Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

reply to post by Shephardmix


User "A320Slave" is wrong.

You may want to read the reply to post at pprune.
www.pprune.org...

Only inasmuch as being "wrong" about the diagram being faked. It was faked.....as presented proof already, in post up above.

To repeat as well: The "Vg Diagram" as presented by Rob Balsamo at PfT is also irrelevant to the discussion of the airplanes, and their airspeeds, on 9/11. It is irrelevant to Transport Category jets. It is misleading as well, because of the terminology labeled on the diagram....yes, even the original diagram.

The term "Structural Failure" conjures up a distorted impression (as intended by Balsamo) in people's minds.

I have tangoed with him many times, and been exposed to the wriggling and dissembling that is his "stock-in-trade". He has a "business website" to shepherd, after all....to scrounge what available coin from donations he can still muster, so he must not ever relent for to do so, would mean not only failure, but also the drying up of whatever profit stream he obtains from it.

Of course, any attempts to point out the several incidents on record of Boeings well exceeding the published "maximums" (to include the G force limitations) and surviving to still remain intact, and land safely are hand-waved away, in usual Balsamo double-speak.

As to the Vg Diagram: The key thing to really focus on, in terms of what is most likely to cause severe structural failure, is the G loading.

But, for the 9/11 airplanes, this was not a significant event in that aspect. They made no extreme banks (except for United 93, but that was only seconds before impact with the ground....and, rolling inverted does not, in itself, result in excessive G loads). Even leveling from a high-speed descent ("dive") doesn't need to exert any excessive G loads either. At those airspeeds, any such control deflection amounts that resulted in significant load factors would have been very, very evident in the airplane's behavior in flight.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Shephardmix

 

User "A320Slave" is wrong.

You may want to read the reply to post at pprune.
www.pprune.org...

Only inasmuch as being "wrong" about the diagram being faked. It was faked.....as presented proof already, in post up above.

Is Pugilistic Animus also wrong with who A320Slave agreed when PA said,

if you can get the the following data you can draw it

Vs1, Vmo, design limit load; you can draw it

www.pprune.org...

Is the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics also wrong here when they show Vd as the end of the flight envelope and the beginning of the structural failure zone?



Are you saying that the 767 Vd of 420 knots is not the same definition as the Vd depicted in the above diagram created by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics? And that we should listen to some anonymous poster on pprune who has all of 2 posts claiming all of the above is wrong and fake? Is that what you're saying? If so, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I have tangoed with him many times, and been exposed to the wriggling and dissembling that is his "stock-in-trade".

Can you please show me where you have "tangoed with him many times"? I looked over at their forum and there isn't a "ProudBird" registered. If you "tangoed" with him here at ATS, can you please provide links?

Of course, any attempts to point out the several incidents on record of Boeings well exceeding the published "maximums" (to include the G force limitations) and surviving to still remain intact, and land safely are hand-waved away,

None of which were able to reach 150 knots over it's max operating. It's all well sourced here, far from considered hand-waiving.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


And as I pointed out to you, if you had bothered to read the whole post, one would need to know what was identified as the nosecone. Was it the composite cap that mounts to the forward most bulkhead of the airliner, OR was he referring the the nose section itself which would include the nose gear bay, and cockpit. And it is also possible that what was left of the composite cap was still present, but flattened against the bulkhead. What you fail to understand in your rant about the vertical stab, is that there is nothing behind it. Nadda, zippo, zilch. The composite cap on the front of the aircraft...has an cast aluminum bulkhead that it mounts to. In other words, when it contacts the wall, its going to get shoved aft.....against the bulkhead.

BTW....during the clean up...they discovered a flaw in the exterior walls of the Pentagon dating back to its original construction....which made it EASIER for Flight 77 to punch through it.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Um, no, the NOC has been addressed in this thread. Nice try.

reply to post by Shephardmix


NEWSFLASH....during flight testing they routinely exceed those limits on the airframes.....and its not often you hear about an airliner falling apart during its flight testing.....well Airbus has been known to have issues....but not Boeing.

Those limits, in all actuality are not even close to the point where the airframe would start to come apart. I am pretty sure that if you looked in the manual, it would say that performing a roll or loop would cause the airframe to come apart, and yet, test pilots have been known to do those very things during testing.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Shephardmix

 

NEWSFLASH....during flight testing they routinely exceed those limits on the airframes.....and its not often you hear about an airliner falling apart during its flight testing.....well Airbus has been known to have issues....but not Boeing.

Those limits, in all actuality are not even close to the point where the airframe would start to come apart. I am pretty sure that if you looked in the manual, it would say that performing a roll or loop would cause the airframe to come apart, and yet, test pilots have been known to do those very things during testing.

Can you please show us one which exceeded it's limits by 150 knots, remained in tact and was controllable?

According to this link and the precedent sourced, not one aircraft was able to do it, which includes Boeing aircraft. Sure some go to 20, 40 or 70 knots over. But none were able to get to 150 over. Matter of fact most of them had to do something to slow down in order to regain control such as dropping its landing gear, shedding parts along the way such as the 727 incident. Let us know when you find one that managed 150 knots over and remained in control without shedding parts, which has been positively identified and not modified to achieve such performance. Thanks!

reply to post by Shephardmix


You link to the p4t message board as proof. Seriously?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Shephardmix

 

You link to the p4t message board as proof. Seriously?

Message board? No. Website, yes. The article is well sourced with documents from the NTSB, Boeing, NASA, and other relevant sources not affiliated with Pilots For 9/11 Truth. It's up to you if you wish to read through it. I found it thorough and well presented offering data, precedent and ample experts.

I ask again, can you please show us one positively identified aircraft which remained controllable without shedding parts at 150 knots over?

reply to post by Shephardmix


Yep. Flight 77. It was positively identified as the plane that hit the Pentagon long ago.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Shephardmix

 

Yep. Flight 77. It was positively identified as the plane that hit the Pentagon long ago.

Excellent. So you have the part and serial numbers matched to the maintenance logs? Including the FDR serial numbers? For some reason, the FBI didn't want to provide such identification materials, and from what I understand this is unprecedented. But maybe you received the documents from another source? Please post them when you can. Thanks!

reply to post by Shephardmix


Talk to AA and their insurance company. Then explain why little ole you thinks you are entitled to those records.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Shephardmix

 

Talk to AA and their insurance company. Then explain why little ole you thinks you are entitled to those records.

So you don't have those records. Okay, thanks anyway.

According to the FBI via FOIA, those records do not exist. If they did, the American public is entitled to those records since a crime was committed on the American people. The FBI nor the NTSB never positively identified the 9/11 aircraft. According to precedent, data and a growing list of many verified experts, the speeds reported exceed the performance of a standard 757/767 by a wide margin. Government agencies have not been able to provide any evidence proving the aircraft were standard and not modified to achieve such high performance levels well beyond any other aircraft which has exceeded it's limitations.

But if you do come across those records at some point, please post them. Perhaps you then won't have to argue with so many Conspiracy Theorists and we can put this to bed. Thanks!

reply to post by Shephardmix


"Pugilistic Animus" saw through the sham question very quickly in that extremely brief PPRuNe thread.

The actual professional pilots who frequent that Board also saw through the sham, and knew what was going on with that other account name that joined for the sole purpose of providing the PfT with this feeble excuse to use, to attempt to gain "crediblity" by referencing a real discussion Board where actual, experienced professional pilots interact.

The user name "RalphTheMouth" is, appropriately, banned from that discussion Board as well.

They were on to the charade very quickly.

And, so are we.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Shephardmix

 

"Pugilistic Animus" saw through the sham question very quickly in that extremely brief PPRuNe thread.

PA only posted once in the thread, and it appears he agrees with A320Slave that you can plot your own V-G diagram.

Why did you avoid my questions?

Is Pugilistic Animus also wrong when he says you can plot your own V-G?

Is the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics also wrong when they show Vd as the end of the flight envelope and the beginning of the structural failure zone?

Are you saying that the 767 Vd of 420 knots is not the same definition as the Vd depicted in the above diagram created by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics? And that we should listen to some anonymous poster on pprune who has all of 2 posts claiming all of the above is wrong and fake?

Can you please show me where you have "tangoed with him many times"? I looked over at their forum and there isn't a "ProudBird" registered. If you "tangoed" with him here at ATS, can you please provide links?

Can you please answer?

reply to post by Shephardmix


Oh, and in case you don't come back, just want to point out to all who come along to read this later.

The chart again, in the post being "replied" to....with all the bright colors and labeled:
"Boeing 767 V-G Diagram"?

Ah heck...easier to just show it again, so you don't have to scroll up:

Originally posted by Shepardmix

That one ^ ^ ^ ^ up top, the "pretty" one, is fake. It was never published by Boeing. It was cleverly doctored from a Vg diagram copied from another source, and the airspeeds at the bottom altered to reflect the B-767 published speeds. At the bottom, the text saying:

"V-Speeds Based on Boeing 767
A1NM Type Certificate Data"

^ ^ ^ ^ That text was added in, too.

A hatchet job, and possibly on a copyrighted original image....dunno, someone can surely check.


Now, the use of that chart is to bamboozle the gullible and layperson, but it doesn't fool real airline pilots. We just laugh. Know why?

Hint #1: FAR Part 25 --- AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES


Hint #2: [+] and [-] G-load limits.


Hint #3: Section Contents. Subpart C --- Structure

reply to post by Shephardmix


Merely "plotting a Vg Diagram" based on the specific data of a make and model, based on the known physics and relationships to airspeeds g-loads isn't the point.

Lying about the Vg diagram, by disingenuously using it incorrectly, and for purposes of misleading readers is the point.


Think of this as "Appendix A" to my post immediately above. The reasons are clear up there, and the discussion is moot as a result.

But, to repeat since it might have gotten lost, maybe one page back:

Merely exceeding the Vmo, or even the Vd does not result in immediate "catastrophic" structural failure. Any pilot, even a rank student, does know that excessive airspeeds and abrupt control movements can impart excessive g-loads on the airframe structure. Small airplane pilots also are taught the significance of a speed value labeled "Va", for "maneuvering speed". There is no simple equivalent for Part 25 certificated Transport Category airplanes. Closest analog would be the recommended "Turbulence Penetration Airspeed".

One more thing about the "Red Zones" on the Vg diagram (or, even the actual flight envelopes [yes, plural]) that are actually published by Boeing. This refers, again, back to FAR Part 25.

Try to find the reference in there for construction criteria that require manufacturer to allow for a 1.5 margin above their published "maximums". ( Hmmmmm......what's 420 x 1.5??? )

Happy hunting!!

Originally posted by ProudBird
That one ^ ^ ^ ^ up top, the "pretty" one, is fake.

If by "fake" you mean it was plotted using Speeds and G loads as defined by Boeing on a typical Flight Envelope, then you would be correct.

If you are claiming that the diagram is inaccurate and does not represent a Boeing 767 based on speeds and G loading limitations, you would be wrong. Please answer my questions above when you can. Thanks!

Hint #2: [+] and [-] G-load limits.


Hint #3: Section Contents. Subpart C --- Structure

§ 25.337 Limit maneuvering load factors.

(b) The positive limit maneuvering load factor n for any speed up to Vn may not be less than 2.1+24,000/ ( W +10,000) except that n may not be less than 2.5 and need not be greater than 3.8—where W is the design maximum takeoff weight.

(c) The negative limit maneuvering load factor—

(1) May not be less than −1.0 at speeds up to V C; and

(2) Must vary linearly with speed from the value at V Cto zero at V D.

Looks to me like they did a good job plotting the correct values/speeds/loads in the correct position on the above diagrams.

Originally posted by ProudBird
Merely exceeding the Vmo, or even the Vd does not result in immediate "catastrophic" structural failure.

No one has claimed it does. Matter of fact, some aircraft suffer catastrophic failure well below those limitations. This one lost it's tail at departure speeds, crashed, and killed all on board and some on the ground.



Now all you have to do is find an aircraft which is positively identified to perform at 150 knots over it's maximum operating limitation and remained stable and controllable. No one has been able to provide one, just like no one has been able to provide a South of Citgo witness in more than 11 pages of this thread.

Also, anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free.

Try to find the reference in there for construction criteria that require manufacturer to allow for a 1.5 margin above their published "maximums". ( Hmmmmm......what's 420 x 1.5??? )

1.5 Margin is for G loading, not speeds. The Margin set for speeds is between Vmo and Vd, There is no additional margin above Vd.

By your logic, a 767-200 rated with a Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of 315,000 lbs would be able to lift 472,500 lbs. You should tell Boeing and all other airlines which bought anything above the 767-200 they wasted their money on buying modified 767's for increased performance and that they should just buy the 767-200 as it can apparently outperform a 767-400ER according to your "margin above published maximum". LMAO!

reply to post by Shephardmix


What should have happened? Let's assume we steal a plane now and try to fly it into the Sears tower at that speed what would occur? We'd spin off and hit the ground? The plane would explode? What?

reply to post by Shephardmix

And he posts a picture of an Airbus. See early statement about Airbus and their design issues.