Using Nanothermite to Blow Up Denialism
Noam Chomsky on denialism, in this case the 9-11 brand, but the points he makes are the right ones. To be honest, Eli is not a huge Chomsky fan, but the guy is smart and will update his priors
Friday, November 29, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
383 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 383 of 383"Which totally ignores the stress effects of the shock waves that build up in transonic speeds, dufous, which don't exist at subsonic speeds."
Take care who you call a dufous dhogaza, shock waves do exist at aircraft subsonic speeds that is the meaning of transonic, i.e. parts of the aircraft are subsonic and parts at ightsesaover Mach 1.
Now tell me on what the speed of sound depends, i.e. what measurement is considered.
Mach effects are drag based. That is all.
That is why there are two speeds set by the manufacturer, Vmo/Mmo.
In other words, Mach 1 near sea level is much more dangerous than Mach 1 at altitude. Ask Felix Baumgartner and Brian Udel.
It is clear, the people here who blindly support the govt story have absolutely no clue regarding aerodynamics, FAA mandates and precedent... which includes Russel whatshisname...
"A publication was made in the AIAA by an AIAA Associate Fellow, but it was deleted by the AIAA mods."
Rejected by the mods? What was it...an online forum? Professional journals don't have "mods". They have editors and subject-matter experts who review submissions for content, accuracy and technical proficiency related to the topic. You say it was "deleted" as if all you had to do was post it on some online forum. You really have no idea how this goes, do you?
In any event, you answered my question regarding peer-reviewed articles or position papers or abstracts that have been published in any mainstream aviation journal that supports the claims of this pilot's group. The answer is no. How long have you been at this? 7 years?
And having established the acknowledged fact that you can point to absolutely zero professional aviation organizations (aside from, you know, some online or otherwise forum where even the "mods" didn't support what you put forth) that support your claims, you have underscored the fact that you really do not know what you speak of. Again, I believe the terms used were "fanciful, fantastic and delusional".
As far as the question you keep asking me (your time would be better suited in writing a point paper on why you believe a 7X7-class aircraft would have been torn apart at the speeds observed on 9/11 and submitting it through a proper vetting and peer-reviewed process and having true professionals and their parent organization support you), I don't see why I should answer such an aeronautical neophyte such as yourself. Find some credibility, first, and at that time I will converse with you on technical matters.
Good day,
Tristan in Maine
Tristan says -
"Find some credibility, first, and at that time I will converse with you on technical matters."
How long have you been posting comments bashing P4T?
That speaks volumes.
In other words, P4T will never spend any real time to post anything bashing you.... or about you. They don't even know who you are.
But you seem to know a lot about them... albeit very misguided by your confirmation bias.
In further words Tristan, each time you make a bash P4T post, you lend them credibility. Especially when you have refused to answer the following question time and time again...
Do you agree with Mr. Seitz in his assertion that Boeing builds their aircraft to a 400% margin of safety?
You aren't too sharp, are you? I have told you to try to obtain a bit of credibility, at which time I would love to debate you, here or on your site.
"It was published, which means it was approved by some of the mods. But apparently after a "political" discussion, it was then deleted. Do you think that just anyone can be initially published to the AIAA without first being approved?"
Prove it. Someone as narcissistic as you no doubt has a screen capture of the posting.
To help you out, though, since you obviously do not know how to do this (if you had stuck to proper submission protocols, no "political" discussion would sidetrack a properly submitted paper), here is the link where you can learn to submit a paper to AIAA:
http://arc.aiaa.org/page/publishwithaiaa
Good luck. Hope to see some of your "work" in a professional journal some day, with luck (and good writing) another 7 years won't pass before you do.
Tristan in Maine
The 400% refers to stress not speed. Rent a clue
"The other combustible materials raised the temperature"
Really? Which ones? How do you know?
And the fire retardant materials and the chemical addition of other fire retardants to the combustibles didn't manage to change that?
How do you know all this, anon-1?
Have you rummaged through the wreckage to determine this "fact"?
Strong on assertion, hella weak on rationality, aren't you, dear?
Anon 101-a here:
"Prove it. Someone as narcissistic as you no doubt has a screen capture of the posting."
Odd that you don't demand the same rigour as anon-1, isn't it.
Moreover, you're technically asking for the proof of the absence of something here.
That's hella easy.
"Strong on assertion, hella weak on rationality, aren't you, dear?"
Much better assumption than just assuming the properties of a jet fuel only fire in still air.
Maybe the aliens who have those bases on the moon really did disguise some spacecraft as Boeing 757s. Why don't you go ask Lear for us and report back.
1
EliRabett said... "The 400% refers to stress not speed. Rent a clue "
Then how come this Boeing wing broke at 154% during this stress test for certification?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
Clearly someone doesn't have a clue. But I don't think it is the person to which you are responding.
For those interested, here is the discussion of the submission to the AIAA board, posted at the P4T forum by the author.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19919
...and the discussion of it being taken down by higher authority in the AIAA.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19919&view=findpost&p=10785263
"For those interested, here is the discussion of the submission to the AIAA board, posted at the P4T forum by the author."
That is a post on a weblog, it was there for two weeks, and does not mean it was "published in a scientific journal" by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe Lear's aliens deleted it.
1
Anon-101a here:
"The other combustible materials raised the temperature and the amount of heat of the fire to the point of reducing the strength of the steel beams which contributed to the collapse."
Ah, so you know which materials they were and how they combusted despite the fire retardants and a design requirement that the system NOT fail for those reasons for (IIRC) at least 1.5 hours to allow evacuation, HOW?
Because the rubble was removed and no engineer has been able to get access to that, but YOU have, huh?
Or are you making this up too?
PS note that the claim was that it was the JET FUEL that did this. If it were the other combustibles taking light, then
a) that isn't the JET FUEL doing it
b) that fire could have been started by a stray cigarette or electrical short, hence is 100% unsafe. If that were true, there would be a report on how NOT to make a death trap skyscraper. Where is that?
Are you blind?
1
Tristan in Maine
"In any event, you answered my question regarding peer-reviewed articles or position papers or abstracts that have been published in any mainstream aviation journal that supports the claims of this pilot's group."
Let me remind you of this that I wrote on page one of this thread, which you seemed to have skipped:
"Whoa! Just what do you think aeronautical engineering science and the design of heavier than air machines is based upon? Greek mythology."
To which I will add that it is accepted, published, aerodynamic science that underpins the numbers I put to you and also data collected from hundreds of hours of wind-tunnel and flight tests.
Tests that demonstrate that it is the rise in drag coefficient at above about Mach 0.7 at low level that starts to cause issues for aircraft flight and structural stability. These are facts. Go do the homework.
Now how long have we, by we I mean the collective aviation fraternity, been at this science? Let us see how much you know, you answer that.
Do you see one of the difficulties here, many accredited pilots (including some who have put their identity on the line) who understand what's at stake here, heck that is why they have something called 'Ground School'
Now Tristan from Maine is what exactly?
So bunny prefers to dump a post from anon-101a, despite doing as requested.
Sad bunny.
Roadkill on self bad time.
my mistake, rabit.
two -ing pages, link to page in tinyfont.
"Tests that demonstrate that it is the rise in drag coefficient at above about Mach 0.7 at low level that starts to cause issues for aircraft flight and structural stability. These are facts. Go do the homework."
As opposed to total destruction of the airplane at 360 knots (considerably below Mach 0.7 at sea level) as "proven" by the earlier (faked) Vg graph we were exposed to.
Now, Mach 0.7 at sea level is just a bit shy of 500 mph. One of the two 767s that hit the tower was going somewhat over 400 mph, but less than 500 mph, when it hit.
Therefore, if we believe your numbers, it was flying slower than the speed at which "issues for for aircraft flight and structural stability" occur.
The other was going about 520 mph, about 5% over the speed at which "issues..." (NOT total destruction) begin ...
Lionel A.
My God. Do you know the meaning of the word obtuse? You and the other gentleman from your group do not seem to grasp my point, through either willful ignorance or unintentional ignorance.
I have tried to explain that these claims from your "many accredited pilots (including some who have put their identity on the line)"(why that matters I do not know - willful display of ignorance does not bode well for confidence in one's ability) are "fanciful, fantastic and delusional" and are not supported by the vast majority of professional aviator and aeronautical engineer communities. If they were, your "many accredited pilots (including some who have put their identity on the line)" would have professional papers, articles, books and research published - significantly more than a simple "blog post" on a website. Looking at the compendium of 9/11 Truth books that have been published, lo, after all these years, and your Pilot's group does not have one. No papers, no articles in professional magazines or journals, no nothing. You can claim wild things all you want, but if your claims are not supported by the professionals in your scientific discipline, you are not worth taking seriously.
You believe the aircraft could not achieve the speeds displayed that day. The vast majority of professional aviators and aerospace engineers would (and do) disagree with you. Plain and simple. Your leader appears to enjoy posting the video of a Boeing 777 wing snapping at 154% of its design load. Yet in other online searches I have conducted, he has claimed that an aircraft structure will break when it exceeds 1 knot of airspeed above its "design load/limit". I would like to ask him, which is it? 1 percent beyond its "design load/limit", or 150% or 154%? Engines and other structural components are designed even to more strict requirements. These aircraft were, and are, fully capable of speeds well beyond these "limits" you speak of. They are. If you don't like that statement, write a paper disputing that fact and have it published in a peer-reviewed aviation journal and have it commented on by those who's job it is to address those issues.
As far as "how long have we, by we I mean the collective aviation fraternity, been at this science?" One could go back to Da Vinci and his sketches/ideas on what is now known as "aeronautics" and "aerocraft design" dates back to the early 16th century (over 500 years, that would be). I'm sure there had to have been thinkers before and beyond that who had looked at birds and considered the science of flight. Not certain what you are getting at with this question, but there you have it.
One thing is for sure, no doubt even Da Vinci would take the unsupported and "fanciful, fantastic and delusional" claims of a miniscule corner of a discipline and accept their wild claims without a peer review of their data.
Tristan in Maine
dhogaza -
you may want to read this -
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=22504&view=findpost&p=10810248
this -
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=22364&view=findpost&p=10809293
and this -
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/
as it is clear you do not have a clue why manufacturers set two airspeeds on jets, Vmo/Mmo... Vd/Md.
You can also learn how to create your own VG diagram with a Type Certificate Data Sheet from the manufacturer, as is done in Flight School across the country daily. Or, you can just go visit your local flight school, and they'll teach you.
Good luck!
dhog says -
"One of the two 767s that hit the tower was going somewhat over 400 mph, but less than 500 mph, when it hit."
Wrong. The airplane which impacted the North tower was traveling at 430 knots... the one that hit the south tower was traveling at 510 knots.
494 and 590 mph respectively. According to the NTSB using ASR radar from JFK, EWR, LGA and HPN.
The South tower airplane was traveling more than 90 past Vd, the end of the flight envelope and 90 knots into the structural failure zone.
Now if you think those speeds are wrong, you should inform NY TRACON as they use the same radar daily to assign speeds departing and arriving into the NYC terminal area daily.
Geeze, do any of these guys do their homework?
"Pilots you may safely fly your 757 at 360knots below 2000 feet every day for 20 years. If you dare go 361knots the plane will fall apart like the test craft on the cut scene from 'The Six Million Dollar Man'"
Your friends at pilotsfor911truth and our little green friends on the moon.
1
1 says - "Your friends at pilotsfor911truth and our little green friends on the moon."
No one at Pilots For 9/11 Truth said that, which is why you fail to post a source.
Why do those who blindly support the govt story always feel the need to lie?
dhogaza you are flogging a dead horse, well it should be but for your dogged persistence in arguing from ignorance.
Note:
“Analysis of data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively.”
Now dhogaza WRT aircraft performance, aviators don't fly in mph.
American 11 430 KIAS = 495.36 mph
United 175 510 KIAS = 587.52 mph
Now here is a reminder of a reminder:
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/using-nanothermite-to-blow-up-denialism.html?showComment=1386602140479#c3828764180865697428
Now be a good chap and go do the maths using the calculators provided with the relative numbers and using knots for speed.
Consider the variables upon which Mach number is reliant, I ask this because of a question you have avoided answering and it is important to get this correct in the calculators else you will be off base.
Interesting that you should double down on demonstrated ignorance, clue in a reply on this page above, rather than actually do some homework. You are still not getting it.
"Why do those who blindly support the govt story always feel the need to lie?"
Because it is not just a "government" story.
And it is a joke based upon your idiocy. I see you lack a sense of humor to match your lack of common sense.
When is John Lear going to trot out some aliens for us?
1
It's good to know you admit to being a liar, "1". Most of those who blindly support whatever the govt tells them just like to compound their lies.
As for John Lear, not really sure, perhaps when he breaks his next world record in aviation? Then again, I think he is retired.
How many world records do you hold in aviation, "1"? I'm thinking "0".
:-)
"Consider the variables upon which Mach number is reliant, I ask this because of a question you have avoided answering and it is important to get this correct in the calculators else you will be off base."
Mach number is simply velocity divided by the speed of sound of the medium you are traveling through.
In air, the only relationship with altitude is density, and the speed of sound increases with density, i.e. inversely to altitude, and yes, I mentioned that above.
Correcting for knots (sorry, my mistake), 590 mph is still before the transonic zone.
And performance envelopes aren't uniform across airplane types. You can't just take a textbook generic example Vg diagram, plug in some numbers for the 767, and claim it is an accurate Vg diagram for teh 767. Tch tch.
You keep ad hom'ing with claims that we're idiots, no nothing of aviation, etc while simultaneously arguing from authority while making trivial mistakes. Not a formula for success.
This is my last word. Honor your earlier promise, liar.
So when John Lear says aliens have bases on the moon is he a liar? Does he compound his lies when he discusses how aliens helped disguise the "planes" that struck the towers on 911?
Poor truthers cannot get one single scientific entity in the entire world to publish a single paper on their rock solid evidence, such a vast conspiracy. Maybe the aliens have vessels strategically placed around the globe and are using our satellites against us. The clock is ticking.
1
dhog says -
"Mach number is simply velocity divided by the speed of sound of the medium you are traveling through."
Although correct, you fail to understand the medium and the object. Mach is a dimensionless number. When dealing with aircraft, TAS is the "velocity". So Mach number is TAS/CS with regard to aerodynamics.
Now all you have to do is learn what TAS means, and how/why it changes with altitude.
In short, Mach 1 at sea level is much more dangerous than Mach 1 at say 30,000 feet.
Do you know why? Click here to find out -
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=22504&view=findpost&p=10810248
Your argument is a common misconception made by those who have never studied aerodynamics.
Again, this is the reason manufacturers set a Vmo/Mmo and a Vd/Md... depending on which is more critical given the altitude.
@"1" -
Sorry, I don't converse with admitted liars.
dhog says -
"You can't just take a textbook generic example Vg diagram, plug in some numbers for the 767,"
Yes you can. You can in fact draw your own if you want. V-speed definitions which make up the VG diagram, such as Va, Vmo, Vd... etc... are the same standard definition across ALL jet aircraft on this planet.
Vd is the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone for EVERY aircraft on this planet.
Please see page 151 in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics to learn how you too can construct your own VG diagram.
Or... you can check here...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/PerformanceEnvelope.gif
Note where Vd is... Vd for the 767 is 420 Knots based on the weights and altitudes given in the Boeing A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet.
Click here to learn more about Vd and the grave consequences if exceeded.
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/
From the above article -
"The dive speed [Vd] is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake."
Click here to see the grave consequences when aircraft exceed their Vd as set through wind tunnel and flight testing during aircraft certification.
(NASA Video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhwLojNerMU
Tristan, the really obtuse as well as prolix, in Maine:
“I have tried to explain that these claims from your "many accredited pilots (including some who have put their identity on the line)"(why that matters I do not know - wilful display of ignorance does not bode well for confidence in one's ability) are "fanciful, fantastic and delusional" and are not supported by the vast majority of professional aviator and aeronautical engineer communities.”
No what you are trying to do is create a straw man and here is why.
What has been established from the RAW data in NTSB supplied records are alleged speeds (implicit in that data) for the aircraft that hit the WTC towers that day.
That these speeds are highly improbable, and most likely impossible at the altitude concerned, due to structural and stability limits imposed by the nature of the medium being flown through as established by decades of aeronautical science which includes physics and testing by wind-tunnel and flight testing.
Now all that knowledge is implicitly understood by all competent pilots and thoroughly understood by test pilots. Because hundreds of these same don't go around shouting about it does not mean it isn't so for otherwise there would be aircraft falling out of the skies like mayflies in summer.
Heck even military jets designed to go at Mach 2+ can break up in the transonic region at low altitude through pilot negligence or system malfunction, and some have done just that.
You need to get a grip and do some study on this and stop shooting from the hip which not only makes you look ignorant but terribly bigoted with it.
dhogaza
“Mach number is simply velocity divided by the speed of sound of the medium you are traveling through.”
What I am trying to get out of you is why Mach changes with altitude. Why is Mach 1 at 22000 ft different from Mach 1 at 1000 ft? What has changed. The pecant variable is not simply air density as you seem to think, so what else could it be?
Hint, the correct answer to this will also tell you why the myth of Icarus is also that, just a myth. Hence my reference to Greek Mythology earlier.
I stress this because it is important for getting the correct answers out of formulae or the calculators.
dhog again:
“This is my last word. Honor your earlier promise, liar.”
What promise was that now, about 'my last word' statement.
Please note, as pointed out earlier and thus matter of record, that I followed that with a qualifying 'Unless...', which I invoked because you were becoming increasingly hostile and unpleasant.
As I remarked earlier, I never had you done for being like this, closed minded and when shown to be in error petty.
"Sorry, I don't converse with admitted liars."
I see how truthers latch onto something that never occurred and believe it to be fact. Please point to where I admitted to being a liar.
You are so pathetic, like John Lear the great alien diplomat.
1
"What I am trying to get out of you is why Mach changes with altitude. Why is Mach 1 at 22000 ft different from Mach 1 at 1000 ft? What has changed. The pecant variable is not simply air density as you seem to think, so what else could it be?"
Speed of sound is a function of density, nothing more. Mach number is speed/speed of sound.
NASA says this. Wikepedia says this. Just in case you don't trust me.
So, yes, the only reason Mach 1 at 22000 ft is *lower* than Mach 1 at 1000 feet is due to air being less dense at 22000 feet than it is at 1000 feet.
Lionel, the little train that couldn't, said:
""You can't just take a textbook generic example Vg diagram, plug in some numbers for the 767,"
Yes you can. You can in fact draw your own if you want. V-speed definitions which make up the VG diagram, such as Va, Vmo, Vd... etc... are the same standard definition across ALL jet aircraft on this planet."
But the diagram you presented was created by simply changing the x-axes (velocity) of an existing abstract Vg diagram originally generated as a teaching tool.
As you say yourself:
"...manufacturers set a Vmo/Mmo and a Vd/Md... depending on which is more critical given the altitude."
In other words, the ratios between these numbers change by aircraft type, there for the shape of the various curves forming the various areas within a Vg digram will vary with airplane type.
Therefore, no, you can't simply take a generic Vg diagram, change the X-axis, and get a valid Vg diagram for another airplane type, as was done to create your pet one …
dhog says -
"In other words, the ratios between these numbers change by aircraft type, there for[sic] the shape of the various curves forming the various areas within a Vg digram[sic] will vary with airplane type."
The definitions of the various V-speeds which construct a VG diagram do not change. Specifically the fact that Vd is the end of the flight envelope and the beginning of the structural failure zone for every aircraft on this planet. You do not need a VG diagram to figure this out.
Click and learn something dhog...
(Video from verified aviation professionals)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9R8-3W-nkU
The above was made for people just like you.
After viewing the above video... again I ask..
Do you agree with Mr. Seitz that Boeing builds a 400% margin of safety into their aircraft?
No one wants to answer the above question after the following link was posted. Even Mr Seitz disappeared. Hmm.... wonder why that is..
(Video from Boeing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
I'm just being sarcastic... I already know why no one wants to answer, and so will the readers after they view the above links.
dhog says -
"So, yes, the only reason Mach 1 at 22000 ft is *lower* than Mach 1 at 1000 feet is due to air being less dense at 22000 feet than it is at 1000 feet."
Clearly dhog is also not familiar with the term Equivalent Airspeed (EAS) and the fact such calculations can be (and are) derived from Mach numbers.
In short, 510 knots at sea level produces the same effects on an airframe as 722 KTAS at 22,000 feet. This is Mach 1.19 at 22,000 feet. (TAS/CS)
It appears dhog now thinks a 767 can fly supersonic at 22,000 feet?
And before he starts with his "shockwave" drivel.... the readers can click the link below for a more thorough explanation with sources.... because we know dhog will refuse to click it.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=22504&view=findpost&p=10810248
dhogaza
“Speed of sound is a function of density, nothing more. Mach number is speed/speed of sound.
NASA says this. Wikepedia says this. Just in case you don't trust me.”
No it is not. and no it does not and no I don't.
That is I didn't trust you and so checked Wiki myself Wikipedia says this:
“It is proportional to the square root of the absolute temperature,“
Wiki also says:
“Sound speed in air varies slightly with pressure only because air is not quite an ideal gas.”
Which clearly means that in our calculations this can be ignored as the major factor is air temperature.
This is what I was trying to tease out of you with my reference to Icarus and Mythology.
Maybe there is a Wikepedia that says that but I doubt it but as Wiki did not come upon with the words you ascribed I didn't bother with NASA either because I am fairly certain it is the same story. Did you really check both those sources, after all you have called me a liar several times now.
For those that sniff at Wiki, Kermode says this, “The speed of sound varies according to the temperature of the air....', and much much more for those who wish to be enlightened.
“dhogaza said...
Lionel, the little train that couldn't, said:
"You can't just take a textbook generic example Vg diagram, plug in some numbers for the 767,"”
Oh dear. No I did not say that. Your confusion is compounding, as is your petty spite.
It must be becoming uncomfortable to be dhogaza but this 'little train' is working just fine.
"The definitions of the various V-speeds which construct a VG diagram do not change. Specifically the fact that Vd is the end of the flight envelope and the beginning of the structural failure zone for every aircraft on this planet. You do not need a VG diagram to figure this out."
Then why do y'all insist on touting your faked Vg diagram? It is simply to mislead by giving an impression of authoritative knowledge which y'all don't have.
And, again, Vd is not the point where an airplane breaks up. It is the point where the risk of structural damage begins. Those who are flying into buildings have already accepted the fact that damage will result ...
"And before he starts with his "shockwave" drivel" ...
which is, of course, the drivel that severely damages and frequently destroys airframes not designed to pass through the transonic zone (old name "sound barrier") ...
And you guys wonder why you're ignored ...
"“Speed of sound is a function of density, nothing more. Mach number is speed/speed of sound.
NASA says this. Wikepedia says this. Just in case you don't trust me.”
No it is not. and no it does not and no I don't.
That is I didn't trust you and so checked Wiki myself Wikipedia says this:
“It is proportional to the square root of the absolute temperature,“"
Yes, because warmer air is less dense than colder air. Temperature affects density. Speed of sound is dependent upon density.
Speaking of high school physics ... good lord.
OK, you've shown yourself to be an idiot, thank you.
NASA reference:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/mach.html
Wikipedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number
"In fluid mechanics, Mach number (M or Ma) /ˈmɑːx/ is a dimensionless quantity representing the ratio of speed of an object moving through a fluid and the local speed of sound."
"Mach number varies by the composition of the surrounding medium and also by local conditions, especially temperature and pressure."
Because temperature and pressure determine density ...
Also from the same article:
"At Standard Sea Level conditions (corresponding to a temperature of 15 degrees Celsius), the speed of sound is 340.3 m/s[5] (1225 km/h, or 761.2 mph, or 661.5 knots, or 1116 ft/s) in the Earth's atmosphere."
At sea level, at normal temperatures, the speed of sound is far higher than the speeds that the two airplanes travelled at. For the nominal speed of sound given above:
420/661.5 = Mach 0.63
520/661.5 = Mach 0.79
Nowhere near the transonic realm (which is Mach 1 +/- noise).
Temperature is the main variant for the speed of sound in the atmosphere because the blanket of atmosphere surrounding the earth is nearly uniform in depth, therefore the pressure comonent due to gravity essentially doesn't vary for a given altitude. Thus temperature is the variable which most impacts local density.
Which is why the nominal value is given as "sea level at 15C" - density due to the weight of the atmosphere above a certain point is uniform at sea level throughout the world, therefore "sea level" is treated as a constant.
""You can't just take a textbook generic example Vg diagram, plug in some numbers for the 767,"”
Oh dear. No I did not say that."
No, you didn't say it. You posted a diagram created by someone else who did just that, though. I suspect you're unaware of this.
Actually, I'm wrong about the relationship between temperature, pressure and mach numbers, for which I apologize.
However, the fact still stands that at sea level at 15C, Mach 1 is about 661.5 knots and that ...
Plane #1 was traveling at about Mach 0.6 (very much in the subsonic realm)
Plane #2 was traveling at about Mach 0.8 (very much in the subsonic realm)
wow... look at him [dhog] go! You'd think someone struck a nerve.
Or perhaps it's just the facts.
For those interested in the facts... Click this link -
http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx
Make sure the "Correct For Compressibility" checkbox is checked in the upper right corner of the calculator (it is checked by default).
Place 22,000 into the Pressure Altitude window. (The altitude of Egypt Air 990 in which it reached its peak speed)
Place -29 into the C window for temp (temperature at 22,000 feet based on standard adiabatic rate)
Place 510 into the Equivalent Airspeed Window (the speed claimed of "UA175" near sea level)
Click "Eval" on True Airspeed.
Read the Knots in the True Airspeed window and the Mach number in the window below.
This is the number in which "dhog" thinks a 767 can fly at 22,000 feet and remain stable and controllable. 722 knots or 1.19 Mach.
In other words, those who believe a standard 767 can remain stable and controllable near sea level at 510 knots (as claimed by the govt story), they MUST also believe the same airplane can fly at Mach 1.19 at 22,000 feet and all will be fine.
dhog, has it ever occurred to you why you are the only one now responding in defense of the govt story?
(aside from "1" of course... who admitted lying about an alleged quote from P4T, which is why he failed to source it)
dhog, keep digging!
lmao
And for those who cannot find the Equivalent Airspeed Calculator given the link above... click here...
http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#EquivalentAirspeed
Then commence with the instructions outlined above.
Also noted is the fact dhog evaded my question regarding if he agrees with Mr Seitz on a 400% margin of safety built into Boeing aircraft.
Then again, I don;t blame him for evading, as Mr Seitz is wrong. Clearly dhog knows this... as does everyone else here.
For those who have been taught by Mr Seitz, I'd request a refund.
"(aside from "1" of course... who admitted lying about an alleged quote from P4T."
Please prove, retract, or consider yourself a liar and since you do not converse with liars...
1
"1" says -
"'Pilots you may safely fly your 757 at 360knots below 2000 feet every day for 20 years. If you dare go 361knots the plane will fall apart like the test craft on the cut scene from 'The Six Million Dollar Man'
Your friends at pilotsfor911truth and our little green friends on the moon."
A reply was made - "No one at Pilots For 9/11 Truth said that, which is why you fail to post a source."
"1" then claimed - "It was only a joke"
"1" now says -
"Please prove, retract, or consider yourself a liar and since you do not converse with liars.."
I agree... "1" should prove his/her/it assertion that "friends at Pilots For 9/11 Truth or little green friends on the moon have claimed -
"Pilots you may safely fly your 757 at 360knots below 2000 feet every day for 20 years. If you dare go 361knots the plane will fall apart like the test craft on the cut scene from 'The Six Million Dollar Man'"
"1" = troll/liar
And everyone knows it.
lmao
"1" do you agree with Mr Seitz that Boeing aircraft are built to a 400% margin of safety?
No one seems to want to answer this question...
Maybe they are UFO's? huh?
lmao...
Seems the UK ran a test on a 737 that went awry and got a 737 going 429 knots at about 6,000 feet, which using the John Lear loving, alien believing, anonymous moron's fancy calculator we have another jet doing the impossible and reaching back in time and making that Egyptian Air 1999 flight supersonic.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing%20737-73V,%20G-EZJK%2009-10.pdf
What exactly is your point anyways? Are you contending that planes did not hit the WTC1 and 2 or are you just all worked up over the speeds?
Have you spoken in depth about John Lear's alien theory and the use of holographs to disguise the true "ships"? Is that the main theory proposed from pilotsfor911truth? He is a prominent member, no?
1
"1"
There have been many, many examples throughout aviation history where aircraft have gone beyond, sometimes far beyond, their "design limits". The example you mention is merely one of them. The leader of this pilot's group hand-waves away such facts or aeronautical events and argumentatively directs any discussion back to the swampy, fetid hyper technically questionable ground that is his specialty.
You ask the leader of this pilot's group "What exactly is your point, anyways?"
After reading he and his follower's postings, it is quite apparent that he believes himself smarter that hundreds of thousands of aviators and aeronautical engineers worldwide. He expresses this belief through opinionated arrogance coupled with a faulty premise centered about the relative strength of aircraft design and construction. He takes technical details, details that it is quite obvious he knows little about, and concocts a "fanciful fantastic and delusional" story to go along with it. He has weak-minded followers who are mere lapdogs, eager to kowtow to his every word, and they feed him the slop that fuels this arrogance.
He has been at this snake oil for many years now, never gaining the support or professional recognition that he so dearly wants.
He will keep at it, though, a sad little person, yelling at the world, never getting beyond the ignorance of his own failures.
From what I can tell through Google and other Internet search mechanisms, he seeks out these confrontations on many, many discussion boards simply for the pleasure of looking important for his followers.
He speaks of aircraft breaking "at their design limit" then throws out a video of an aircraft wing breaking at 150% beyond its "design limit", and is ignorant enough not to see the dichotomy within.
Play with him, if you like. He is easily amusing. He will respond, no doubt, with more links to his own postings, similar to a cur dog with inbred genes souring its mind, asking if you or I or anyone agrees that aircraft are built with a 400% safety margin, and that his group continues to grow. That is his only argument, and it simply gets better and more entertaining as time goes by.
Tristan
After perusing a bit more of the "Pilot's" wqeb page, this followers need to familiarize themselves with this word:
"syc·o·phant/ˈsɪkəfənt, -ˌfænt, ˈsaɪkə-/ [sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh-]noun
a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite."
That is about the long and the short of it.
dhogaza
“Plane #1 was traveling at about Mach 0.6 (very much in the subsonic realm)
Plane #2 was traveling at about Mach 0.8 (very much in the subsonic realm)”
Plane #1 American 11 was travelling at 430kcas at Mach 0.66
Plane #2 United 175 was travelling at 510kcas at Mach 0.78
Both speeds are above the Vmo limit of 360kcas and if you go above about 355kcas at 1000ft in a 767 then you will be getting OVERSPEED warnings. Ponder that. Heck, why don't you go in the cockpit on your next flight and ask for a demo, although at that flight level, arriving or departing, cockpit crews are normally busy with aircraft and communications management factors.
Now we see another misconception, previously pointed out I might add, this statement of yours WRT those speeds:
“Nowhere near the transonic realm (which is Mach 1 +/- noise).”
is to put it blunt not even wrong. WTF is this +/- noise nonsense anyway? Looks like hand-waving to me.
For the transonic realm is from about Mach 0.8 and the start of the drag rise coefficient at about Mach 0.65 is one definition of critical Mach number, and it is with this and the thicker air at 1000K feet that makes these speed regimes so dangerous for wide body airliners.
It is in delaying that critical Mach number that designers use a number of strategies to be able to go faster, including at low level, by keeping wing aspect ratio to a minimum, large angle of sweep-back, area rule in the fuselage, boundary layer control devices such as wing fences, dog-tooth leading edges or many small vanes attached to the upper surface in line with normal airflow fitted along a line roughly parallel to the main spar.
The type of engines fitted also play a part in aircraft limiting speed.
I am becoming increasingly dismayed that seemingly intelligent people resort to slinging mud rather than engage convincingly with the numbers and the realities of flight. Many misconceptions have been revealed amongst the aviation illiterate here, and some are still being clung to.
Find a copy of Kermode, or similar, and study it.
Anonymous 1
“Seems the UK ran a test on a 737 that went awry and got a 737 going 429 knots at about 6,000 feet...”
Study the diagram at Page 4 of that AAIB Bulletin: 9/2010 and note the Fls and airspeeds during the OVERSPEED warning. Now why do you think there was an overspeed warning?
What you are missing is the effect of drag coefficient rise as the air becomes more dense at lower levels.
Also note the Mach value at the time of the 429kt speed, Mach 0.719.
Tristan in ignorance:
“After reading he and his follower's postings, it is quite apparent that he believes himself smarter that hundreds of thousands of aviators and aeronautical engineers worldwide. “
Oh! Look that straw man again.
No, what is happening here is that he is demonstrating that the facts do not support a 767 doing 510KIAS (or KCAS) at about 1000ft. This has come about by examining available evidence, comparing with aircraft performance data and discussion with many in the aviation fraternity who UNDERSTAND the issues.
Others of us who contribute from positions of understanding and experience are supporters through knowledge and not sycophants. You really know how to be insulting around here, but then that's bigots I guess.
The numbers with an explanation of what they mean have been posted time and time again, and we see how some till late misunderstood a basic element here. Now if you put the same amount of energy into researching this area of science yourself including the history of aviation knowledge as you do mouthing off with prolix statements bereft of any true context you would discover the error of your ways.
As you seem bent on continuing talking from ignorance then I doubt you are going to learn anything any time soon.
"Both speeds are above the Vmo limit of 360kcas and if you go above about 355kcas at 1000ft in a 767 then you will be getting OVERSPEED warnings.
"Mohammed, what is that sound. It is the overspeed warnings. Shouldn't we slow down? Uh our plan is to crash into WTC...."
"Now why do you think there was an overspeed warning?"
It is an alarm not a governor on the engine. Funny how they inspected the plane after all that time with the overspeed warning on and no hints of damage.
And if you place that speed, 429kt in the fancy calculator and convert to that Egyption airline we can make it go just over Mach 1, which according to all these pilots for "truth" is impossible.
1
"Others of us who contribute from positions of understanding and experience..."
And yet you cannot not get a single professional aviation organization or publication to support you, odd.
John Lear meet with aliens this week?
1
"1" says -
"And if you place that speed, 429kt in the fancy calculator and convert to that Egyption airline we can make it go just over Mach 1,"
Well look at the big brain on "1"... he is actually trying to attempt calculations instead of slinging mud. Hmmm... I guess I would be impressed if he were right.
Now try and actually learn something. Go slow.. I know you can do it.
First you have to get an EAS speed from 429 knots @ 6000 feet
From there, you can correlate to the Egypt Air 990 altitude.
The speed is Mach 0.90. Probably less than the aircraft Md....
lol... stick to what you know "1"... insulting people. Your technical skills are nil.
That's not what I got, I got 1.01.
I'm sorry not a single professional aviation organization in the entire world believes you. You must be close to the point of madness or suicide.
1
"1" says -
"That's not what I got, I got 1.01."
Yes, I know. It's because you did it wrong. You used 429 as the EAS. EAS is a sea level number. how can you use 429 for sea level when it happened at 6000 feet?
When you do it right and first get an EAS for 429 knots @ 6000, then apply the result to 22,000 feet, you will get Mach 0.90. The same as me and everyone else who understands aerodynamics.
"1" says - "I'm sorry not a single professional aviation organization in the entire world believes you. You must be close to the point of madness or suicide."
There he is! lol... That's the "1" we've all come to know when he is unable to actually debate the data.
I give you some credit for trying though "1". It's more than anyone one of your cohorts have done. I assume you tried due to the fact every one pretty much ignores you when you sling mud. Now you can go back to that since it is clear you do not know anything about aerodynamics.
Have fun!
I repeat, why has there not been a single professional aviation organization support you? Your claim to understand aerodynamics carries no weight as no professional aviation organization supports you or the pf911t.
So the bottom line is, your aviation kills, regardless of your claims, are worthless, because NO PRPFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION PAYS THEM ANY HEED.
Until you can correct that FACT you are farting in to the wind.
Enjoy.
1
I now get .91 so I guess the "expert" forgot to get the accurate temp reading for 6,000 feet.
Shall I write up the instructions for you Mr. Expert?
LMAO
1
"1" says -
"Until you can correct that FACT you are farting in to the wind."
Yes, and many people thought the Earth was once flat and ridiculed the scientists who provided data to the contrary.
Your logic is a fallacy. And I'm sure there is no amount of Aviation Professionals or data that will convince you otherwise.
ALPA is 9% of the worlds Pilot population. Does that mean 91% of pilots disagree with ALPA?
No amount of Pilots who agree or disagree with P4T is going to change the fact that the data does not support the govt story.
Now go do your homework before you get spanked again. Here a little help, put 392 into the EAS window. This is the EAS of 429 @ 6000 feet.
Then tell the rest of the class what you get for Mach number @ 22,000 feet.
Run along now...
A self inflicted sock malfunction by the monomaniacal Anon , AKA ,The Facts , makes one wonder if he is related to Watts fanboi JustTheFacts ?
His invented qoutes and creative ellipsis suggest adjourning the answer to
Fly Air Eli
"Then tell the rest of the class what you get for Mach number @ 22,000 feet."
I got .91 not .90 as I also adjusted for temperature at the elevations, which you were careless not to do..
"No amount of Pilots who agree or disagree with P4T is going to change the fact that the data does not support the govt story."
It seems if the data in the "govt" story is impossible that more than a few pilots on a web log would be talking about it. A professional aviation journal would publish papers to your "facts". This is not the case, because what you say is rubbish.
When is John Lear going to present another one of his alien theories?
1
"1" says - "I got .91 not .90 as I also adjusted for temperature at the elevations, which you were careless not to do.."
Says the guy who first got Mach 1.01.
I didn't forget to adjust anything. I just used a more accurate calculator, and published to two decimal places.
Very good though. You're learning. See, even people like you can learn. Now you know the UK 737 incident is a poor comparison.
Mr Seitz is back! Great!
Mr Seitz, do you still believe Boeing builds a 400% margin of safety into the aircraft? You failed to answer this question, or maybe I missed it, after this video was posted, produced by Boeing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
"you know the UK 737 incident is a poor comparison."
Says the guy who cannot get a single professional aviation organization to listen to him.
Oh I see you have a more accurate hidden calculator, BS. You the self proclaimed expert blew the input data in the calculator that you are an expert with and this lowly aviation novice got it right on his second try. I can see why no professional organization listens to your BS.
"Mr Seitz, do you still believe Boeing builds a 400% margin of safety into the aircraft?"
Do you still believe John Lear's theory about aliens using holographic imaging on 911? I mean he is a pilot, knows aviation should I listen to him just because of that?
1
anon-1 back to his lies after being spanked on the data. Good show!
"1" says - "Oh I see you have a more accurate hidden calculator, BS"
I replied to this before, but it appears to have been deleted, This time I will save it and post it to P4T if it gets deleted again.
I see "1" likes to get spanked.
It is not hidden to me. Nor is it hidden to you. You can find the same formulas at wiki.
Let us know what you get. Make sure you calculate out to 4 decimal places.
You are just upset that you can no longer use the UK 737 incident at 429 knots to compare to a 767 at 510 knots after being schooled on how to properly calculate the data.
However, now that you have resorted back to lying (as the admitted liar you are), I will go back to ignoring you.
Good luck!
"TheFacts" (a more non-eponymous name has never been created in history) said:
"I'll ask one more time (third time asked), do you agree with Mr. Seitz that Boeing build a 400% margin of safety into their aircraft?" (some parts are tested to 4X their design limit, BTW)
And I'll ask you one more time...you have claimed in the past in other Internet fora that an aircraft will break apart as soon as it exceeds its "design limit" by as much as 1 knot, yet you keep referrencing a Boeing 777video of a wing failure at 154% of its design limit. Which is it?
If the FAA (an organization that does not agree with your claims at your web site, I hasten to remind the gentle readers) mandates a %150 buffer *above* the safety design limit of an aircraft piece/part, where do you get the authority (or knowledge) to claim an aircraft will "break" as soon as it exceeds its design limit?
Again, I am not certain you are everything you calim you are with an aeronautical acumen as misguided an dconfused as that.
Aww how cute.. .they called in Pinch Paisley for back up...
"...you have claimed in the past in other Internet fora that an aircraft will break apart as soon as it exceeds its "design limit" by as much as 1 knot,"
Where? Here?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21900&view=findpost&p=10803850
(nope, not there, in fact the opposite is stated)
or was it here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9R8-3W-nkU
(nope, not there either, again the opposite is stated)
You are wrong once again and the above links prove it. Which is why you failed to provide any source for your claims.
There is no "400% margin of safety" built into Boeing aircraft "areas of stress" as asserted by Mr Russell "400%" Seitz here.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/11/using-nanothermite-to-blow-up-denialism.html?showComment=1385855946925#c9007760113756537918
After given the Boeing video of a wing breaking at 154%, instead of admitting he was wrong, he dug himself deeper by stating "have you ever tried to pull the wing off a 757"?
No, but Boeing has, and they do not build to a 400% margin of Safety.
This is why he (and everyone else here who supports him) has/have continually evaded the question after being provided the video produced by Boeing.
The margin of safety mandated by the FAA is 150% for G loading. The margin of safety for speed mandated by the FAA is between Vmo and Vd. Boeing does not "in areas of stress concentration.... beefed up to a 400% marging[sic] of safety.", as claimed by Mr Seitz.
Click the above links and learn something. Mr Seitz is wrong. Stop digging. Stop spinning.
"It is not hidden to me. Nor is it hidden to you. You can find the same formulas at wiki."
I used the calculator linked in earlier comments and got .91 which is the correct answer not .90. Sorry you are wrong.
You certainly keep blathering about people lying etc, but cannot defend one of P4911t prominent member's alien fetish. Nor can you answer why no professional aviation organization supports you.
"You are just upset that you can no longer use the UK 737 incident at 429 knots to compare to a 767 at 510 knots after being schooled on how to properly calculate the data."
Straw man as I never made that comparison. It was to show that a jet flew beyond its rated safe max speed and suffered zero damage. And although my first attempt at finding the comparative speed to the Egyptian flight was wrong (and you were oh so gracious in your response) that is not the point. And hilarious how you with all your puffing about how smart you are blew the calculations in the calculator. I'll remind you the correct answer is .91 not .90 MACH.
This is what truthers they twist and distort.
I have never lied in these comments I suggest you go look up the definition of the word.
Has John Lear flown with aliens before?
1
"1" says - "I used the calculator linked in earlier comments and got .91 which is the correct answer not .90. Sorry you are wrong."
Translation - "I didn't know how to use the calculator before, which is why I got Mach 1.01. But after you showed me the correct way, I got Mach .91. Now you are asking me to work it out using formulas? No way! I'm a tool and would rather argue over 0.01 Mach!"
"1" says - "It was to show that a jet flew beyond its rated safe max speed and suffered zero damage."
Or really? What is Vd/Md for the 737?
You really love getting a good spanking, huh?
"However, now that you have resorted back to lying (as the admitted liar you are), I will go back to ignoring you."
Now who is the liar.
The answer is .91 and you are upset that a novice got the correct answer and you did not and you are still arguing the point rather than admitting and moving on. Typical of your personality disorder.
"Or really? What is Vd/Md for the 737?"
That is not published.
The only think you are spanking is yourself.
1
"The answer is .91 and you are upset that a novice got the correct answer and you did not and you are still arguing the point rather than admitting and moving on. " - says the person who got Mach 1.01 initially and had to be spanked in order to get a more accurate figure..., and now wants to argue over 0.01 Mach because he doesn't know how to calculate using the formulas.
"That [Vd/Md for the 737] is not published." says the person who claimed, "It was to show that a jet flew beyond its rated safe max speed "
Now click this link and learn more about Vd/Md - "1".
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/
Any more lessons and I'll have to start charging. :-)
Thanks, liar, for the link to information on an Airbus A320 when were talking about a 737, anyways.
From your link, which we shall use as a comparison for the 737.
Dive Speeds:
MD/VD = M0.89/381kts
Maximum Operating Speeds:
MMO/VMO = M0.82/350kts.
So a jet with an VMO of 350kts has a VD of 381kts What do you think the 737-700's (the plane in question) vd is with a VMO of 340kts? I bet it is less than 429kts at 6,000 feet.
You are not as smart as you think you are, not even close.
And you are an admitted liar, how to you converse with yourself to go with all that self spanking?
1
In reply to "1" -
The definition of Vd/Md does not change from aircraft to aircraft, Mr "Novice".
Watch the video on the bottom of the page. Or perhaps you don't like it because it's from the "youtubes"?
It is an A380 Vd/Md certification test.
You won't get it, but the readers will.
"1" says - "I bet it is less than 429kts at 6,000 feet."
Yes, we know, those who blindly support anything the govt says regarding 9/11 will fill in the holes with pure speculation outside their area of expertise. Thank you for confirming the very issue with this blog article.
So, now that you've admitted you've lied (a few days ago up page), you continually cherry-pick and like to paint with a broad brush, and we have proven you know nothing about aerodynamics nor V-speed definitions, nor margins of safety mandated by the FAA, and why such mandates exist, why should anyone listen to you?
anon-1 states, "So a jet with an VMO of 350kts has a VD of 381kts"
And yet the Boeing 767 has a Vmo of 360 knots and a Vd of 420 knots and a Md of 0.91.
"The definition of Vd/Md does not change from aircraft to aircraft, Mr "Novice"."
No chit but the value does.
I am not blindly just believing the government I am believing thousands of engineers, aviation experts published papers, eye witness accounts and so on. Not some anonymous liar who does not even adhere to his own rules.
So, now that you've admitted you've lied (a few hours ago up page), you continually cherry-pick and like to paint with a broad brush, and we have proven you know nothing about aerodynamics nor V-speed definitions, nor margins of safety mandated by the FAA, and why such mandates exist, and that not a single professional aviation organization listens to your BS, why should anyone listen to you?
Why do you continue to prove yourself to be a liar?
1
"No chit but the value does." - says the person who could not figure out a simple calculator online, and then when shown how, wanted to argue over 0.01 Mach due to the fact he/she/it is unable to work the actual formulas, while attempting to correlate an A320 to a Boeing 737 through pure speculation, without having any clue regarding FAA mandated margins of safety.
Says the person who could not think to adjust the default temperature when using the calculator, a rather rudimentary step. So I had to correct his answer because he was provided more accurate information from an aviation novice.
From the admitted liar, who cannot adhere to his own life principles, who implicitly defends a prominent member of his P4911T who spews forth theories about aliens as part of the 911 conspiracy.
Answer a simple question although since you are an admitted, proven and continual liar, the answer probably will be hard to believe, is 429kts at 6,000 feet outside the FAA mandates for safe operation? Simple yes or no will do just fine.
1
"Says the person who could not think to adjust the default temperature when using the calculator, a rather rudimentary step. ", says the person who cannot provide a temperature which correlates to 0.90 with an EAS of 392 @ 3 degrees (based on standard adiabatic rate) after being corrected that his 429 knots was not at sea level when claiming Mach 1.01.
Stop digging "1".
And if P4T is so insignificant, Why are you spending so much time trying to argue against them/me? Even after I showed you how to calculate a more accurate figure (although not precise).
You brought up "madness and suicide" up page.
don't do it "1"!
clearly you are leading a very frustrating life. Especially if you are so obsessed with people you think are nuts.
No matter how many times you get spanked.. you can always learn and bounce back.
Anonytroll-N: "And if P4T is so insignificant, Why are you spending so much time trying to argue against them/me?"
Ah, I see you are not familiar with the oeuvre of "1". You two boys have fun.
I did not realize we were on the P4911truth website, have you lost all sense of reality?
Keep proving what a liar you are by continuing to respond, cannot even live your life by the rules you set, pathetic.
If you are going to just keep repeating my first bad attempt on the calculator, then do you also hound John Lear about him being wrong that aliens were involved with 911 and that they have bases on the moon?
Thought so.
Keep responding, keep lying, like we know you will, you cannot stop.
1
I'm having a blast.
I see the aviation expert cannot answer simple questions, he likes to ask them but never answers them.
"...is 429kts at 6,000 feet outside the FAA mandates for safe operation? Simple yes or no will do just fine."
1
"1" says - "...is 429kts at 6,000 feet outside the FAA mandates for safe operation? Simple yes or no will do just fine."
"1", you claimed - "It was to show that a [737] flew beyond its rated safe max speed "
Now you are unable to support your claim? lmao...
"1", please do not descend into madness or kill yourself as you have wished upon what you believe to be Rob Balsamo.
Ok?
I personally think your life is worth more to those around you? despite what you think of those who you are obsessed with....
question - Are you so obsessed with P4T members that you want to kill them? Or are you just hoping they kill themselves... Have you notified the FAA that you feel Core members of P4T are on the verge of "madness" or "suicide"?
lmao...
Question.
Is there anything, a mechanical throttle-interconnect or something of the sort that physically prevents a jet airliner such as a 757 or 767 from entering into a flight condition that could result in structural failure to the plane?
And it was you who said that it did not, cannot answer a simple question.
I do not believe you to be anybody specific. You are just some anonymous moron who can ask questions, but never answer them.
"question - Are you so obsessed with P4T members that you want to kill them? Or are you just hoping they kill themselves... Have you notified the FAA that you feel Core members of P4T are on the verge of "madness" or "suicide"?
No, no, and invalid assumption.
Are John Lear's alien theories supported by P4911Truth?
I see you still cannot live up to your words/rules and continue to not ignore me, liar.
1
Going back to mere reality, the 400% that anon has since buried in his inimitable bafflegab refered to the 4 fold difference between the chemically milled web thickness of the 757 fuselage structure , and the full thickness segments left for fastener insertion.- the thin stuff is enough to support the nominal load, but trop fort c'est pas manque'
"...is 429kts at 6,000 feet outside the FAA mandates for safe operation? Simple yes or no will do just fine."
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that the terrorists flying the planes into the WTC were not seriously concerned about having their licenses pulled by the FAA for operating out of the envelope.
Mr Seitz.
Walk into any crew room and claim, "Though its skin be scary thin, in areas of stress concentration the thing is still beefed up to a 400% marging[sic] of safety.", and you will be laughed out of the airport.
You can tap dance all you want attempting to clarify what you said instead of having to admit you were wrong. The fact remains, aircraft are not "beefed up" to a 400% margin of safety "in areas of stress" (the wing spar is an area of stress, yes?). 150% is mandated by the FAA, the wing broke at 154%.
You were wrong. You know it and so does everyone else who reads your claim.
But hey, keep digging!
Maybe Mr Seitz is claiming the 9/11 Aircraft were beefed up to a 400% margin of safety? I'll buy that, given the excessive speeds and G Loading performed way beyond the limits of a standard 757/767.
Anonymous asked:
"Have you notified the FAA that you feel Core members of P4T are on the verge of "madness" or "suicide"?
Has Anonymous asked the FAA for support per PfT's "fanciful, fantastic and delusional" claims?
The answer is a resounding "Of course", and the response from the FAA was no doubt "Get a life".
As far as the terorists not really being concerned about having their licenses pulled by the FAA for operating out of the envelope, that is the key point that the Pilot's group hand waves away. These pilots will continue to post chapter and verse of "restrictions" based on FAA and FAR rules and regulations, that you cannot fly beyond the limits as established by flight and aerodynamic tests and models. The fact that the aircraft can very easily enter into those regimes is ignored by Balsamo and his followers. Their claim of "uncontrollability" and aircraft "destruction" are simply personal opinions based on their own bias. No national or international aviation organization agrees with them, and that right there is sufficient cause to discount their claims , totally and completely and utterly, out of hand.
Mr '400%':
"...4 fold difference between the chemically milled web thickness of the 757 fuselage structure , and the full thickness segments left for fastener insertion.- the thin stuff is enough to support the nominal load..."
Now here is something even a bright scientist should be able to grasp.
I have seen similar in the structure of the F4 Phantom, many times, but one can still break it by manoeuvring - which includes a 'speed excursion' outside of its flight envelope. It has been done and with its successors in the naval jet line at low level.
So we have a chain where some links are 400% of the normal thickness, will that chain break when stressed beyond the UTS of the other links?
Perhaps you should rephrase your 400% statement, without the bafflegab.
Now some, not L A to be sure would think that Eli is missing the point:
"Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that the terrorists flying the planes into the WTC were not seriously concerned about having their licenses pulled by the FAA for operating out of the envelope."
Which is when an aircraft disintegrates, by say flying well beyond Vmo, it ceases to be a carefully targeted missile more a cloud of bits flying in close formation but now with separate and chaotic trajectories.
This has been pointed out before, but maybe I was using Esparanto or something.
"Which is when an aircraft disintegrates, by say flying well beyond Vmo..."
And yet when you are provided examples of aircraft actually flying, far beyond VMO without damage you hand wave away, chase another irrelevant "fact", or disappear.
In the end Flight 175, a 767 was traveling around 510 kts when it struck WTC2. This was captured by dozens of video cameras and 100's of still pictures. Engine, fuselage, and landing parts of this plane were recovered. Aliens were not involved as some members of P4911T contend.
1
Reading a bit more about the Pilot's web page, I see this statement from the main page:
"We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time."
In a recent post, their leader, Balsamo, says this:
"Clearly "UA175" was modified for increased performance well beyond the capabilities of a standard 767"
If that is not "offering a theory" (more like shoving one down the throats of the followers), nothing is.
Mr. Balsamo, Concorde had an MMO of 2.04, but the certification aircraft flew flight test profiles that went up to M 2.23 (yet another example of an aircraft performing beyond its "design limits". They are piling up, each one disproving your claim). How can you and your followers redress this fact when placed against your claim that an aircraft performing so far beyond its "design limit" would have resulted in a disintegrated cloud of debris? Was British Airways and Air France in on the conspiracy too?
"Concorde had an MMO of 2.04, but the certification aircraft flew flight test profiles that went up to M 2.23"
The difference between Mach 2.04 and 2.23 is 105 knots at the lowest certified altitude for such operations. You have another 45-55 knots to go if you wish to compare it to "UA175" based on VD/MD/EAS.
ie. You would need to show the Concorde at Mach 2.30 if you wish to make such a comparison.
You also fail to provide altitude while failing to provide the Md number for the Concorde, which I assume is Mach 2.23.... since that is the number to which it was tested during certification.
Click, read, and learn...
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/
Hey, http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/ is a nice link, it includes a video of an A380 doing Mach 0.96 during certification testing.
Without turning into a cloud of debris.
dhogaza stated - "Hey, http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/ is a nice link, it includes a video of an A380 doing Mach 0.96 during certification testing.
Without turning into a cloud of debris."
Yes, that is the Vd/Md limit of the A380.
Did you notice the vibrations/flutter starting to occur? And the fact that the aircraft broke and had to be modified to reach its Vd/Md? That is why they do not fly above Vd/Md. Vd/Md is the onset of flutter as pointed out by the flyingengineer and the associated video of the A380 certification.
This is what happens when you exceed such limitations.... and it happens quick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhwLojNerMU
But some people like to believe a Boeing 767 can exceed its flutter onset limitation (Vd/Md) by more than 90 knots and still remain controllable and stable.
In fact, people such as William "Pinch" Paisley have claimed, "You put big enough engines on anything and it'll go as fast as you want. Space shuttle is the obvious example of this."
For those who don't know who William Paisley is, click this link...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21900&view=findpost&p=10810012
I am looking forward to a Cessna 152 breaking Mach 1 at any altitude (if we are to believe "Pinch").
The best quote ever -
http://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/the-thing-about-smart-people-is-that-they-seem-like-crazy-people-to-dumb-people.jpg
There seems to be a misunderstanding in communcation here:
Someone wrote:
--------------
Do you think it it would take more or less than 400% of the bird's GTW?
--------------
A plane is designed to withstand about 400% of the lift required in level flight. We call this a 4-g force. On top of this, there is a 150% extra safety margin. So the 400% times 1,5 becomes 600%. That's why the wings broke at 154% during the test.
Mr. Tristan, what point are you trying to make? Are you saying you believe that the official narrative is correct, consistent and realistic ? And a more personal question: would you like to know when events have been quite different than portrayed, or would you rather find peace of mind in believing the official story ?
I am afraid you are entitled to, but in that case, it is not my job to convince you otherwise. I can show you the door, but you have to walk through it.
regards, Micha Kuiper
"The other combustible materials raised the temperature and the amount of heat of the fire to the point of reducing the strength of the steel beams which contributed to the collapse."
And you know this happened despite these materials being designed to be flame retardant as per spec how?
Very gullible, aren't you.
Maybe they cut corners there and used substandard kit and pocketed the money in a nice bonus.
Nah, that's a conspiracy! Therefore greed can't happen!
Anon-101a here:
"The other combustible materials raised the temperature and the amount of heat of the fire to the point of reducing the strength of the steel beams which contributed to the collapse."
And you know this happened despite these materials being designed to be flame retardant as per spec how?
Very gullible, aren't you.
Maybe they cut corners there and used substandard kit and pocketed the money in a nice bonus.
Nah, that's a conspiracy! Therefore greed can't happen!
(NOTE: If going anony gave a place to put a degeneracy avoidance text entry that had to be filled, there would be less unintended anonyanon.
"A plane is designed to withstand about 400% of the lift required in level flight. We call this a 4-g force. On top of this, there is a 150% extra safety margin. So the 400% times 1,5 becomes 600%. That's why the wings broke at 154% during the test." - says Micha Kuiper (a person who fails to grasp the simple definition of Vmo/Mmo in his own sources
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=22504&view=findpost&p=10810264
Transport Category aircraft design limit is rated at 2.5 G as mandated by the FAA. The manufacturer is required to perform to a 150% margin of safety based on the design limit. This would be 3.75G. Still less than "400%".
2.5*1.5 = 3.75
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9658a8fd7b58b442bf529ecbb080a71f&node=14:1.0.1.3.11.3.162.2&rgn=div8
With that said, Mr Seitz stated "[aircraft] are beefed up to a 400% margin of safety".
Keywords "Margin of safety".
Certainly a "world renowned physicist" knows that "margin of safety" means above and beyond normal design limits as does the rest of the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety#Margin_of_safety
Margin of Safety = (Failure load/Design load)-1
Margin of safety = (3.75/2.5)-1
Margin of Safety = .5 or 50% more than design limit, or 150% of the design limit.
When Mr Seitz claims a 400% "margin of safety", he is claiming a transport category aircraft can pull 10G. That's absurd.
The aircraft in the Boeing video failed at 154% of design limit.
2.5*1.54 = 3.85G
Is it possible Mr Seitz does not understand what "margin of safety" means?
Sure... but if that's the case, anyone who took his classes should be requesting a refund.
"Is it possible Mr Seitz does not understand what "margin of safety" means?
Sure... but if that's the case, anyone who took his classes should be requesting a refund."
Then the following is equally true. Since John Lear thinks aliens were involved in 911 and they were not we can dismiss anything John Lear says. Since Pilots for 911 Truth still list John Lear as a member (3rd on the list) and reference him all the time we can also dismiss everything they say.
Boy this is fun.
1
Anon's latest rejoinder to himself reads :
"
Walk into any crew room and claim, "Though its skin be scary thin, in areas of stress concentration the thing is still beefed up to a 400% marging[sic] of safety.", and you will be laughed out of the airport."
Look fella, the 757 was on the flight line at opalaka, and , not having an FAA badge, I was at all times escorted by the 757's pilot and co-pilot, who crawlwd me throughthe e-bays, and along the hydraulic vascular system of the thing until I had a rudimentary understanding of what made what wiggle .
I asked the materials science questions and they elucidated what was made of stronger stuff , and what ws made thcker, and expatiated on fatique and fastener issues , for the lithalloy was still an open issue for the next mod.
Now pray tell us about Your close encounters with the interior of this machine, and why so little of what you write corresponds with the mere reality of the long chapter defining the envelope , and why you ignore the dozens of sprained commercial aircraft consigned to the Arizona desert because the crew wondered far enoughinto operational space to bend but not break the wings on the things ?
Have you ever pulled as much as a single G , and watched the shape of the airplane change around you in elastic compliance?
If not, a new career awaits you - see your TSA recruiter today !
Mr Seitz asks - "Have you ever pulled as much as a single G...? "
Ahem, Mr "400%", we all are "pulling" a "single G" as we sit and type these posts. Well, maybe not you, but the rest of us are...
This guy is a "world renowned physicist"? really?
Do I understand this right? The Truther view here is that because the Egypt Air flight did what it did, all such airplanes MUST fail when encountering the same forces. I would have thought that one airplane in one set of circumstances would be recognized as a single data point that does not necessarily require that all other future data points be exactly the same.
And this worldview requires Truthers to abandon all other evidence, including the radar reports that the WTC planes did in fact behave inconsistently with the way the Egypt Air flight did.
It seems unscientific to me to enshrine one data point with the status of Truth and deamnd that anything inconsistent with that data point must be false. More data is more data: it gives us a richer view of the universe.
Now Mr "400%" in amongst a whole slew of bafflegab (well you started that rabbit running) gives us this pearl,
"Now pray tell us about Your close encounters with the interior of this machine, and why so little..."
I have had many close encounters with a number of flying machines of different types and had the pleasure of repairing or modifying structural parts in situe. Thus I well appreciate that gauge of the material changes depending upon the calculated stress loads. Such parts as spars and frames can be thicker than the majority of the skin. These parts could also vary in thickness across their section.
Special attention is paid, with often huge forgings in stronger materials being used, spar attachments, undercarriage strut and actuator attachments and engine bearers.
Then there is beefing up of the structure in the way of access panels which themselves can be chemically milled to a lesser section away from the lands. Now it certainly looked like your opening statement on '400%' was with reference to such increases in sectional dimensions. This being a totally different meaning to the overall safety factor to which an aircraft structure is stressed as a whole. Thus you were using a definition inappropriately and got called on it.
and this
"Have you ever pulled as much as a single G , and watched the shape of the airplane change around you in elastic compliance?"
By that I suppose you mean one G above the one G we experience by virtue of existing, IOW 2G.
Well yes, but even at a datum of 1G the shape shifts as aerodynamic loads are applied and released, which is really a local change of G at the place of load application.
I have also seen shape shift at 1G because of errors in maintenance procedure which left the longitudinal axis unsupported with an extended period of access panel removal. Some hours of extra work here.
Indeed, stressed skin structures can be sensitive to being towed with damage resulting with specific panels not secured with a minimum specified number of fasteners.
So, do not confuse local increases in material specification to counter expected stress concentrations with the overall safety factor of an airframe in flight, which is what you did, the context of usage being unmistakeable.
garhighway says - "More data is more data: it gives us a richer view of the universe. "
I agree. That is why "Truthers" have gathered many data points.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed_part2.html
While those who support whatever the govt told them regarding 9/11 make up claims about "400%", do not understand we all are at 1G just by being on Earth, nor have been able to provide 1 single data point to support an aircraft exceeding its Vd/Md by more than 90 knots, its Vmo by more than 150 knots, and it's Va by more than 220 knots, pulling 2-3G's, rolling on G's, while remaining stable and controllable.
If you find one other than the alleged 9/11 aircraft, let us know. Seems 9/11/2001 was not only a day when physics was suspended, but also aerodynamics.
Nonetheless, your argument seems to be one from incredulity: "I don't believe the airplane could do this (even though it was observed both in person and on radar to do this) and therefore it could not have happened. And since it couldn't have happened, something far more bizarre and unlikely must have happened."
And to bring the discussion full circle, that's why this discussion is on this blog: the argument from incredulity leading to the positing of a vast conspiracy is a familiar narrative to those wh follow climate science. ("I cannot believe a trace gas can warm the Earth, so those who say it can must all be engaged in a conspiracy to decieve me to some fearious end.")
garhighway says - "Nonetheless, your argument seems to be one from incredulity"
And yet, "Truthers" are the ones providing multiple data points, sources from the NTSB, the FAA...the manufacturer themselves based on wind tunnel and flight testing, combined with many points of data based on precedent, and even more verified experts in the relevant field.
Those who blindly support whatever the govt tells them regarding 9/11, have yet to provide one single data point or expert relevant to the argument or aviation.
So, it appears those who support the govt story argue from incredulity, while "Truthers" actually provide data and verified experts.
Those who support the govt story have attempted to provide data, but when analyzed, it actually conflicts the govt story. See up thread regarding the UK 737 incident.
Now of course this post will be responded to, "But no organization has endorsed such information".
To that I respond, no one endorsed the scientists who initially proved the Earth was round with data... either.
Regards...
One radar says the plane went 510 kts. Other reports say 490kts Video captured the plane, hitting the tower. Pictures captured the plane, hitting the tower. Eyewitnesses saw the plane, hitting the tower. Pieces of the plane were recovered. But because on paper P4911truth says the plane could not go that fast without breaking up, aliens were involved, got it.
"Now of course this post will be responded to, "But no organization has endorsed such information"."
Because that would be a well reasoned response to provide. If your contentions are so obvious and factual, then a vast conspiracy must be in place. And yet 12+ years later not a peep.
1
"1" says - "One radar says the plane went 510 kts."
So you think that the ASR radar at EWR, JFK, LGA and HPN used daily to vector traffic in the NYC Terminal area are all wrong? Or perhaps you think the NTSB is wrong?
Perhaps NY TRACON should set up video cameras to vector traffic departing and arriving into the NYC terminal area?
Have you petitioned the FAA to tell them to scrap ASR radar and replace them with video cams? lol....
"1" says - "Eyewitnesses saw the plane, hitting the tower. Pieces of the plane were recovered."
I agree. And yet none of the 4 aircraft were positively identified.
F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I., To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11408
Fbi Refuses To Confirm Identities, Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9417
9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11066
Just because you see a plane crash, is not evidence of its performance.
"1", have you ever "pulled" a "single G"? lmao...
Keep linking to the alien conspiracy site, boring.
"F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I., To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11408"
So?
Fbi Refuses To Confirm Identities, Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9417
And why was that? A reason was provided.
9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11066
So?
Just because you see a plane crash, is not evidence of its performance. But it is evidence it crashed. Maybe the aliens helped it, ask John Lear a premier member of Pilots for idiocy, er I mean truth.
"1", have you ever "pulled" a "single G"? lmao... Yeah right now as I sit here typing a response to a moron.
1
The question was asked... "'1', have you ever "pulled" a "single G"?"
"1" responds - "Yeah right now as I sit here typing a response to a moron."
Apparently "1" has not read the inquiry made by Mr Russel "400%" Seitz up-thread in which Mr Seitz apparently thinks "pulling a single G" is some sort of an accomplishment.
"1", in case you are confused, you just further humiliated an alleged "world renowned physicist".
And I agree with you.
lmao...
I think you missed Russell's insult to you or whatever moron he was responding to at the time. You guys are so far off planet you are not even experiencing 1g.
How is dinner Saturday evenings with John Lear and assorted green guests? ROFLMFAO!!!!
1
"1" says - "I think you missed Russell's insult to you..."
So when Mr Russell "400% and a single G" Steiz makes such claims, he is attempting an insult?
Should I have responded to Mr Seitz' question as you responded to mine in the same exact verbiage?
In other words, when Mr Russell "400%" Seitz asked, "Have you ever pulled as much as a single G?"
should I have replied... "Yeah right now as I sit here typing a response to a moron"
???
lmao... keep diggin...
Truther:
You keep bringing up the point that "the planes were never identified". May I ask what you are implying there? Are you sugesting that UA175, UA93, AA11 and AA77 are still out there flying around, and all their passengers and crew are still alive? That some other planes hit the WTC or Pentagon that day?
Just curious.
garhighway asks - "Are you sugesting[sic] that UA175, UA93, AA11 and AA77 are still out there flying around.... "
I ask - are you aware that Flight Number has absolutely nothing to do with tail number nor aircraft identification, nor aircraft capability/performance? Are you aware that many different aircraft can fly as the same flight number?
Why have you failed to provide one single data point supporting an aircraft flying at Vd/Md+90, Vmo+150, and Va+200, while pulling more than 2-3G's, rolling on G's and remaining stable and controllable?
Aren't you the one who claimed multiple data points gives us a "richer view of the universe"?
I ask again, why is it that "Truthers" provide multiple data points, and you have provided nothing but an argument from incredulity?
Signed - "Truther"
"Are you sugesting that UA175, UA93, AA11 and AA77 are still out there flying around, and all their passengers and crew are still alive?"
Pilots for Truth does claim that UA175 was flying 20 minutes after it "supposedly" hit the south tower.
They don't mention it ever landing ... or crashing.
I doubt the believe that UA175 is still flying, though, I suspect they believe that John Lear's little green aliens tractor-beamed it and the passengers and crew to a mother ship, which then absconded to parts unknown (except for those government organs in on the alien conspiracy).
dhog says - "Pilots for Truth does claim that UA175 was flying 20 minutes after it "supposedly" hit the south tower."
P4T does not claim this. P4T have provided statements made to the FBI by UAL Dispatchers who claim that the aircraft received messages after it allegedly crashed.
Are you saying that UAL Dispatchers are wrong in the duties they perform hundreds of time per day?
What costumes do the aliens wear at the P4911T Halloween Party?
Have they become accustomed to "human" food yet?
Did you guys get a chance to ask the aliens who shot JFK and who built the Great Pyramids? Also, the great pilot John Lear a prominent member of "pilots" for truth knows we never landed on the moon, is that because the Saturn V rocket would disintegrate when it went 140 kts past its VD?
Please cue Porky Pug here.
1
Pig of course.
1
"Are you saying that UAL Dispatchers are wrong in the duties they perform hundreds of time per day."
So the UAL dispatchers are not in on the conspiracy, that would be odd, you would think this is a group that would have to be involved. Double-check with John Lear and the alien round table on modern conspiracy theories and see if it flies with them.
1
Truther:
It is a simple question: if those planes didn't hit the towers (or Pentagon, or field in Shanksville) where are they now and where are the people that were on them? I'm trying to follow your argument to its logical conclusio. If you are right, and the planes could not have done what they did, then they must have done something else. Please explain.
And note, I am not calling you names. I am trying to give your argument a fair hearing. So help me out and give a serious answer: where are those airplanes, and if they didn't hit the towers what did? Lots of people saw SOMETHING hit them, and somethig that on the video looked an awful lot like some Boeing airliners. What were they?
garbled highway:
"...and somethig that on the video looked an awful lot like some Boeing airliners."
Ah! Yes. Note the inclusion of 'looked like' there. Now think about how Holywood shoots disaster movies, after all they look real at first glance.
However, if they were B767s as described by the OCT (I have a copy of the 9/11 Commission report and may use it as bog paper), tell me what you see Flight 175 doing as it approached WCT2.
As for where they went afterwards if not into the towers then look up 'Northwooods' and think about it some more.
"tell me what you see Flight 175 doing as it approached WCT2."
Flying.
1
Videos.
Pictures
Plane Parts.
Idenitifed DNA of passengers
But no those were holographic images covering up alien spacecraft that hit the towers. Certainly more plausible.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175_Crash_Evidence
P4911T are an embarrassment.
1
Anon 1
"Flying"
Ah!
Cute but what about that 'flying'?
There is the rub.
"P4911T are an embarrassment."
No they aren't, 1. That would assume they are a legitimate organization...which of course, they are in no way, shape or form. Between holograms and no planes and missiles and laser beams and aliens, all we have here is a handful of whack-job aviators who are unable to reconcile reality with events. They are certainly entertainment, though, and should be recognized as such.
I'm sorry, Truther, really I am, but I am not getting your point(s). So please elaborate:
1> Where are the real planes? Where did they go, and more importatly, where are the passengers and crew? C'mon! No riddles, no evasions, no obfuscation. It is a question you have to answer if you think your "those planes can't fly that fast" argument can be followed to its ultimate destination.
2> What are you trying to say about what 175 was doing when it crashed into the south tower. I'm not following you. Please use simple, direct sentences: no riddles, no puzzles. If you have something to say, say it.
The more you dodge and duck, the more it seems like even you know that where you are going is outlandish and so you are loath to speak clearly.
"Cute but what about that 'flying'?"
Nicely caught on camera with all the distinctive UA markings and obvious structure of a 767.
" Anonymous said...
"P4911T are an embarrassment."
No they aren't, 1..."
I stand corrected.
1
<>
Would you please stop internetting in the cockpit, at least till after we have landed safely ? A concerned passenger.
QUOTING: Ahem, Mr "400%", we all are "pulling" a "single G" as we sit and type these posts. Well, maybe not you, but the rest of us are.
Well. Now that the latest "movie" produced by the pilot's group has gone over like a lead balloon, with the exception of of its own rabid and sycophantic supporters that is, can we get back to asking what national and international professional aviation organizations have given supported and backing to these claims? I'm still not aware of any.
It would appear that the Truther has grown weary of us.
"It would appear that the Truther has grown weary of us."
I heard there was a big alien conference going on the latter half of this week into the weekend. So maybe he shall return?
1
Perhaps too early to do a George Aiken but Eli always had faith in his bunnies.
My point about the flying oh benighted one was to drag out of you what manoeuvres 175 was doing before the 'impact'.
Now can you try to be a little more observant and actually use those little grey cells that you were supplied with and riddle me that? Then consider the implications.
As for losing interest, well this can tend to happen when in place of cogent arguments you start throwing rabbit droppings.
Ah the maneuvers that you say are impossible, on paper, yet we have lots of evidence flight 175, a UA 767 hit WTC.
Did you even look at the link I provided with all the videos, pictures and evidence?
Are you saying all the DNA evidence of the remains of passengers is a fabrication?
1
Lionel/Truther:
Please say whatever it is you have on your mind. The longer you tap dance the more we conclude you really have nothing to say.
And I ask again: if the planes didn't hit the towers, where are they now and where are the passengers and crew?
garhighway says - "It would appear that the Truther has grown weary of us."
To that I respond, not exactly. Most of us actually have lives outside of this blog. Unlike "Anonymous-1", we don't spend all our free time and waking hours trying to argue with people we think are nuts.
With that said, to answer your question - "Where are the plane and passengers?"....
Click here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=7591&view=findpost&p=9458664
....and at anytime you wish to discuss this matter in a more professional atmosphere with a more rapid reply, without the added confusion of "anonymous" replies... feel free to register at the P4T forum.
Signed - "Truther".
Ok, Lional A., aka Up So Far in Balsamo's Ass All We Can See are Your Heels.
"My point about the flying oh benighted one was to drag out of you what manoeuvres 175 was doing before the 'impact'."
What maneuvers was UAL 175 doing before impact? In the last 40 seconds before impact, the aircraft 1) descended from approx 5200' to 800' in altitude, a drop of 4400' in approximately 5.8 miles; 2) The aircraft accelerated from 460 kts GS to 520 kts GS (expected when combined with that drop in altitude); 3) In the last 2:40 of flight its heading varied from approx 035 to approx 045 to an impact heading of approx 029. Taken in toto, hardly a radical flight path/regime.
As far as speed is concerned different numbers exist. The FAA states UAL 175 struck the WTC at a speed of 586mph; an MIT study, though, concluded the plane was probably traveling at 537mph (466 kts). Other MIT studies however determined the plane was probably traveling at 503 mph (437 kts). Point being is that exact speed is unknown/debatable (and I'll wait for your Balsamo-directed rejoinder about "What does MIT know about aviation!? "The Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment" (est 1992) is a unit of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and would beg to differ with Mr. Balsamo's opinion. 5 Aviators with degrees in Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT have walked on the moon and another orbited the moon - in other words these MIT graduates didn't merely claim there are alien bases on the moon...they walked the walk or flew the ship).
2 points to finish:
To answer your question, "What maneuvers was UAL 175 doing before impact?" Altitude, speed, heading...nothing radical or spectacular. If you want to claim that the speed 175 was excessive and "impossible", you need to 1) take it up with MIT and 2) just stop, because you are *really* embarrassing yourself).
Last point, get Balsamo (What school did he go to?) to tell MIT they are as screwed up as Hogan's Goat and perhaps he'll get somewhere.
This data came from NIST NCSTAR 1-2B report and the Aviation Safety Network database - again, two organizations that do not agree with Balsamo and his sycophantic pilot's group. Who am I to believe? A rogue, whacked-out bitter and arrogant asshole who has made more mistakes over the years than a first grader studying calculus? or the true professionals in aviation? You really should re-examine your fealty to Balsamo. It does not bode well for either your judgment or intellect.
Question, either for Lionel A. or anyone from the pilot's group, please...what does MIT think about your claims?
Anonymous said
"snip...
Question, either for Lionel A. or anyone from the pilot's group, please...what does MIT think about your claims? "
Epic spank. We'll wait an expectant and totally non-sequitur strawman non-answer.
"Most of us actually have lives outside of this blog. Unlike "Anonymous-1", we don't spend all our free time and waking hours trying to argue with people we think are nuts."
See? Another example of a truther getting facts wrong and distorting reality. Please provide evidence that you have an account of all my "free time"? All my waking hours? It only takes mere minutes to make you look like a raving lunatic. You seem to do well enough on your own with that, but I enjoy enhancing it, even if it is just a little bit.
As you wave me off as you wave off facts and have a serious aversion in answering questions, why do you keep coming back?
1
Some idiot above says - "The FAA states UAL 175 struck the WTC at a speed of 586mph; an MIT study, though, concluded the plane was probably traveling at 537mph (466 kts)"
Have you petitioned the FAA to replace NY TRACON and ASR radar at EWR, JFK, LGA, and HPN with MIT geeks looking at a video camera?
Better hurry, the busy holiday traveling season is coming up... and certainly you think FAA certified ATC and ASR radar are not reliable in the NYC Terminal Area. Imagine all the explosions and deaths about to occur without MIT vectoring traffic based on video cams....!
Oh my!
lmao...
There it is...the put-down of MIT's aviation/aeronautics analysis. Again, here we have MIT's department and institute of aero and astronautics vs P4T. It just gets better and better.
Yeah....what does MIT know about aviation analysis, anyhow! We're Pilots for 9/11 Truth! We know better! We know no plane hit the Pentagon! Our members know a missile hit the Pentagon! Our members know holograms were used in NYC! Our members know aliens live on the dark side of the moon!
MIT? I speet at MIT. They know nothing.
Please. More!
Some idiot (actually, Balsamo) said:
"Have you petitioned the FAA to replace NY TRACON and ASR radar at EWR, JFK, LGA, and HPN with MIT geeks looking at a video camera?"
Have you petitioned the FAA to comment and/or support your findings? If you have, what did they say? If you haven't, why haven't you? If the FAA has ignored you, pray tell why you believe their ignoring you wasn't simply a matter of a professional organization ignoring a crazy, whacked-off bunch of lunatic aviators led by a bitter, angry and arrogant asshole who really doesn't know what he is talking about?
Why do you always ask these internet people for debates? Why don't you camp out on the steps of the FAA building in DC or the NTSB or ICAO or any other flight organization, instead of lounging on someone's basement sofa? Face it...you are an asshole loser who can't grasp reality so you continue to cling to this one thing because a handful of apparatchik followers always say "Good one, Rob!" or "Excellent work, Rob! You're the best! *sob*"!
Seriously. Tell you what. Write a letter to MIT's Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment at the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, outline your claims (make sure you attach your Gallop case affidavit so they know you support a "no plane at the Pentagon" position) about non-standard or upgraded or drone or beefed-up or hologram-ed or fake or whatever aircraft in NYC, post the letter on your pilot's page, and as soon as you get a response, post that, too. Ok? Thank you.
The picture of Flight 175 hitting WTC looks like a UA 767.
The picture of Rob Balsamo looks like an asshole.
Pictures tell stories.
1
I wasn't saying the FAA radars were wrong, doucheface. Since english is obviously not your first language, read again what I said. Concentrate on the words "different", "numbers", "exist", "though", "probably", and "however, the latter three being modifiers in a declarative statement, rendering the associated statement to a status of alternative possibility.
That is one of the problems with you Truthers - along with being bat-shit crazy... you never allow for "something else possibly happened". Its your way or the highway. You discount MIT out of hand when their professional knowledge and acumen makes yours look like what comes out of a baby's butt...green, slimy and smelly. If you simply said "You know, this is what we believe, but I understand other, more qualified and better equipped and more intelligent organizations differ", you may gain a few more followers, ones who don't suck up to you with a "Good one, Rob!!!" to every digital bowel movement you post.
Question, re: your "Gallop affidavit". Do you really believe there were/are surface-to-air missiles at the Pentagon?
"Do you really believe there were/are surface-to-air missiles at the Pentagon?"
And can they reach the alien moon bases?
1
Eli, could this loon be lagomorphagous?
Swallowing the Energizer Bunny would expain the prolixity along with the lack of affect, and its pretty clear he hasn't been gnawing on lithium batteries.
Some idiot above said - "Yeah....what does MIT know about aviation analysis, anyhow!"
Let's just put it this way. I am grateful that FAA certified ATC are working NY TRACON when vectoring my aircraft into the NYC Terminal Area using ASR radar, instead of some geeks from MIT who claim that the FAA is wrong.
Your mileage may vary...
"Let's just put it this way. I am grateful that FAA certified ATC are working NY TRACON when vectoring my aircraft into the NYC Terminal Area using ASR radar, instead of some geeks from MIT who claim that the FAA is wrong.
Your mileage may vary…"
And I'm glad the ATC's aren't engineering and building airplanes, but are merely grunts.
After all, Reagan, bless his evil heart, fired all of them that worked for the FAA and after a short period of time, everything was normal.
Meanwhile, the only ATC I knew personally became a central air conditioning/heating system sales person, later starting his own successful company doing the same.
It's not like his quals as an ATC allowed him to segue into designing airliners …
They're traffic controllers. Stressful job. No need to go to MIT to get said job, though.
dhog says - "And I'm glad the ATC's aren't engineering and building airplanes, but are merely grunts"
I ask, when you are arriving to your destination in a busy terminal area such a NYC, do you get up and bang on the cockpit door and say, "Hey, Don't listen to those Grunts! Contact MIT to vector us for the approach!".
dhog, you should try that on your next flight...lol
Anymouse:
"Ok, Lional A., aka Up So Far in Balsamo's Ass All We Can See are Your Heels....."
Hum. More droppings in the form of vitriolic rhetoric, I seem to have struck a nerve.
"Question, either for Lionel A. or anyone from the pilot's group, please...what does MIT think about your claims?"
Why don't you go ask Dick Lindzen?
It really does appear that you have not studied the issues surrounding the official narrative of events of that day in any depth.
I guess that you believe what happens in Holywood disaster movies to be reality too.
More avoidance of even the simplest questions and no presentations of what they think really happened. Typical "truthers".
1
Well there's a typical P4T response. As far as I can tell, Richard Lindzen has nothing to do with 9/11 or holograms or missiles or fake planes or drones or laser beams or aliens on the moon. What his "climate change" positions have to do with the aircraft narrative on 9/11 is a non-starter.
I'll ask again:
"Question, either for Lionel A. or anyone from the pilot's group, please...what does MIT think about your claims?"
Anyone? Anyone? Certainly Balsamo has sent MIT's Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment at the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics a copy of every "press release" and all their "prsentations". What was their answer?
Second question just hanging out there:
"Question, re: your "Gallop affidavit". Do you really believe there were/are surface-to-air missiles at the Pentagon?"
I'd appreciate some answers.
"More avoidance of even the simplest questions and no presentations of what they think really happened. Typical "truthers"."
You are becoming real tedious anon' 1, all we get from you is a version of 'Ground Hog Day'.
That apart from unwillingness to face the fact that NTSB released flight data tell a story that the official narrative cannot cope with. That has been demonstrated time and again whilst trying to cut through the clouds of ignorance displayed by many of you, Mr '400%' included, who has resorted to sniping from the sidelines with obtuse snark.
As for answering the other anon's questions, you will find a reading list at P4T and other places. Suggest you go look some up.
It matters not what MIT have concocted (and I was aware of that thanks) to cover various asses for the flight data either stands as is and show that a standard 767 was not involved or that NTSB were being less than honest with their data. Whichever, there has been a cover up and all you around here are continuing to aid and abet such, even if, through blinkered ignorance, unwittingly.
Now Richard Lindzen was mentioned to demonstrate that not everything that comes out of MIT should be taken at face value.
But then there are always 'double standards'.
There, prolix enough for you '400%'?
Lionel still cannot answer questions. I read all kinds of information from P4911T, it is all speculation and "it could not have happened, on paper." And yet we have very good video, still picture, eye witness, DNA evidence of passenger remains that UA flight 175 boeing 767 hit WTC. No fin cares if you think the NTSN shows data that you think on paper is impossible, because in the end it is not, it happened.
If you are going to use Richard Lindzen to discredit all of MIT then I am going to use John "Aliens" Lear to discredit P4911T.
Game-Set-Match moron.
1
Jesus. Talk about a disconnect from reality.
"It matters not what MIT have concocted". You people went straight from idiotic to full-tilt mind-blowing stupid. Seriously. Some of the best aeronautical engineering minds on the planet and you P4T morons are dissing them as if YOU have an intellectual or moral superiority.
News for you Lionel, ol' buddy...you don't. Get some real professional aviators and aviator organizations behind your bullshit and perhaps people will support you. Till then? You might as well go back to brownosing Balsamo and posting "Great job, Rob!!" messages to stroke his ego a bit more. Lord knows he needs it.
And no, you have not struck a nerve. This is how it has always been with the P4T morons. Are you new at this?
You know, I've been thinking. Feeling a tad bad about what a cluster f*ck of a clown car this Pilots for 9/11 Truth group is. Ok, I haven't really, but work with me.
The FAA has, as part of its mandate to be the lead organization in US Aviation (sorry P4T...its not you) and by virtue of Public Law 105 - 508, SEC. 9209. AVIATION RESEARCH AND CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE, established a number of "Centers of Excellence" throughout the country at various organizations and institutions of higher learning (that would be colleges and universities, Lionel and Rob).
I know that finding supporters from academia and learned locales throughout the glorious 50 states is more than bit difficult for you, being y'all are all assholes and such, so thought I'd help.
The "Centers of Excellence" total 8 and cover a wide and diverse agenda, but the following, I believe, could help you in your struggles for anti-stupid status:
DOT / FAA Centers of Excellence
COE for Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment (RITE)
COE for General Aviation Research (CGAR)
COE of the Joint Center for Advanced Materials Research (JAMS)
COE for Research for Airport Technology (CEAT)
COE for General Aviation Safety (PEGASAS)
The universities, colleges, institutions and community colleges that host these COEs are listed below:
New Mexico State
Florida Institute of Technology
Florida State U
New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology
Stanford U
Texas A&M
U of Central Florida
Wichita State
U of Colorado -Boulder
U North Dakota
Kansas State
Auburn U
Purdue U
Harvard
Boise State
U of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ
Northwestern
Tuskegee U
UCLA
U of Delaware
U of Washington
Edmonds Community College
Washington State U
Oregon State
Florida International U
U of Utah
MIT
Georgia Institute of Technology
Boston U
Missouri University of Science & Technology
Pennsylvania State U
U of Illinois - Urbana
UNC -Chapel Hill
U of Pennsylvania
Embry Riddle
U of Alaska-Fairbanks/Anchorage
U of Hawaii
Associated along with those are numerous organizations, companies and other entities that contribute to research with grants and other means of support.
Surely you can find *one* in that list where you might be able to find *one* faculty member - liberal, conservative, libertarian, commie, whatever - who wants to *stick it to the man*! and will shoulder your claims. You think?
You're welcome.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/offices/management/coe/
Good post Mr. Anon above, makes me think of an old saying, how does it go...
You can lead a horse's ass to slaughter... Wait wait that is not it.
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Seems very appropriate here, no?
1
Reminds me of another saying...something about the south end of a north bound horse.
Lionel A.? Could you help us out here with some answers since your leader has seemed to vamoosed?
If Pilots For 9/11 Truth are so insignificant, why do some people spend so much much on trying to prove as such? Or any time at all for that matter.
Reminds me of another saying...me thinks thou doth protest too much.
Me thinks I may have to actually read what they have to say.
"why do some people spend so much much on trying to prove as such?"
False premise. The time I invest here is mere minutes a day, and I am laughing the whole time. I have posted zero comments on P4911T website and would not waste my time posting there.
It is called entertainment, a break from serious matters to lighten the heart a little bit.
Lots to laugh at with P4991T, lots.
1
Some idiot above said - "It is called entertainment, a break from serious matters to lighten the heart a little bit."
May I suggest a good SITCOM? Do you have Netflix? Probably can't afford it. I get it.
But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Pretty sad if you ask me though...
What is sad is your continued attention to me after complaining about my attention on P4911T morons, that is sad.
How nice of you to concern yourself with my life choices and how I spend my time. Sorry I am not going to make choices and live life to meet a stranger's rules or expectations.
I do not watch a lot of tv, but thanks for the suggestion.
No one asked you, hypocrite.
1
Actually, Balsamo has said "When the trials begin" all his opponents will be frog-marched off to a penitentiary. I'm just trying to avoid that.
Seriously, if Balsamo and his band of fools want to put themselves out there in the public realm with these insipid and truly idiotic claims - no plane hit the Pentagon, there was a "fly over", holograms, missiles, drones, etc - then he/they deserve all the derision that can be heaped on them and more.
I think the saying goes "Stupidity, left unchecked, begets stupidity". I see this as a public service :)
Oh My. A British Airways 747 right wingtip impacted a building in Johannesburg today while taxiing. You oughta see the picture. The wing is *my God!* still on the plane! According to the P4T aces the wing should have ripped off, the way that flimsy aluminum wing should have after hitting a 30-some-odd foot light pole at the Pentagon. Even more so, those dastardly stresses that should have ripped the aircraft apart (according to the leader of the Pilot group) should have rendered that wing as brittle as a potato chip! Yet this 747 wing, while taxiing and impacting a building, for God's sake! stayed on the aircraft.
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/world/british-airways-plane-hits-building-at-johannesburg-or-tambo-international-airport/story-fnj94lfw-1226789158812
This isn't Phil Robertson and A&E's beatdown of Duck Dynasty, but it looks like we've managed to shut up these Pilot fools and their "factually baseless" and "fanciful, fantastic and delusional" claims. Again, a public service. Free speech is important and all, of course, but *truthful* free speech is what should be honored.
Ever onward!
EliRabett said...
“The 400% refers to stress not speed. Rent a clue”
Well maybe Eli should rent a clue here too, having a background in aeronautical engineering science, aircraft structures with hands on sharp-end experience in making components for same, this for repairs or modification in a wide range of materials various forms of light alloy, steels, titanium and a variety of GRP systems thus I don't need to rent a clue.
Having said that let us first let us remind ourselves how this 400% meme originated with Russell Seitz:
“Though its skin be scary thin, in areas of stress concentration the thing is still beefed up to a 400% marging of safety.”
Which is about areas of stress concentration and a very different to the overall safety factor of the airframe as a whole which for different applications can be from about 125% to 150%.
There are areas where the material dimensions go considerably above 4X the general material thickness or UTS when a different stronger material is used in places where dimension expansion would be inconvenient. Such areas are undercarriage shock absorber strut pintle mountings, hydro-booster attachments, main spar – especially the centre section etc., etc.
Now to that clown who brought up the British Airways 747 wing-tip modification in South Africa, that is one asinine comparison and not at all related to the airframe stress building up in a wide body attempting to fly in the upper region of the transonic flight regime. Do you know how much of that main-plane would require replacement due to shock stresses propagating along the spars?
I have seen Phantom F4 wing tips buckled by not hitting anything at all. How did this happen? From heavy deck landings bursting tyres, the shock of impact travelling from the point of U/C strut attachment to the wing tips. Similar things can happen to aircraft not designed for high sub-sonic speed flight at low level (recall that some sections of an aircraft will be travelling at supersonic speed whilst the aircraft is subsonic) when the aircraft 'hits' air bumps or 'burbles', some components can become overstressed. This is evident from the reports of other aircraft that were damaged by flight outside their envelope included at a link Eli provided way up-thread.
Now here is a question for the bright sparks around here, which major aircraft component governs the fatigue life of an aircraft?
I have pointed out up-thread the reasons why wide body jets of the 7x7 types are not suited to high subsonic speeds at low level. To recap, one of these is the fact that they are the wrong shape. Area rule is used to delay the onset of drag rise. Area rule relates to the concept of creating a gradual increase in frontal area and then a gradual decrease to the tail. To achieve this the section of fuselage where the wings are attached must reduced to compensate. Now a casual glance at a 7x7 shows this not to be the case especially considering the bulges for undercarriage housings.
There is much more to this including pitch change as the centre of pressure moves aft requiring special tail plane design features and auto-stab (or stab-aug) to overcome, and engines too are air-speed limited as described previously. Wide body engines are designed for quiet long distance economy not powering strike jets near the ground.
All of this is covered in various scientifically based treatises on the mechanics of flight thus crying for production of more peer reviewed papers is something of an argument from ignorance.
And yes, truthful free speech should be honoured maybe some around here should educate themselves about aviation matters before opining.
If you are right why does no one listen to you? Are the aliens in on the conspiracy? Perhaps you should clean your house of the lunatics or find a new home.
You wrote many words above and said nothing, impressive.
1
The alien threat is real. Seriously it is hard to take this seriously.
Take what seriously Eli please be more specific?
Stop using a squirrel to distract from you flippantly expressed aviation ignorance for I do not believe in an alien take over. Why should I, because Lear has expressed an opinion here? Lear is not me.
Everyone is aviation ignorant compared to you, how the world continues is unbelievable.
Video, still pictures, pieces of the planes, DNA evidence of many passengers, but on your paper it is impossible so it did not happen that way.
It happened, deal with it and stop being such a lunatic, just like Lear.
1
They don't make'em like they used to. Or at least they don't fly'em like they used to.
Watch starting about 4:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk
I skimmed some of this and found that Lionel mentioned Sea Vixens, in a context which made it appear he had seen them himself. Given they were retired from active duty in 1972, that would put him in his 60's at least, well into self educated autodidact emeritus territory.
Anymouse 1
"Everyone is aviation ignorant compared to you..."
That is a gross distortion, such a trick being the last refuge of a scrub.
It is clear that some around here are ignorant when it comes to aviation, they have hoist themselves by their own flippant comments. WRT cogent arguments then you yourself have contributed diddle-squat.
Now it has become tedious in the extreme drilling down to the latest comments on this post only to discover more dumps reminiscent of those at WUWT.
Hank,
A 707 doing a barrel roll has little to contribute to the arguments as to whether a 767 can fly at 510 KCAS at low level and stay in one piece.
guthrie
Ah! Attacking the man and not the argument. You know what that is called don't you. By your asinine argument we should right off James Hansen and many others too.
As for the 'self educated' bit - not true WRT aviation theory and practice. Because one has retired from a former employment does not mean one stops learning. Besides there are still airworthy examples of many of the aircraft types with which I was familiar including the one mentioned.
" 767 can fly at 510 KCAS at low level and stay in one piece."
It can and it did, until it struck the building. Captured on video, 100's of eyewitnesses, DNA recovery of many of the passengers. Why you refuse to believe reality is beyond me.
And I'm sorry but your most frequent argument is your aviation arrogance as that is the only factor in determining what happened that day. Your focus is so narrow you cannot see all the other evidence and the big picture. You just dismiss important pieces of evidence like the DNA of passenger remains recovered from the WTC site. If we are to assume what you are saying is true, then all the DNA evidence is BS, fabricated, and 100's of people are in on the conspiracy just for that part of the story.
You sir may have aviation chops, but that is it, you have zero critical thinking and just normal reasoning skills.
1
"And I'm sorry but your most frequent argument is your aviation arrogance as that is the only factor in determining what happened that day. Your focus is so narrow you cannot see all the other evidence and the big picture. You just dismiss important pieces of evidence like the DNA of passenger remains recovered from the WTC site."
If hard won aviation knowledge is arrogance then so be it, but what a peculiar claim to make.
Now WRT DNA - you may like to acquaint yourself with the temperatures that destroy DNA. Tis is a particular problem with the Pentagon part of that days events.
My knowledge is not limited to aviation but biology and metallurgy, structures and a number of other relevant disciplines that aid reasoning.
Keep up the bluster though, it only furtherreveals your bigotry.
Post a Comment