Retired NASA "expert" Inspires Balsamo Fraud?

[stewster89]

I have started to thumb throguh that forum that you linked, http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3611382/3/
In post 36, TiffanyinLA posts
'Can you see modifications in terms of increased amount of Vortex Generators? Flutter mods? Increased control surface "throw" - from a youtube video? Do you even know what any of this means?'

This sounds like this is a whirlwind of technical bable thats not really applicable. In regards to Vortex Generators, I was understandable that they were important for low speed control and reducing stalling speed, by creating turbulent flow over the wings, thus delaying flow seperation

The Chieftan has vortex generators and they are like little shards of metal that someone has stuck haphazadly to the inboard wing area. Flutter mods i can understand how they could improve controllability at high speeds...

but ive never heard Increased control surface "throw"??? If anything increase the control surface throw would actually increase aerodynamically forces and cause aileron reversal?, correct.

None of these mods would 1 be visible from any quality of video from afar
and wouldn't really make the plane suddenly be able to fly outside the published limits (compared to a normal 767).. The only way that i could think this could actually be done was by reinforcing the actual structure of the airframe, (which is even said than done.)
Or have i just read this statement completely incorectly and applied dodgy 'basic' aerodynamics.'

Where can i find a refutation to the 11.2g on P4T

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Where can i find a refutation to the 11.2g on P4T

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

More here:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/

 

[The Big Dog]

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

More here:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/

It is funny, Cap'n Bobby was the same guy who "proved" that the plane could have pulled up and over the Pentagon to support CIT's nuttery, yet he pulls out the hockey stick for the real path.

Of course, Cap'n Bobby fraudulently failed to include in his CIT calculations the fact that the plane had to be banked so far over it would have practically been on its side.

Cap'n Bobby, you are a complete fraud.

 

[stewieg]

Over 9 years, has Balsamo positioned himself as one of the dumbest pilot on earth, right behind his membership pilots, on 911 issues? Balsamo claims, "we do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time". What do you expect with over 9 years of failure? But the offer no theory is a lie. With John Lear, Balsamo proves he offers theory, delusional theories.



Balsamo has comprehension problems. He supports delusions; he agreed 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, no 757 at Shanksville, no Arab terrorists flying jets into the WTC. Lear and Balsamo admit they are not able to fly as good as terrorists that hit buildings on their first heavy jet flight. Terrorist 75 percent, Balsamo and Lear claim zero percent.

We should start calling Rob "Smithers" the way he sucks up to John Lear. If John Lear were to claim to be Jesus Christ there probably would be little protest from Balsamo.

 

[stewieg]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1Balsamocultmembernot.jpg[/qimg]

His avatar looks something like this. Pretending to be TiffanyInLa, Balsamo brings out his aerodynamic hoax, in a we got a new "expert" thread about Deets.
If you are going to spread lies, having an avatar like this might help the fake Vg diagram scam.

In ieSpell, TiffanyInLa is corrected to Denyingly. better get back to work

Maybe him claiming to be a girl is a sign of something else.

 

[triforcharity]

He's at the TruTV forums too.

http://boards.trutv.com/showthread....ntura-Speaks-With-Pilots-For-9-11-Truth/page5

 

[Oystein]

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

More here:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/

Your calculations (as Rob's) contain the assumption that the flight path ended level (v-vertical = 0) at the Pentagon impact point. Is that necessary? It was close to zero, but not necessarily fully level.



As an excercise to revive my rusty math skills, I drew some points and lines on paper, derived some formulas, and hacked them into a spreadsheet to calculate g's for several circular flight paths, with the following approach:

• The origin of my coordinate system is ground level of Pentagon, below VDOT antenna. I used the same distances and hights as you did, when you followed Rob's numbers:
  
  [*]the tip of the antenna is at x_A=0, y_A=271ft
  the tip of the light pole at x_L=2400ft, y_L=47ft
  [*]the base of the Pentagon wall at x_P=3416ft, y_P=0​
• define varying heights at these points (i.e: slightly above antenna, exactly at tip of pole, slightly above ground at impact) for various flight paths (that is, define 3 points that the flight path must go through)
• Using basic geometry and algebra, calculate center and radius of a circle that goes through all 3 points
• Assume constant air speed (not ground speed) of 781ft/s
• calculate total force in g's as centrifugal acceleration plus 1g for gravity

Here are some sample results:

• A flight path that goes exactly through the tips of antenna and pole and the foot of the wall (coordinates as given above), the result will be a radius of about 36600ft, with 1.52g acceleration. In this case, the plane will still be descending as it hits the Pentagon, since the center of the circle would be 1200 feet beyond impact point.
• One flight path that would end very nearly level, clear the antenna, chop the light pole and slam into the Pentagon 10 feet above ground would have y_A=352ft (81feet above tip of antenna), y_L=40ft (7 feet below tip of pole), y_P=10ft, and result in 2.11g (radius 17236ft)
• Same impact result, but going lower over the Navy Annex at 180ft (as in your scenario) would have the plane still descending, with a very benign acceleration of 1.32g.
• I could squeeze that scenario into level impact if I go lower on the light pole, to 25ft, - 22ft below its tip. Not sure if the plane would clear the highway going this low... [ETA]Anyway, here we get 1.55g.[/ETA]

Bottom line:
- The most extreme plausible flight path that would support all observables would require an average acceleration of 2.1g
- Playing with the numbers, I believe that either a path above the antenna, or one that has already done most of the vertical acceleration by the time the plane hit the light pole, is more likely than one that came in lower and curved more smoothly.
- This translates to likely average loads of maybe 1.7-2.0g during the "interesting" time interval, with possible peaks somewhat above 2.0g
- I am fairly certain that the flight path didn't end level. In most paths that safely clear the Nave Annex, just barely clip the pole and hit the wall somewhat above ground, the plane would still go down at an angle of maybe 1.2°-1.8°
[ETA]
- I am happy that I could replicate your radii and g's exactly, doing my calculations completely independent of you
- I found that your two scenarios "over Navy Annex" and "implausibly ground hugging" would chop the light pole at 16ft and 10.6ft above Pentagon base, respectively. Both would be too low, I think, given eyewitness testimonies from the highway.
[/ETA]

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Your calculations (as Rob's) contain the assumption that the flight path ended level (v-vertical = 0) at the Pentagon impact point. Is that necessary? It was close to zero, but not necessarily fully level.

No, that was not necessary. For the purpose of my calculations, I assumed level flight at the Pentagon because Rob Balsamo had made that assumption and I wanted to show how wrong/dishonest his 11.2g/10.14g/58g calculations had been.

Thanks to JREF members Warren Stutt and John Farmer, we now have the final seconds of the FDR data, which I integrated to obtain the reconstruction displayed at
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Software/

The new FDR data show that terrorist pilot Hani Hanjour flew a more erratic approach that did not quite achieve level flight.

The maximum vertical acceleration recorded by the FDR, including 1g for gravity, was about 2.3g.

That's only a little more than the minimal 1.9g I calculated for an ideal flight path over the VDOT antenna that achieves level flight at the Pentagon, but it's a lot less than Balsamo's 11.2g/10.14g/58g miscalculations.

According to the FDR data, your calculations pretty much nailed it:

- This translates to likely average loads of maybe 1.7-2.0g during the "interesting" time interval, with possible peaks somewhat above 2.0g
- I am fairly certain that the flight path didn't end level. In most paths that safely clear the Nave Annex, just barely clip the pole and hit the wall somewhat above ground, the plane would still go down at an angle of maybe 1.2°-1.8°

 

[Muc]

I don't know if someone else noticed the following before, but I ran the 4 photos that "TiffanyInLA" at Above Top Secret provided as his … her! … her profile pictures trough a photo matching search engine and a rather odd result came up. It appears that "Tiffany's" profile pictures actually show one "Mindy Vega", profession: porn starlet.

This picture of Miss Mindy and her … uhm … friend and colleague "Crissy" might look familiar to some:

flickr.com/photos/33619332@N07/3276704767/

Another picture of Mindy that we already know from it's cropped form at ATS:

myspace.com/funnybrad/photos/5469464#{"ImageId"%3A5469464}

 

[moorea34]

i don't know if someone else noticed the following before, but i ran the 4 photos that "tiffanyinla" at above top secret provided as his … her! … her profile pictures trough a photo matching search engine and a rather odd result came up. It appears that "tiffany's" profile pictures actually show one "mindy vega", profession: Porn starlet.

This picture of miss mindy and her … uhm … friend and colleague "crissy" might look familiar to some:

Flickr.com/photos/33619332@n07/3276704767/

another picture of mindy that we already know from it's cropped form at ats:

Myspace.com/funnybrad/photos/5469464#{"imageid"%3a5469464}

 

[DGM]

I don't know if someone else noticed the following before, but I ran the 4 photos that "TiffanyInLA" at Above Top Secret provided as his … her! … her profile pictures trough a photo matching search engine and a rather odd result came up. It appears that "Tiffany's" profile pictures actually show one "Mindy Vega", profession: porn starlet.

This picture of Miss Mindy and her … uhm … friend and colleague "Crissy" might look familiar to some:

flickr.com/photos/33619332@N07/3276704767/

Another picture of Mindy that we already know from it's cropped form at ATS:

myspace.com/funnybrad/photos/5469464#{"ImageId"%3A5469464}

Welcome, Fixed the links for you.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33619332@N07/3276704767/

http://www.myspace.com/funnybrad/photos/5469464#{"ImageId":5469464}

OK, For those of us that have no idea who she is. Clue us in.

 

[DGM]

Never mind (I'm a bit slow with all the holiday parties). I don't keep up with the young ones, something about them being younger then your own kids, just doesn't do it.

 

[Muc]

OK, For those of us that have no idea who she is. Clue us in.

According to TiffanyInLA on ATS those are pictures of herself:

media.abovetopsecret.com/profile_gallery/TiffanyInLA/&action=list_photos&album_id=14951

If you enter them into tineye.com reverse picture search, one of them will lead you to a series of photos of the same person tagged with "Mindy Vega" on a russian web site. She wears very little on most of them. You can find the 2 pictures I linked in my previous post with google picture search, once you know her name.

 

[KDLarsen]

Bwahahahaha.

Quite a few of the peeps over on ATS were more or less drooling over "TiffanyInLa", due to the avatar image used. It would be a shame not to let them know where that image really came from, no?

 

[Oystein]

Why does Balsamo make up fake Vg diagrams? What is a Vg diagram and how does it relate to Deets? Who cares ...
...
Balsamo took 767 speeds and placed them in an educational Vg diagram, removing the real speeds. Look at the T-37 graph. And then below at the T-38 diagram. Then see Balsamo's fake 767 Vg diagram and he/she admits it, but implies it is valid.
...
Balsamo makes up his diagram. He takes numbers from one aircraft and insert them in a generic Vg diagram. TiffanyInLa/Balsamo took a Vg diagram like this. Exactly like this one.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/VgdiagrambeforeBalsamodolteditup.gif[/qimg]

Arbitrarily added speeds from a 767 to make it a fake 767 Vg diagram. Balsamo explains this is what he did and then claims 990 broke up in-flight, which is a lie which dovetails with the fake Vg diagram.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/VgdiagramBalsamoized.jpg[/qimg]


Balsamo, posing as a girl sock at ATS and other forums, took a Vg diagram and inserted Vspeeds for a 767. Making up evidence to support his delusions, hiding behind a sock. Not news, standard procedure from the 11.2g failed physics pilot who sells delusions. If you need lots of cookies, go over to ATS, see Balsamo starting threads about himself, spewing nonsense, posing as a girl, or implied girl, who is extremely dumb on 911. See the same at
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3611382/4/ ; where else is this fraud being posted... ?
...

All very interesting.
Could be made up.

Wish there were some links.
Wish there were some sources to prove where Balsamo took his charts from, and how he manipulated them.
Wish you had actually shown proof that TiffanyInLa=Balsamo

I know. We at JREF can be quite pesky about such annoying little things like evidence...

 

[George 152]

A side issue is how 911 truth uses "experts" like Lear and Deets to support woo, and inspire the need to fake things. These "experts" arrive with the same old lies and no evidence, and p4t/911t use them to sell the same old lies.

We don't need to bash the pilots at p4t who have failed opinions on 911, they do that best when they sign up for p4t. We can supply tools to combat the fraud and lies. Give examples and reference, or ideas to help understand and identify lies about 911.

An MD80 driver confronted Cap'n Bob through some-one else on p4t.
None of the 'pilots' over there were able to answer any of the questions put

And these claims about the airspeed constraints upon ordinary everyday aviation extending to the thinking of insane arabs intent upon suicide makes one wonder as to the thinking of such posters.

 

[Muc]

According to some strange posts in his forum some years ago, Balsamo seems to be quite an admirer of Miss Vega's appearance personality and acting skills:

pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=3684

Coincidence? Just asking questions.

 

[Oystein]

According to some strange posts in his forum some years ago, Balsamo seems to be quite an admirer of Miss Vega's appearance personality and acting skills:

pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=3684

Coincidence? Just asking questions.

okidok......

 

[beachnut]

All very interesting.
Could be made up.

Wish there were some links.
Wish there were some sources to prove where Balsamo took his charts from, and how he manipulated them.
Wish you had actually shown proof that TiffanyInLa=Balsamo

I know. We at JREF can be quite pesky about such annoying little things like evidence...

I provided the actual evidence, the diagram he used, and the fake diagram he made by adding different font to the bottom. That is called evidence.


Balsamo is TiffanyInLa, Balsamo posts this tripe on multiple web sites. Only Balsamo is dumb enough to fake a Vg diagram and try to sell it on multiple web sites. But go ahead prove TiffanyInLa is not Balsamo, it is as impossible as making 11.2g Balsamo physics real.

It takes .19 seconds to find the link for the "Vg diagram". Google "vg diagram", it is the third diagram in the Images for vg diagram -

http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/Load_factors.html

"Figure 4: Typical Vg diagram." was found quickly using google. The real T-37 and T-38 diagrams were found quickly (after going though my professional papers scattered randomly though-out the massive 2400 sq ft mansion) in "Aerodynamics for PILOTS", ATC Pamphlet 51-3.

The chart was made up, not could be made up.
Your wishes, not exactly my command, it was too easy to figure out. I don't want to spend too much time exposing Balsamo, but when it is this easy, it only cost the time to type it; TG for typing class.

I have been a pilot since 1973, first flew jets in 1975, heavy jets in 1976; Balsamo's fake Vg diagram is evident on first sight, no need for sources.
It is sad, Balsamo is incredibly stupid, the few dolts he fools are in the undefined super stupid category yet to be named.

 

[apathoid]

I provided the actual evidence, the diagram he used, and the fake diagram he made by adding different font to the bottom. That is called evidence.


Balsamo is TiffanyInLa, Balsamo posts this tripe on multiple web sites. Only Balsamo is dumb enough to fake a Vg diagram and try to sell it on multiple web sites. But go ahead prove TiffanyInLa is not Balsamo, it is as impossible as making 11.2g Balsamo physics real.

It takes .19 seconds to find the link for the "Vg diagram". Google "vg diagram", it is the third diagram in the Images for vg diagram -

http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/Load_factors.html

Hell. That's worse than when he rotated a superimposed compass over the Pentagon by 2 degrees to show that it was impossible for 77 to hit light poles. Like it was asked of him then....did he think no one would notice?

I don't know if someone else noticed the following before, but I ran the 4 photos that "TiffanyInLA" at Above Top Secret provided as his … her! … her profile pictures trough a photo matching search engine and a rather odd result came up. It appears that "Tiffany's" profile pictures actually show one "Mindy Vega", profession: porn starlet.

This picture of Miss Mindy and her … uhm … friend and colleague "Crissy" might look familiar to some:

No, it isn't funny. Rob, get some help dude.