Such recklessness may well have stressed the aircraft and caused permanent damage to the airframe. He should be fired or severely disciplined.

I recall the video of a crash of a B52, the pilot had put it into a 90 degree bank, its wings were bowed severely but it was contact with the ground that did it in.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh looked at your graphs there beachnut. Of course! It can only show groundspeed not kcas. So we can know that it was at approx 500 knots groundspeed for quite some time but cannot know what the other various iterations of speed were such as kcas or kias. What is apparent is this pilot was not using the normal care that pilots of 767s do when descending since this is an aircraft that can over speed fairly easily. Its almost as if he were a relative novice on this type and/or had complete disregard for the safety of craft and occupants.

Such recklessness may well have stressed the aircraft and caused permanent damage to the airframe. He should be fired or severely disciplined.

I recall the video of a crash of a B52, the pilot had put it into a 90 degree bank, its wings were bowed severely but it was contact with the ground that did it in.

Rest assured, he'll never fly again.:p
 
Ahhh looked at your graphs there beachnut. Of course! It can only show groundspeed not kcas. So we can know that it was at approx 500 knots groundspeed for quite some time but cannot know what the other various iterations of speed were such as kcas or kias. What is apparent is this pilot was not using the normal care that pilots of 767s do when descending since this is an aircraft that can over speed fairly easily. Its almost as if he were a relative novice on this type and/or had complete disregard for the safety of craft and occupants.

Such recklessness may well have stressed the aircraft and caused permanent damage to the airframe. He should be fired or severely disciplined.

I recall the video of a crash of a B52, the pilot had put it into a 90 degree bank, its wings were bowed severely but it was contact with the ground that did it in.

The B52 was in need of speed, the guy stalled it, he was showing off.
Flying for UBL airlines is the final reward.

Going too fast low can do like you said, damage the aircraft. Bend parts, put permanent sets in the skin, rip off parts not up to spec, like gear doors, panels, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodan don't let Vmo stop you from escaping from ...

VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M is the limit for normal operation. But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast.
On 911 we have an idiot pilot, aka a murderer, test flying a Boeing at speeds no sane pilot would do unless it was for safety (aka running from Rodan, escaping an idiot trying to ram you, etc, ). Sane because the company would find out and fire you. There is also an speed limit by FAA of 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet to give small planes and the large jets a chance to see and avoid, a safety of seeing issue. Military planes which have a need to fly faster for "flight", have a wavier, and why a tower might say, wow, that must be a military flight - (but the wavier is usually only 50 knots or so, but a lot of military go a lot faster out of inexperience, or I don't care, like not thinking - unless there is a big thunderstorm racing you home and you only have 7 minutes of gas left and prefer a runway instead of a swamp, keep your boots clean).

175 was going twice as fast below 10,000 feet. Flight test by a nut proves Boeing jets can go over 500 knots and not fall apart. Balsamo can't fly a heavy jet, he has no ATP. Idiot pilots fly better than Balsamo, who brags he and his fellow failed pilots can't hit a building in the safety of a simulator.

http://s1008.photobucket.com/user/j...pg.html?&_suid=138922786275001523102058194814
That guy was moving. .8MACH at 10,000 feet.

Balsamo keeps presenting the fake Vg diagrams with the structural failure limit below all the terrorist speeds on 911, except flight 11, it hit real close to Vd, which Balsamo thinks is within 5 knots of the plane falling apart, but 175 proved him wrong. Then he has no conclusion. Too stupid to make any conclusion. 11.2 g was not a big enough fail, so he made it 34 gs. Not sure why he makes up dumber lies, guess his audience, his core members are not very smart.
 
Last edited:
... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodan don't let Vmo stop you from escaping from ...

Vmo = 360 KCAS/.86M is the limit for normal operation. But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast.

...Balsamo keeps presenting the fake Vg diagrams with the structural failure limit below all the terrorist speeds on 911, except flight 11, it hit real close to Vd, which Balsamo thinks is within 5 knots of the plane falling apart, but 175 proved him wrong. Then he has no conclusion. Too stupid to make any conclusion. 11.2 g was not a big enough fail, so he made it 34 gs. Not sure why he makes up dumber lies, guess his audience, his core members are not very smart.

The 11.2g failed physics special leader of idiot pilots at Pilots For Truth, Robert Balsamo, who failed his ATP flight test, might not be able to translate beachnut misspelling spree above.

I will attempt to decode my sentence, in case Balsamo can't figure out the misspelled words, because he can't figure out math, or ACARS, and has no clue when it comes to Vg diagrams.

But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast.

But the plane does not fall apart at low altitude going fast.

The revised sentence relative to going fast low in a heavy jet, something Balsamo will never do as the "captain".
With Balsamo's new Fake Vg diagram, he left off the speed for the "structural failure", his failed followers don't call him on the fraud. What is next for the failed pilots with idiotic claims at pilots for 911 truth, and 11.2 g failed physics expert Balsamo?
Exactly
Who cares? Balsamo said DVD sales are up, for 17.95 you can have woo on DVD. How much are blanks now? 10 cents
 
But the plane does not fall apart at low altitude going fast.
Thanks beachnut - although I had no difficulty interpreting what you intended.

The issue of safe operating limits and how the probability of failure increases with both number and range of excedance is common ground for us engineers. It is certainly not specific to aviation.

The revised sentence relative to going fast low in a heavy jet, something Balsamo will never do as the "captain".
Balsamo must live in terror when he drives a car with a red lined tacho. Touch the red area and the engine instantly disintegrates.
nono.gif
 
JSander, I think this was answered already:

Anyone can get a hand held GPS... I don't know the avionics... but I am confident that the plane had an AP which would steer to a waypoint.

But, since I have several thousand hours on the B757/767 (among others) I can clear this up a bit more.

The A/P will steer to a waypoint, yes of course. In 2001 the United Airlines fleet did not have GPS updating installed. Doesn't matter because the Inertial Reference Systems ('IRS' platforms) can refine position update via numerous methods, what GPS update does is simply provide greater accuracy, compared to VOR/VOR and VOR/DME updating.

Waypoints are stored in a database in memory for the FMC (Flight Management Computer) to access. For the users (pilots) it is simply a matter of typing in the (usually) alpha letters (some may be alpha-numeric, like cardinal latitude/longitude points. i.e., "N20 W30", etc).

But, all this aside, it is far more advanced in terms of training and operational knowledge than the hijackers had, and all they needed to know was basic A/P functions. The use of the A/P is evident on both SSFDRs recovered (AAL 77 and UAL 93). I can't link url addresses yet (need 15 posts) but...hmmm, if I leave extra spaces, let's try:

w. docshut. c o m/iwpywq/9-11-ntsb-autopilot-study-flight-aa77-ua93. h t m l

(Look at graphical charts pp 9 & 10).
 
Balsamo must live in terror when he drives a car with a red lined tacho. Touch the red area and the engine instantly disintegrates.

That's a good one, I shall remember to use it when I can! Hilarious.

I suspect "Cap'n Bobby" has other mental issues as well, though...
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom