Retired NASA "expert" Inspires Balsamo Fraud?

[Oystein]

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.

It is only evidence if the provenience of it is established, which was your job.

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.

No, beachnut. You know how we like it here at JREF: The person making a claim has to prove it is true, not others to prove a negative.

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.

Thanks. But if it was so easy, why didn't you do it the first time around? You made the claim, you bring (and source!) the evidence.

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.

Sorry beachnut, that isn't so. It may be evident on first sight to you with your specific qualifications, but it isn't evident on first sight to me, I and think it isn't evident on first sight to most here. That's why you would be a smarter and better poster if you cut a little on the rants and added a little on the substance.
Besides, you really are just an avatar on the internet. I don't have to believe your claimed qualifications any more than I have to believe Rob's claimed qualifications.

It is sad, Balsamo is incredibly stupid, the few dolts he fools are in the undefined super stupid category yet to be named.

beachnut, you were the non-CTist here who is closest to going on my ignore list (until Chewy went into full gear), because reading your posts is a waste of time usually. Entertaining the first 3-5 times around, diminishing fun factor for another dozend posts, and very tedious ever since, because you usually provide all rant, and no sourced or original content. There may well be not a single post by beachnut I have ever seen that would be fit to be shown to someone who is taken in by CTs anbd needs to be convinced by reason and skepticism.

 

[apathoid]

beachnut, you were the non-CTist here who is closest to going on my ignore list (until Chewy went into full gear), because reading your posts is a waste of time usually. Entertaining the first 3-5 times around, diminishing fun factor for another dozend posts, and very tedious ever since, because you usually provide all rant, and no sourced or original content. There may well be not a single post by beachnut I have ever seen that would be fit to be shown to someone who is taken in by CTs anbd needs to be convinced by reason and skepticism.

Beachy has written some of the most insightful posts I've ever read in this section. Yes, he has a uniquely strange writing style, but unlike most posters here he indeed does come up with original material. The signal to noise ratio in the 9/11 CT forum has steadily decreased, but there are few better debunkers, especially when it comes to "airplaney" stuff on 9/11 than beachnut.

 

[Oystein]

Beachy has written some of the most insightful posts I've ever read in this section. Yes, he has a uniquely strange writing style, but unlike most posters here he indeed does come up with original material. The signal to noise ratio in the 9/11 CT forum has steadily decreased, but there are few better debunkers, especially when it comes to "airplaney" stuff on 9/11 than beachnut.

Maybe before my time.

Seems he is now preaching to the airplaney choir, which I am not a member of.

 

[Reheat]

Maybe before my time.

Seems he is now preaching to the airplaney choir, which I am not a member of.

That's pretty obvious too! LOL

The major problem with the made up vg chart is that it is intentionally done to look scary past the operational limits to support Balsamo's tripe. Beachnut is absolutely correct in that a Boeing aircraft does not turn to mush past the published limits. Those limits are established for a multitude of reasons, one of which is to preserve the airframe in a safe condition for it's estimated lifespan.

I see Tiffany is now wearing pink. As if that fools anyone..... Not even smart enough to use different words to propagate the idiocy.

 

[triforcharity]

Hay Pink,

Since you're so proud of the "support" at pprune why in the world aren't you posting there with your "theory" instead of locations where there so few people who have the ability to argue with you?

What better way to advance your agenda than among a group of Professional Pilots as opposed to ("the cesspool") or at the looney bin of ATS?

Is it because you are a coward?

Don't forget the TrueTV message boards.

 

[George 152]

Oh and he got his rear handed to him by an MD80 driver and the message stayed up long enough for some to see it.
He/she's slipping

 

[triforcharity]

George, do you have a link?

 

[George 152]

George, do you have a link?

No. Sorry. Capn Bob does things with messages he can't handle.
Like delete them before he thinks any-one spots them

 

[triforcharity]

Oh yeah, he is good for that. Like his epic meltdown with Turbofan.....

 

[George 152]

Beachy has written some of the most insightful posts I've ever read in this section. Yes, he has a uniquely strange writing style, but unlike most posters here he indeed does come up with original material. The signal to noise ratio in the 9/11 CT forum has steadily decreased, but there are few better debunkers, especially when it comes to "airplaney" stuff on 9/11 than beachnut.

I'll go along with that.

He knows his subjects, if the conspiracy kooks stopped and thought about his explanations for a while they'd admit they were wrong, apologise for the time they had wasted and go away

 

[jaydeehess]

That's pretty obvious too! LOL

The major problem with the made up vg chart is that it is intentionally done to look scary past the operational limits to support Balsamo's tripe. Beachnut is absolutely correct in that a Boeing aircraft does not turn to mush past the published limits. Those limits are established for a multitude of reasons, one of which is to preserve the airframe in a safe condition for it's estimated lifespan.

.

This is something that has really bothered me about these professional pilots on PfT.
As an electronic tech I know that there are the limits at which the ccts I design will utterly break down and turn the device into a short lifespan toaster. This has little correlation though to the limits I would place on the day to day operation of those ccts.

It seems patently obvious to me, a technical person albeit a non-flight engineer or pilot, that the operational limits are NOT the same as the operation of the aircraft that would cause its rapid disintegration.
In fact in watching the docuementary of the air worthiness of the latest Airbus(The massive one, the "380 IIRC) in one test they run the aircraft up to (IIRC) 0.97 mach for several minutes. The a/c MUST remain completely intact (it did not in its first test) in order to be certified, much less come apart at the seams killing all on board.

"Professional" pilots IMHO, should know this.

 

[jaydeehess]

Then again the 'pilot' known as "bill" on PfT divided the vertical distance of descent , in feet, by the time of descent, in minutes, and came up with a rather astoudingly rapid descent in what he termed as 'feet per second'. Only being out by a factor of 60.

 

[stewieg]

No, beachnut. You know how we like it here at JREF: The person making a claim has to prove it is true, not others to prove a negative.

Just like how the truthers have to prove any of their claims. Something they have failed to do.

 

[beachnut]

It is only evidence if the provenience of it is established, which was your job.

It is evidence, I can't help it if you failed to take the two graphics and compare them in a photo program like Microsoft Photo Editor. I included enough clues for anyone who can google to check all the evidence, the same way I did, or better.

No, beachnut. You know how we like it here at JREF: The person making a claim has to prove it is true, not others to prove a negative.

No? I don't get it, where are your links and references for this poppycock? I got it right, and included enough clues to google and confirm all. Got Google?

What did I get wrong? Can you prove it? Do it. I was impressed with your link filled, reference loaded rebuttal to Balsamo's sock; good job.

Thanks. But if it was so easy, why didn't you do it the first time around? You made the claim, you bring (and source!) the evidence.

Welcome.

It was easy. Sorry you failed to find it easy; next time message me for help on the hard parts.

Sorry beachnut, that isn't so. It may be evident on first sight to you with your specific qualifications, but it isn't evident on first sight to me, I and think it isn't evident on first sight to most here. That's why you would be a smarter and better poster if you cut a little on the rants and added a little on the substance.

I said for me it was evident on first sight. I was trained as an engineer and pilot and have knowledge on Vg diagrams; how many people have books in their home libraries with Vg diagrams and books on aerodynamics for pilots and engineers.

We can find quickly and independently information on Vg diagrams on the web which can be used to see Balsamo/Tiff's diagram is a fraud. Hint, weight, and alitude.

Besides, you really are just an avatar on the internet. I don't have to believe your claimed qualifications any more than I have to believe Rob's claimed qualifications.

Rob is clearly a pilot, you can look up on the FAA web site his flying certificates, and you can do the same for me since I made the mistake of letting my real name out. It does take some google effort, but then, that is easy. Balsamo makes fun of my ATP; you can google it, or maybe not.

You might say at one time I was my avatar, or in my avatar, or flew my part of my avatar - and I want to thank everyone for letting me serve in the USAF and fly your jets. I even flew over Germany a few times (thank you)! I am just an avatar... I posted a Vg diagram for my avatar.... lol

beachnut, you were the non-CTist here who is closest to going on my ignore list (until Chewy went into full gear), because reading your posts is a waste of time usually. Entertaining the first 3-5 times around, diminishing fun factor for another dozend posts, and very tedious ever since, because you usually provide all rant, and no sourced or original content. There may well be not a single post by beachnut I have ever seen that would be fit to be shown to someone who is taken in by CTs anbd needs to be convinced by reason and skepticism.

I see your rant, and I raise it... (was going to say...If I was me, I would put me on Ignore. ???)

It is sad I am so geeky on flying, engineering, computers, graphics and more that I am able to identify Balsamo's claims as lies without links or references; it is common knowledge to me. I am sad I am a geek; wait, it makes me money; maybe I am happy I am a geek.

I did rant, the Vg diagram Balsamo posted, as Tiff, is FAKE. I rant on. Anyone who can google and comprehend the easy stuff can make the same rant.

I was skeptical of Tiff's (AKA, Balsamo the want to be woman who sells DVDs of lies, and non-theories) Vg diagram. It was funny as heck the Vg diagram Balsamo used to make his fake Vg diagram was one of the first few in a simple, easy google search! What a lazy liar Balsamo is!

Rant on... Balsamo posted as a sock with his new Vg diagram, now more fake than before. Balsamo has refined his fraud, making it dumber. He took the G loading and changed it. The first fake Vg diagram for the 767, he forgot to change the G axis to fake it for the 767.

I have failed to find anything 911 truth claims to be true; and I did it without links or references. They have no evidence. The Vg diagram is an easy claim to refute. I may be wrong, but I thought reading comprehension and basic research skills in the hands of a rational person with a grade school education would suffice; am I wrong?

If you like I could go back and redo the OP with massive references to help someone understand why the Vg diagram is fake and Tiff is Balsamo. I also make claims there is fire, and I can make fire; need links and references? But instead, since I make the claim, I will find it much easier if you prove me wrong. It will save me time and you can do the work, I have to chop wood to stay warm, you can do the debunking of beachnut, the pilot who had everything.

 

[Reheat]

Hay Oystein,

Don't try this at home, Beachnut and I are what you call experts!

 

[Oystein]

Just like how the truthers have to prove any of their claims. Something they have failed to do.

Exactly, and it is the same fail. Which is very unfortunate, when beachnut is right and truthers are wrong, that beachnut choses to fail the same way that truthers fail: By not providing sourced evidence for his claims.

 

[Oystein]

It is evidence, I can't help it if you failed to take the two graphics and compare them in a photo program like Microsoft Photo Editor. I included enough clues for anyone who can google to check all the evidence, the same way I did, or better.

When truthers present us nifty graphics and don't give us sources, we grill them on that. If your argument requires for your readers to google everything, you haven't done your job

No? I don't get it, where are your links and references for this poppycock? I got it right, and included enough clues to google and confirm all. Got Google?

I am not making any counter-claim, so I have nothing to source. I only point to your posts and complain: Where are the sources that confirm your evidence?

What did I get wrong? Can you prove it? Do it. I was impressed with your link filled, reference loaded rebuttal to Balsamo's sock; good job.

Did I say you got anything wrong? No. Or show me! In fact I believe that you got everything right. But you could as well be making some of it up. You won't convince a layman that way, and you won't convince a truther that way, so why bother?

Welcome.

It was easy. Sorry you failed to find it easy; next time message me for help on the hard parts.

I said for me it was evident on first sight. I was trained as an engineer and pilot and have knowledge on Vg diagrams; how many people have books in their home libraries with Vg diagrams and books on aerodynamics for pilots and engineers.

And precisely because it is easy for you, you ought to have provided the references and cited sources, because you know best where to find them. You, not I.

We can find quickly and independently information on Vg diagrams on the web which can be used to see Balsamo/Tiff's diagram is a fraud. Hint, weight, and alitude.

So why didn't you do it? Why start a thread and make an argument, when you are not going to provide sourced evidence?

...
It is sad I am so geeky on flying, engineering, computers, graphics and more that I am able to identify Balsamo's claims as lies without links or references; it is common knowledge to me. I am sad I am a geek; wait, it makes me money; maybe I am happy I am a geek.

And because you are the geek and I am not, and because can do it without links or references, you fail to convince the non-geeks (me) by not providing links and references.

Beachy, us skeptics, us debunkers, we always always demand that truthers back up their claims, their data, their quotes with references and links. I just hold you to the same standard.

...since I make the claim, I will find it much easier if you prove me wrong. It will save me time and you can do the work, I have to chop wood to stay warm, you can do the debunking of beachnut, the pilot who had everything.

And that's the attitude we despise in CTers. Making bare-ass assertions, and instead of proving them wait for refutation. But I gor news for you: Without bringing evidence, there's nothing to debunk.


So next time I might just open a thread, claim that termites brought the towers down, post some images of termites, but spare myself the effort of providing evidence that these photos are actually relevant, and wait for your debunking. Think anyone would take me serious? No? Why not? You should, because I know everything there is to know about termites, so you must believe me! Google it, buddy, you can find my evidence if you just try hard enough! Haha!

 

[Oystein]

Hay Oystein,

Don't try this at home, Beachnut and I are what you call experts!

I know that, and there are 1400 experts over at AE911T, and 2 or 3 of them even throw graphs and stuff at me. So you are saying I should believe them, only because they are experts?

Rob claims to be an expert, and so does Mr. Deeds. Should I let them get away with unsourced data and claims?

Reheat, precisely because you are the experts, you are in a position to convince us rational non-experts and put foolish fakes like Rob to bed. But it only works if you follow the rules. And one such rule is: Without reference, I don't have to believe you your data is even correct.


No here is a surprise: beachnut has convinced me. I think he is totally right with the OP. But I was not in need of being convinced! I never believed Balsamo to start with! So who do you guys want to convince, huh? You gotta gauge your act against the state of mind of Balsamo disciples - preferably those who can think rationally and just have been fed false informnation. Such guys start out thinking that Balsamo is right and beachnut is wrong. Now beachnut comes along with an unpleasant rant, makes claims, but does not provide the references and links to facts for the Balsamo crowd to check. Do you think beachy stands a good chance of convincing anybody, with that failure?

Or is the purpose of the rants, the thread, the sub-forum not to convince those who so far believe lies? Then what is the purpose? For you experts to vent? Or to get the cheap applause of us already convinced non-experts?

 

[Reheat]

Exactly, and it is the same fail. Which is very unfortunate, when beachnut is right and truthers are wrong, that beachnut choses to fail the same way that truthers fail: By not providing sourced evidence for his claims.

You are flat out WRONG!

What if beachnut IS the source material? He gave an OPINION and he IS an expert in the area upon which he was commenting. If you had been here long enough you would know beachnut is WHO and WHAT he says he is. You would also know his full real name. He can be verified in the FAA database and he has been verified by me via mutual acquaintances. Unfortunately, Balsamo can also be verified in the same database. Your comments on this are truly a FAIL!

He posted two examples of Published Vg Diagrams and the SOURCE for the idiot chart made up by Balsamo. If you don 't understand them you certainly are entitled to ask questions. Nah, you didn't do that, but instead started condemning him for his writing style! Here you are doing it again.

With regard to the identity of "Tiffany", you ought to understand the vein in which that opinion was given. It was an opinion and I have the same opinion. In fact, there is no legitimate question about it. He can generally be spotted from miles away just as others are doing in another thread. How is one suppose to prove that anyway as even an IP address doesn't prove it due to network technology.

If you don't like beachnut's writing style then put him on ignore and be done with it. If you elect to continue in this vein, then you have at least two people to deal with (probably others).

I implore you to stop this kind of nonsense and stop it now. You picked the wrong people with whom to start a stupid argument.

 

[Reheat]

Rob claims to be an expert, and so does Mr. Deeds. Should I let them get away with unsourced data and claims?

Balsamo usually sources most of his material and it proves absolutely NOTHING unless you understand how and when it applies. Deets hasn't sourced anything worthwhile yet. Basically, many of these issues boil down to WHO to believe. Unfortunately, it does take some knowledge of the subject matter to be able to sort out the difference.

If you'll go back and read beachnut's post again for technical content he scanned two Vg charts from his personal material. Those are NOT available online anywhere as a source. Those are REAL Vg diagrams from USAF Technical Manuals for the respective aircraft. He also posted Balsamo's original chart and one with B767 speeds Balsamo inserted.

The problem with Balsamo's Chart is that it is NOT a real Vg Diagram, i.e. it is fake just as beachnut said. It was selected by Balsamo in order deceive his layman audience at ATS. When accompanied with his supporting verbiage that the speed of UA 175 was (insert various words here like impossible, improbable, "the elephant in the room", etc) it appears that he is correct according to HIS chart. He also says that Boeing derives their V speeds from flight and wind tunnel tests (which is NOT SOURCED because it is proprietary material) which is a half truth. Balsamo does not have the real material from Boeing to support any of this, he only has his made up (fake) chart.

The chart was posted at pprune for comment (undoubtedly by Balsamo) without any accompanying verbiage. To my knowledge no one has commented yet. The VSpeeds on it are correct for a B767, but in that it is not a real Vg Diagram, it is extremely deceptive.

Do you now understand or do you want beachnut or I to draw more diagrams and add fake charts?