= new reply since forum marked as read
Seger quotes - "It is noteworthy that the section of Part 23 regarding flutter, 23.629, makes no mention of altitude. "
FAR part 23 is for small aircraft, like a Cessna 172... doh!
Now read reality....
"Many years ago, before oscilloscopes and sensitive vibration measuring devices were commonly used, aerodynamicists had a very basic means of identifying an airline's flutter speed. They'd find a skilled test pilot, show him a wheelbarrow full of money, then send him aloft to dive the airplane at dazzling airspeeds. The test pilot's job was to determine the speed at which the airplane experiences flutter.
When he returned-and when his breathing slowed and he regained his ability to speak-he'd tell his tale. He'd inform the engineers about the speed beyond which the airplane experienced flutter. This speed is known as Vd or design dive speed. "
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/1998/May/199805_Operating_Within_the_Envelope_Part_1.html
Now watch the flight certification test being done on the A380. Notice the pilots visibly shaking in their seats... note the airplane broke prior to Vd/Md, the test had to be aborted, and the airplane had to be modified to reach Vd/Md.
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/
There is no 50% margin of safety factored above Vd. You are confusing limit load with speed. The 50% margin of Safety is for G loading only.
"§25.303 Factor of safety.
Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure. When a loading condition is prescribed in terms of ultimate loads, a factor of safety need not be applied unless otherwise specified. "
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1aca5418517b105598535f0eaa929f65&node=14:1.0.1.3.11.3.162.2&rgn=div8
The margin of safety for speed is between Vc (of which Vmo is derived) and Vd ...
§25.1505 Maximum operating limit speed.
The maximum operating limit speed (VMO/MMO airspeed or Mach Number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude) is a speed that may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent), unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test or pilot training operations. VMO/MMO must be established so that it is not greater than the design cruising speed VC and so that it is sufficiently below VD/MD or VDF/MDF, to make it highly improbable that the latter speeds will be inadvertently exceeded in operations. The speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD or VDFM/DF may not be less than that determined under §25.335(b) or found necessary during the flight tests conducted under §25.253.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1aca5418517b105598535f0eaa929f65&node=14:1.0.1.3.11.7.198.3&rgn=div8
Vd is the end of the Flight Maneuvering Envelope and the start of the structural failure zone/structural limit,
[img][/img]
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1aca5418517b105598535f0eaa929f65&node=14:1.0.1.3.11.3.164.7&rgn=div8
.... and it is proven by precedent.
[img]
[/img]
You really should watch the film, maybe you'll actually learn something. Such as, we do not claim an aircraft breaks at 1 knot over Vd, Mr Strawman.....
> Sigh... Please show me a small aircraft which has a Vmo. Wow... just wow.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've said about Vd. I'm afraid you'll need to pick up your game to even rate a "nice try."
> > I'm not the one confusing load with speed.
> Yes you are. You said...
> "The way the engineers assured the planes could fly at their Vd velocities WITHOUT falling apart is by adding a 50% margin of safety." - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=7451
> You are wrong. But nice try at backpedaling.
LOL, what a pantload. In the sentence before that, I defined Vd as "the shallow-dive velocity the engineers assumed when they calculated the forces the plane's structure needed to withstand." Those calculated forces would be the design loads, and anyone familiar with any type of structural engineering would know that calculated design loads are always multiplied by a Factor of Safety. You clearly did not know that -- apparently still don't know that -- so you misinterpreted what I meant. Now, I can see how someone unfamiliar with standard engineering practice -- such as yourself, as we now know -- could misread what I wrote, but when I saw that you were incorrectly interpreting it as 50% greater speed, I made it quite clear what I meant in the post you responded to: "the way that the engineers will insure that Vd 'is by definition a safe speed' is to multiply the calculated loads by a Factor of Safety, which is typically 1.5." We have both proved that statement correct, your misreading of my first post notwithstanding, so this lame attempt at misdirection also falls short of a "nice try."
> >Your expert appears to be confused
> Says the guy who just a few short days ago didn't even know what Vd was and thought there was a 50% margin of safety attached to Vd.... lol. Now apparently he thinks he knows more than AOPA. Too funny..
Well, now, this is another "interesting" argument, Rob. Your expert says, "This speed is known as Vd or design dive speed" when he is clearly talking about what the rest of the world seems to call the "demonstrated flight diving speed" Vdf. Now, you seem to be suggesting that since I only learned about either of those terms recently, I must be the one confused about their meaning and the difference between them? Because, AOPA? Are you sure that's the argument you want to make, or would you like to take another stab at it?
But the really funny part is trying to sneak in your own ignorance of the 50% Factor of Safety under the same fallacious argument, as if the AOPA writer was equally ignorant and would agree with you. I seriously doubt it, but who cares; the fact remains that FoS load multipliers are standard engineering practice and hand-waving from self-proclaimed experts doesn't make them disappear.
> >Are you aware that people can look this stuff up on Google?
Yes. You should try it.... and don't stop when you think you have an answer which suits your bias. Because as you have seen, you tend to be wrong... alot.
Oh, I "try it" all the time, which is how I found that you were confused about things like Mcrit and Vd. Yeah, you claim I'm wrong -- a lot -- but you always come up short when it's time to substantiate, and here we go again. You'd much rather play debating games, which you aren't particularly good at, either.
> The margin of safety for speed is between Vmo and Vd on transport category aircraft.
Yes, Vmo is limited by Vd, and yes that is a margin of safety. What's in dispute is your ridiculous contention that that's the ONLY margin of safety -- a contention which clearly denies the 50% safety factor built into the design loads. The Boeing slide presentation I linked to gives their definition of margin of safety: It's just the difference between actual loading and maximum loading, all relevant factors considered -- no mention of Vmo or Vd.
> This is not just "At Boeing". This is an FAR Requirement and applies to both Boeing and Airbus. You'd know this had you actually used google and didn't stop when you found something to support your bias.
Sorry, lost my composure for a minute there... So you are now saying that engineers are REQUIRED by the FAA to design planes to be flutter-free at 1.15 Vd -- something you seem to have curiously omitted from your videos and diagrams -- and if I hadn't stopped when I found something to "support (my) bias," I would have found lots more to support my "bias"? Should I take that as the net result of your attempt to find something to support your claims? What a hoot.
But seriously (if I can stop laughing), and no offense, but how about providing a link so we can see what the FAR requirement really says. I just have a feeling you're leaving out some interesting stuff.
> There is a theoretical margin of 1.15 for Vd under Part 25 (1.2 under Part 23), but this is theoretical and for a constant altitude and mach... ie not maneuvering...
Oh, I see; it's "theoretical" so it's okay to completely ignore that it refutes your argument?
> This does not apply to aircraft which are maneuvering (such as were the aircraft on 9/11).... and precedent has proven as such.
By "maneuvering" do you mean the banks the WTC planes did immediately before hitting the buildings, and the 2G pull-up that AA77 did at the Pentagon? That's the only "maneuvering" I'm aware of at the impact speeds. It's certainly possible that that "maneuvering" did indeed cause structural damage, but it seems the pilots weren't too concerned about that for some reason. That's another gaping hole in your logic, actually: Perhaps the planes did suffer structural damage, but so what? Seconds later, it was all just mass times velocity.
> Many aircraft (including Boeing and Airbus) have suffered structural failure well below 1.15Vd.
Here's how that works: "Many have" does not prove your point, but "some have not" would disprove it. And some have not, such as Federal Express 705, which disproves your contention, so you just deny all examples or try to find excuses for treating them differently.
> The Flight Maneuvering Envelope is posted above under FAR Part 25. It is not fake.
That's nice that it's only your interpretation of them that's fake, but my question was, have you stopped using your fake "767 Fg diagram" to promote your video? That (and many other examples) gets to the question of why your credibility is zero among those who have observed your antics over the years. I haven't forgotten when you posted a graphic on the old September 11 board with a compass rotated away from north to "prove" your contention about AA77's flight path. When exposed, you neither apologized nor admitted that the correct compass orientation disproved your contention. You just went into "Balsamo mode" -- shotgun blasts of diversions, strawmen arguments, non sequiturs, insults, and third-grade bullying.
> Again.. The "50% margin of safety" in which you claimed applied to Vd, is for G loads, not speed.
And again, what I actually said is right there for anyone to read, and again the far bigger issue is that someone who claims to be an expert on plane failure is apparently oblivious to how planes are designed.
> The wing broke at 154%, it passed limit load certification. And as you can see, it had nothing to do with speed. Unless of course you think the building in which the testing was performed, was traveling at Vd.
It's really amusing to watch you refute yourself and then try to pretend that it means you were actually right all along, somehow. I don't believe that I've ever seen anyone who thought that was a effective debate tactic, but you seem to use it a lot.
So here's the story so far: Hey, kids, someone who wants to sell videos which claim that the 9/11 plane speeds were "impossible" because they exceeded their Vds was apparently unaware that Boeing jets are designed to get to 1.15 Vd without flutter, and that a 50% Factor of Safety (or more) is typically added to ALL design loads, not just G loads. This self-proclaimed expert who appeals to own authority averages more than one misstatement, logical fallacy, or obfuscation per paragraph, but don't let that stop you from buying his videos.
On the other hand, the board was getting pretty boring so thanks for the entertainment, Rob.
Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 07:11 AM - Edit history (1)
And they claim "Troofers" are unable to admit when they are wrong...? wow.
I have seen some duhbunkers try to tap dance when proven wrong, but Seger, you take the cake.
I won't bother to waste my time refuting all your gish-galloping claims... so I'll keep this brief, especially given the fact that you are incapable of admitting when you make a mistake.
Again, your claim - "The way the engineers assured the planes could fly at their Vd velocities WITHOUT falling apart is by adding a 50% margin of safety." http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=7451
I have bolded the pertinent parts of your sentence. No where did you refer to "loads" in your initial post. Are people supposed to read your mind now?
This would interpret to any normal person who understands English, that your claim of "adding a 50% margin of safety" applies to your subject "Vd velocities".
It wasn't until I told you that your "50% margin of safety" claim was wrong that you obviously did more investigoogling (or perhaps asked one of your "eggspurts"
, you then found out that the "50% margin of safety" is in fact in addition to load and not velocity, when you started your tap dance.
You were wrong, we understand. You are incapable of admitting a mistake.
So now that I have educated you, and that the only "margin of safety" added to Vd is actually 15% for transport category aircraft (20% under Part 23), and not "50%" as you first claimed, perhaps you can find the relevant FAR and understand why it does not apply to an aircraft which is maneuvering, nor is such a margin included in a VG diagram.
Are you aware that the "50% margin of Safety" for G loads are in fact included in a VG Diagram?
Example -
(just a quick search I did for a VG Diagram... and no, it's not fake, right click the image for the source)
[img]
[/img]
G loads for the Utility category are 4.4 G. Notice the margin of safety up to 6.6G. There is your additional "50%".
Why isn't the extra 15% (or 20%) for Vd also included?
I know why... but... I'll let that bake your noodle for a bit..
The answer will also give you the reason why such a theoretical margin was not included in our presentation, yet numerous examples of precedent... were.
I got a really good laugh out of the fact he thought the flutter experience by the A380 Test Crew was due to the fact it wasn't a Boeing.
Hey Seger, how can this A380 experience flutter prior to Vd, and had to abort the test due to structural damage caused by flutter prior to Vd, if they are required to have a flutter free margin of 15% above Vd?
I know, it's because it's not a Boeing, right? At least, that is what you claimed. Very professional response for someone who claims to understand engineering. [img]
[/img]
For anyone else who would like the answer, feel free to email us through the P4T website and I will be happy to provide you with the relevant "flutter free" FAR and the reasons why it does not apply to aircraft maneuvering... I personally like to see Seger tap dance and twist in the wind..
I have tried to explain this to you many times.... but here, let me try an illustration.
[img]
[/img]
I see you also have not been able to find the relevant FAR regarding "flutter-free" requirements... when you do, you will then understand why the Factors Of Safety are included in the above VG diagram... 1.15Vd is not... and why the A380 Test Crew wore parachutes during Vd certification (and no, it's not because the airplane wasn't a Boeing...lol)
...but if past experience with you is any indication.. .you will never understand....
How many structural designs do you know which add a double "Factor Of Safety"?
Do you really think aircraft manufacturers add an additional "Factor Of Safety" without regard to cost, above and beyond the FoS described above?
Why would manufacturers spend the additional revenue to add a "double" Factor Of Safety when highly experience crews are taught to never exceed Vmo? Just in case a "hijacker" wants to exceed Vmo by more than 150 knots? (by the way, when and if you do your research... such speeds were exceeded for minutes prior to 'impact', pulling G's, and rolling on G's, which reduce G load limits significantly). This all done by a "Hijacker" who supposedly has limited flight training, was taught to NEVER exceed such speeds or the airplane may fall apart around you and less experience than a supposedly "Pilot" who couldn't control a Cessna 172 at 65 knots?
[img]
[/img]
Manufacturers do not spend the additional revenue for a "double" Factor Of Safety.... And this video proves it....
As does precedent....
[img]
[/img]
If you haven't understood this by now.. you never will. So, therefore, if you require any further instruction, please visit your local flight school.... or I'll have to start charging.
For anyone else who has further questions, feel free to contact us through our website. We have many Instructors and Aeronautical Engineers willing to help those who have a genuine interest.
Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
PilotsFor911Truth.org
Member list here http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots
Seger says - "....you are in effect asserting that Vmo is the speed at which "limit" loads are calculated and Vd is the speed at which "ultimate" loads are achieved..."
Notice your constant use of the word "loads" when referring to airspeed limitations.
I am not "asserting" as such. And I have continually attempted to help you understand that you are confusing limit load "Factor Of Safety" (which is 50%), with airspeed margins of safety.
load
noun \ˈlōd\
: something that is lifted and carried
: an amount that can be carried at one time : an amount that fills something (such as a truck)
: the weight that is carried or supported by something
Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/load
(my emphasis above)
Now for a basic ground school lesson taught on the first day....
(just a quick google image search I did)
These are some of the very problems you had when attempting to debate a topic such as Mcrit. You just do not understand the language/terminology.
Would you argue with a 15 year old in high school who is trying to tell you how to be a "draftsman"? That is what it is like arguing aerodynamics with you. It's a waste of time.
Feel free to donate 30 dollars to P4T for this lesson. Unless of course you think Merriam-Webster is also wrong and the diagram provided by langleyflyingschool.com is "fake"?
Seger says - "But yes, I did find FAR 25, so you will need to be more careful about simply asserting what is says"
Anyone can find FAR 25, but it is clear you are unable to find the relevant "flutter-free" FAR under Part 25. Because if you did, you would understand it does not apply to an aircraft which is changing altitude and speed... ie. maneuvering.
Why is that you can't seem to resist "illustrating" your assertions with faked diagrams?
(Edit to clarify: My red numbers in the upper right show how much Balsamo fudged the placement of the "9/11 Aircraft."
Apparently you don't know the difference between a Diagram and a Graph... either.
Your first clue should be the fact that there are many different types of aircraft in the above diagram, each having a different numerical value for the defined limitation, Va, Vmo, Vd... etc.
Some "draftsman" you are.... it's probably the reason you are a 'Former' draftsman...
To help sell videos, you prepared a diagram showing the "9/11 aircraft" way off to the right, relative the their Vmo and Vd speeds, with the perfectly obvious intent of making their speeds look more "impossible." When called on that, you say, oh, it's a "diagram" not a "chart," and since you threw a bunch of planes on the same chart -- and couldn't figure out how to proportion each of them? You shoulda asked a draftsman -- so of course that placement doesn't really mean anything, silly Seger.
Which is, of course, exactly my point: The diagram doesn't mean anything when it's that badly fudged.
But the question remains: WHY are you creating bogus, deliberately exaggerated diagrams to sell videos?
You have been making this same argument through several different forums, and each time this was provided for you....
Concerning me, I am a freelance aviation journalist / author for SP’s Airbuz & Aviation, Indian magazines catering to civil aviation. I also am an aerospace designer, and a flight simulator instructor. I was formerly employed with Honeywell, but now completely on my own. I’ve left Honeywell with a US Patent Grant (US8552649), and a US Patent Application (yet to be publicized by the USPTO).
In 2011, I developed and installed 5 Boeing 767-type fixed base flight simulators, serving as Initial Procedure Trainers (IPTs) intended for systems training for Honeywell’s designers / developers working on aerospace products. I was also part of a program which attempts to bridge the gap between engineers and modern avionics and airliner systems. I have been part of, and led quite a few initiatives at the company, all related to skill development, and I now have taken this to the next level through programs that benefits all aerospace engineering students across the nation.
My unwavering focus in aviation, of more than a decade has seen me at airline dispatch, airport facilities (NDB, VOR, ILS, Radars, and ATC), aircraft maintenance, airline training (simulator centres using CAE and Thompson Level-C FFS), avionics system development, teaching (aircraft systems), and aircraft system design. I have designed LED based navigation lights, and worked on programs, for the Boeing 737, A320, Embraer 135/145, C-17, and the Boeing 787, while at Honeywell.
The Flying Engineer’s brainchild, Project Airbus Tech (PAT) is executed by Sushank Gupta, who is a graduate engineer in the field of production/industrial engineering, a commercial pilot, and now rated on the Airbus A320, soon to be released online.
Source - http://theflyingengineer.com/about-2/about-the-flying-engineer/
You really need to start reading more than the first few words, Beachy. I've bolded a few to help you out....
How many Boeing 767 Simulators have you developed Beachy? Have you contacted Honeywell to let them know "The Flying Engineer" has it all wrong?
http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/
I think the above "journalist" knows a bit more about aviation than you. Especially given the fact you couldn't even tell the difference between a 757 and an Airbus, nor were you able to understand your own VG diagrams. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20979&view=findpost&p=10812629
Seems Seger couldn't fight his own battles and apparently cried on JREF for back-up...? Not sure, haven't been to that cesspool in a long time... but I'd be willing to bet on it....
....of course.. the first to come running is Beachy. You're a good friend Beachy... now if you could only tell the difference between a 757 and an Airbus, and how to read your own VG diagrams, you might serve a purpose.
For those interested.... click here and scroll down to learn more about Beachy...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20979&view=findpost&p=10793515
"But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast" - superbeachnut
....cracks me up every time....
Since a 757 is even bigger than a Airbus A320, Beachnut's actual point about perceptions is perfectly valid, isn't it. But you completely ignore the actual point and then, not satisfied with "winning" an irrelevant point about plane identification, you slide into the gutter to make insinuations about a stroke?
Uh huh, since you "haven't been to that cesspool in a long time" 
I'll gladly "inform" you that I posted a link on JREF to your video on YouTube because it's funny as hell to anyone who has observed your antics over the years. I didn't post a link to this thread until you posted that faked diagram with the position of the "9/11 aircraft" wildly exaggerated. Again, you probably don't realize how funny that is to anyone familiar with your long history of faked diagrams, but it was too funny not to share.
But nope, in this thread, I don't think I need any help "fighting" an "expert" who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. But as always, I do appreciate your help in making it easy.
Last edited Tue Jun 3, 2014, 06:48 AM - Edit history (1)
Seger says - "Since a 757 is even bigger than a Airbus A320, Beachnut's actual point about perceptions is perfectly valid, isn't it."
Your point would be valid if Beachnut was comparing a 757 to an Airbus. But in his case, he was comparing an Airbus to a 737, and claiming the Airbus was a 757!
Seger, you can't even understand most of the arguments presented, nor the terminology. Nor have you been able to find the relevant FAR under Part 25 for 1.15Vd when you initially claimed a 50% FoS. You are nothing but a huge waste of time.
Edit: And before I forget, when Beachy realized he screwed the pooch after I pointed out his mistake, instead of admitting his blunder, he switched the original pic from his post, and uploaded a new photoshopped image to the same url so the post will not show an edit. Then he claimed I photoshopped the screenshot of his post! He was caught by several of his cohorts trying to cover up his mistake.... but he still tries to shift blame every chance he gets... and will probably attempt it here as well....
Have a nice day!
If A>C and B>C.... does A=B? This is what Beachy was trying to say....
Again, you do not even understand the argument...
In short...
Beachy claims to be former Military, yet is unable to visually identify an aircraft.
Verified Aviation experts like us understand how absurd such an argument is/was.. you don't... obviously.
I see you STILL have not yet found the relevant FAR under Part 25 which regulates 1.15Vd... specifically stating it only applies to constant altitude and speed. In other words, no changes in static and dynamic pressure (or... what you like to define as "loads"
Your last paragraph is so silly, meaningless, there is no way pilots for truth can recover and explain what you made up. Pilots for truth have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to aerodynamics.
Pilots for truth failed claims fool less than 0.1 percent of all pilots. The delusional claims have no base in fact. Ironically, pilots for truth claim they offer no theory, yet make ridiculous claims based on ignorance and nonsense.
Pilots for truth lie about the g force for 77 to hit the Pentagon, and say it would take 34g, after posting 11.2g made up by waving hands rapidly and failing to make sense.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
Oops, the final G force for 77, and pilots for truth over 30gs off. oops
The FARs the 767 were made under have aircraft flutter free at 1.2Vd, thus the speed of 580mph should be flutter free, and all the planes on 911 did not suffer the fake structural failure, and there is no such speed as structural failure for a 767. Pilots for truth use the fake Vg diagram to fool people with the fraud claim plane can't fly faster than Vd. A lie.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188863
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-role-of-aeroelastic-flutter-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/
Where is you ATP, why have you never flown left seat heavy jets? 
Oops, I have no clue those are Boeing jets, the same as the one I was flying, left seat and taking the shot. What did mav say...
Why are you listening to a guitar player in which Northeastern University (his employer) has refused to host? A person who has no experience in aviation whatsoever? This is your "expert"?
Click here to find out...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18336
If your "expert" does not understand the difference between Flight Director Pitch.. .and actual Pitch angles... with most of his criticism consisting of ad homs... perhaps he can help you with visual identification of aircraft?
A math expert has logical reasoning skills which is why a math expert can see pilot for truth claims are false. As seen, the math expert schools pilots for truth and then pilots for truth make bigger errors.
The final g force for Flight 77. Pilots for truth made up a number out of thin air, or worse, 11.2g. Pilots for truth still have 11.2g posted, plus they say they made an error after making up a fake number based on ignorance. Unable to use simple methods to see the answer was ~2g, they make up 34g, only 30 plus g off.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
Math expert exposes pilots for truth fraud - and then pilots for truth expose their total ignorance 911 and math at their own web site, self-debunking thread.
The thread proves pilots for truth don't have math skills, no clue they are wrong.
No matter how many times you post that image, and link a guitar player from Northeastern University as the source... anyone who actually clicks the link, will find that your image is not sourced. And when you do post the proper source of your image, they will then find out the source admits he has no expertise in aviation nor FDR data... and claims that a "bug" is in the ROSE Software in which the NTSB never used.
But then again, we wouldn't expect any less from a person who cannot visually identify the difference between an Airbus and a 757.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20979&view=findpost&p=10793515
pilots for truth could not decode the raw data from 77's FDR, but he could... so you attack him and expose pilots for truth can't do math, physics, and can't decode a FDR; all those experts you claim to have, pilots, fail where a mathematician did decode the FDR, you can't. And that is exposed at the pilots for truth forum.
Are you upset he schooled pilots for truth on math.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
How did you get 34g from a 2g solution?
Is that an airbus on the lead tanker, oops, I am flying a Boeing and using a Nikon, does that count... That airbus is fast, and we refueled up to Vmo, over sometimes, oops, no structural failure... darn, pilots for truth, where is that ATP.
Last edited Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)
Once again you demonstrate you do not understand how to interpret the FAR's... (nor read them).
For example, "Flight Loads" (in the sense with which you are thinking) are not the same as "Limit Loads". Limit loads have a Factor of Safety of 50%. "Flight Loads" do not.
Now for reality.... which you conveniently omitted... on purpose? Or just because you didn't understand it?
This is what you quoted...
"Flight load factors represent the ratio of the aerodynamic force component (acting normal to the assumed longitudinal axis of the airplane) to the weight of the airplane."
This is what you omitted.
A positive load factor is one in which the aerodynamic force acts upward with respect to the airplane.
Note the bold. In other words, the vertical axis.
You should listen to Beachy... he is closer than you with his 1.2 VD quoted above. But there is a reason why he failed to provide the source. Once he does, you may understand why he failed to source it. Here is a hint, he quoted a CAR, not an FAR.
If you wish to actually learn something, I know many Flight Instructors, ATP rated Heavy Jet Capts and Aeronautical Engineers who can teach you... .but they may charge you. And no, they aren't listed at P4T. Some people just don't wish to be attacked on the net by people like you.
Let me know...
This is what you fail to understand under FAR 25.321.
"A positive load factor is one in which the aerodynamic force acts upward with respect to the airplane. "
I suppose this is why I am certified by the FAA to teach this information, and you are not?
This is what they mean by "Flight Load" and "Positive Load Factor".
And no.. .the above charts are not "fake".
50% FoS does not apply to speed. The margins of safety for speed are clearly spelled out in FAR 25. Try reading it. 50% FoS applies to LOADS "acting upwards with respect to the airplane"... again..... The vertical axis. And you will not find one pilot who will agree with you. But if you do find one, feel free to post his/her name here. I guarantee you will not find one. Not even Beachy will agree with you on this point.
Thank goodness you don't fly. I knew many "pilots" like you coming through the ranks who preferred to make up their own interpretations of the FAR's. They all ended up at the bottom of a smoking hole. Every-single-one.
1.2 VD (as well as 1.15 VD) is based on equivalent airspeed at constant altitude and mach. In other words, no changes in static nor dynamic pressure which would induce flutter. It does not apply to aircraft which are maneuvering... including the aircraft on 9/11, and it is proven by precedent...
And actual flight testing....
If the above A380 is required to be 'flutter-free' well beyond Vd, why did they experience flutter, including structural damage which aborted the test for modifications, prior to reaching Vd?
I already told you why... see above... but apparently Seger thinks it is because the airplane is not a "Boeing".
Beachy, do you agree with Seger that there is a 50'% Factor of Safety beyond VD? If so, why do you reference only a 20% FoS?
So, you are claiming that the 50% margin of safety required for a positive load factor acting upwards relative to the aircraft results in a 122% increase in speed?
Can you please show us this "math"?
You do understand that the 1.2 VD regulation is for flutter, and not structural or "Flight loads", right? You should, you quoted it enough times... (but still fail to find the relevant FAR).
And again, once you do find the relevant FAR, you will understand why it does not apply to aircraft which are experiencing changes altitude and speed, which would induce flutter.
Like 11.2g, nonsense made up to support the impossible speed fantasy.
You do understand that the 1.2 VD regulation is for flutter, and not structural or "Flight loads", right? You should, you quoted it enough times... (but still fail to find the relevant FAR). - johndoeX
More claptrap pilots for truth can't explain, can't source. Why make up fake Vg diagrams, fake speeds, "structural failure at 425 KEAS.
Fake Vg diagram - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188863
The big 11.2g mistake, then 34g, and then the correct answer. - http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
Is that how you made up the 425 KEAS structural failure stuff, fake math.
Final g force for flight 77, pilots for truth claim it would have to be 34g - Flight 77 did not exceed it's load limit, and was below 1.2Vd - OOPS - not impossible - Possible, proved by FDR, DNA, RADAR and more - pilots for truth busted again.
Priceless...
Seger says - "Priceless" (with nervous laughter)
Translation - "I have no one to support my claims 1-9, from post 97."
Now, if the tables were turned... and I went on some forum to get someone to support my argument... and all I had to offer in return was some anonymous person... who admits he/she/it doesn't have experience in the specific topic (structures/airframe).... and then I returned to tell you that "School is out". I would like to think you would respond with words like "pathetic"... and "hilarious"... and "bullshit". Especially if past experience with you is any indication.
Tsk Tsk Seger, I expected more from you.
Let us know when you will actually post your claims from post 97 to a "neutral aeronautical engineer" (and not some anonymous guy who admits he is an "Engine Guy" .
After you get done speaking with an actual Aero Engineer, then we will get to the Engine limitations at such speeds.
And please, try not to 'poison the well' as you did at the Physics forum with your first post. You've already proven you are intellectually dishonest... try not to exacerbate the point.
In my corner:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
In Seger's corner:
'AelphZero' - "I'm an engine guy not an airframe guy so I can't comment on specific plane designs."
Looks like you got some catching up to do Seger....
What's the problem? Is the whole Balsamo Air Corp too busy to set AlephZero straight?
Where are they? Core of what, paranoid anti-government conspiracy theorists who can't sign up here, or anywhere to present evidence. Wait, pilots for truth core have no evidence, no idea, and think this -
Is 34g, and they put it in a video of woo after making the 11.2g error.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
This is the best math the core can come up with.
Where are they? Why have they failed to take action? Why are they proved wrong by RADAR.
Who gets the money from sales of DVDs filled with delusional claims.
Why fake the Vg diagram?
You have zero time as an airline captain, and no ATP to qualify as an airline captain. You make weak personal attacks to protect and distract from the fake Vg diagram and fake claims. Why do you brag about not being able to hit objects like the terrorists pilots did? Can you fly as good as terrorists pilots?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162245&page=32#1250
Did you make a mistake, here is the real post. What was your point? Point: I correct my mistakes, you leave your mistakes up and post bigger mistakes. Do you understand the words, or are you only attacking me, and missed the truth...
Oops, I do know what a Boeing is, I flew them, in the left seat, you never did. I instructed in Boeing Jets, you never did.
Oops, I am flying a Boeing jet as the Aircraft Commander/Crew Commander, and taking a photo of two more Boeing jets. The weak attack failed, better luck with your woo backed with no evidence.
Calling a forum a cesspool because and weak attacks on members. Why do you fake a Vg diagram, to fool people. Boeing jets have no structural failure speed, you made that up. You lie about the planes which went over Vmo, and Vd, and forget to tell people some jets survived and pilots saved the aircraft after the pilots messed up and went over Vd/Vmo, and landed. On 911 flight 11 did not exceed Vd, and crashed, and Flight 175 did exceed Vd and kept flying, as proved by RADAR and video. Thus you are wrong, like your 11.2g made up math.
Pilots for truth have weak attacks on people. Pilot for truth claims are based on nonsense, arrogance and an inability to do math.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
pilots for truth can't do math - they corrected the 11.2g with 34g, and the answer was ~2g. Wow.
Then you attack me for poor writing skills, which I already know about...
"But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast" - superbeachnut
That is it, you can't decipher my poor writing skills, yet you claim to unravel the inside job of 911? Really...
Let me decode my terrible language skills.
"The aircraft does not fall apart at low altitude going fast."
Proved by RADAR and video on 911, using Flight 175. I am right, aircraft, Boeing aircraft, do not fall apart going very fast at low altitude.
Do you have it yet? Reality. No, you try to sell fake claims on DVD to gullible people, and brag about not being able to fly as good as the terrorists. You make up fake claims about 911, and offer no theories.
Beachy... we went over this many times.
You should really see a doctor. I really think the rumors of you having a stroke might be true...
Do you forget how to drive a car if your drivers license expires?
Well, maybe you do, but the rest of the world doesn't.
I no longer update my credentials online, because as you can see, I have had many cyber-stalkers for years. Beachy and Seger are both excellent examples. They been following our work for more than a half decade, while at the same time claiming it's all a joke. lol.... they really need to get better hobby... I certainly wouldn't spend a half decade following around the work of people who I thought were nuts... that would be NUTS!
In fact, some have claimed if they find out where I work, they want to try and get me fired. I have told the FAA to stop updating my credentials on their website a long time ago.
The credentials I have displayed are sufficient for the information we present. Especially considering it is well known I have worked for a Part 121 Carrier for many years which are required to test to ATP standards. Not to mention the credentials of those who are credited in our work and have reviewed our analysis...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=22727&view=findpost&p=10812852
(by the way, the ATP written does not 'expire' if you are working for a Part 121 or 135 operator)
I have asked Beachy many times, that if I am just some lowly Cessna pilot without an ATP, how am I able to attract so many Heavy Jet Captains from Major Airlines and Aeronautical Engineers?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Beachy just responds with - "But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast"
Do you mean this Boeing?
(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at (700 ft) altitude then?"
Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."
This is a "murky speed diagram"?
Source - http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=0646934a3be2b725ad8f96050936221f&node=14:1.0.1.3.11.3.164.7&rgn=div8
Have you notified that FAA?
It may be "murky" to you, but not to the rest of us who have the actual aeronautical knowledge and are certified by the FAA to teach it.... not to mention precedent....
That is how they do it... pilots for truth quote mine people, make weak attacks when they should be presenting reality based evidence, instead of fake definitions from journalist for Vd. Unable to do real aerodynamics, pilots for truth quote mine their way to fake claims.
Fake claim - structural failure at 425 KEAS, they made it up out of ignorance.
pilots for truth, quote mining all the time - during Desert Storm I flew 7 sorties and did staff duties for my small unit... lol, a flying desk job, the 7 sorties were spread out during the war, and many more sorties before the war, during my staff job in Saudi Arabia, I was an active flyer in a flying staff position - you should ask before you try to make up stuff.
"I only had 7 combat support missions, I had to fly a desk the rest of the time." - superbeachnut
Not sure how this will magically make a fake Vg diagram real...
Quote mined from this paragraph about Desert Storm.
In Desert Storm it was hard to get a lot of combat missions; the war was short. A fighter could do a few missions a day. Take the length of the war and multiply by 1 to 3. Not sure about Vietnam. But if you had a year tour, you could fly 117 easy. Each unit and mission could be unique. Ask a vet. I only had 7 combat support missions, I had to fly a desk the rest of the time. Our tanker crews flew 1.5 sorties a day (average, we would take add on missions as needed).
At the time I was Chief of Safety on flying status, qualified in the KC-135. The Wing Staff picked me out of 20 possible staff members to replace the Operations Officer/Squadron Commander in Saudi Arabia, in October 1990. I flew the KC-135 from the West Coast to England first, and we lost an engine due to oil pressure over Greenland, and diverted into Iceland; they fixed the seal, and we went to England, then Saudi Arabia. I flew the jet, I was the Instructor pilot. In Saudi Arabia my desk job was Operations Officer/Squadron Commander, and more. With a small unit, we had multiple duties, each staff member had many tasks. When there was an accident I would be the Safety Officer, when crews needed training, I was the instructor pilot. I flew with the crews before Desert Storm, during Desert Storm, and on the way home; as an Instructor pilot, and Aircraft Commander. In the war, 7 flights in a month and a half adds up to over 25 hours, not a lot, but my desk job was as an active flyer, on the staff. When we the staff flew, crews would do our staff jobs, we trained everyone from Oct to Jan to fill in for our staff positions. As staff, I was also the SoF, Command Post, etc. Everything a large unit had, we had to do in house, with 15 crews, and 7 staff members, 24 hours operations from October 90 to March 1991. We did 12 hour shifts the entire time. If you want to call it a desk job, fine, but I got to fly 7 times during the war, and I flew all the way home, and flew many flight before the war.
A flying desk job is what we wanted, and not the non-flying desk job. You sure do love to quote mine, and fail.
The purpose of my paragraph was a perspective on how many sorties were flown during the first Desert Storm. My crews averaged 1.5 mission each day, they would have 60 sorties during the war, and fighter pilot might have 120. I had 7 mission during the war, and more sorties before the war. If a pilot was sick, I took his/her place. Darn desk job, but a flying desk job. And when we got home, I was still flying my desk, and I was LtCol in the KC. What is your point? You can quote mine for no reason, and fake a Vg diagram. Is that it. Is that all?
LOL, then you use a low speed jet, a T-37 and say I don't understand Vg diagrams. Yes, I posted a real, I have a real Vg diagram, real engineering, really done by engineers for the T-37, and you have a fake one. Now you compare a slow speed T-37 to a high speed 767, a failure to understand aerodynamics again. The T-37 was slow, fat wings, almost a prop plane with jets - jet engines that used noise as thrust. An underpowered trainer, slow, and you picked to make what point? lol, like your fake Vg diagram, a low performance jet, yet a real Vg diagram, your diagram is still fake. The T-37 diagram proves your diagram is fake, and you don't know why, never will; not much of an instructor core at pilots for truth, they fake the Vg diagram to fool gullible people. You missed the point again, is that why you flunked the ATP flight check.
Is this the Airbus? Nope, it is flight lead and a Weather 135 on an operational mission shot with Kodachrome, Nikon FE. two...
, my flying office, the left seat, or right seat instructor upgrading new left seat pilots...
Instead of evidence for your failed claims of structural failure, impossible speeds, you demonstrate how silly quote mining is done at pilots for truth, 13 years and no clue a 767 can go fast and hit the WTC, a feat pilots for truth brag about not being able to accomplish in the safety of a simulator.
oops, my desk flying, a Desert Shield mission, practice for the war - did the USAF turn you down? Later I flew upgrade missions with her, bet she has her ATP and is flying for a Major Airline - and you fake Vg diagrams, and do special 11.2g silly math/physics.
A sortie during Desert Storm, flying - what did the USAF tell you when they turned you down. Is that why you spread lies about 911?
A fake Vg diagram, and a fake structural failure speed. A great intro for a video of woo.
Don't let Beachy fool you. Most of his flight time was flying a desk. - johndoeX
What does that mean, is it based on failed pilots for truth logic.
Flight time is flight time, in an aircraft - my thousands of hours are in aircraft. "Flight time was flying a desk" makes no sense, flight pay was based on flight time in aircraft - I earned flight pay my entire 28 years in the USAF. pilot for truth logic is weird
flew a desk...
First USAF desk job, after a semester of ground school from a major with a desk job who flew F-4s out of Myrtle Beach... wow, a desk job as an active flyer, guess pilots for truth have no idea what the military is.
First desk job, C-150... ROTC
Second desk job, T-37
Third desk job, T-38
This is why he is unable to visually identify the difference between a 757 and an A320, - johndoeX
I don't like Airbus, why would I want to identify a failed design, Airbus. My heavy jet time is in a Boeing.
My desk job in a heavy jet... fourth and not the last "desk job", that looks a lot like a cockpit, in an aircraft
Who cares about an inferior design when you get to fly the best.
Why did the USAF turn you down? No degree. what was it. You claimed to have an ATP, why did you lie about it.
Stop making up lies about people, explain why you fake a Vg diagram, and lie about "structural failure at 425 KEAS.
My real Vg diagram debunks your fake one - why can't you comprehend aerodynamics.
I said you are a B-List conspiracy huckster and a fraud.
Seems like this cult-leader role you keep vying for comes with a persecution complex. I've never engaged you anywhere except here on DU, and I believe that was about 5 years ago, so WTF are you talking about? I hate to bust your delusional ego bubble, but I really couldn't care less what bullshit you post elsewhere. Take it elsewhere, to those few forums you're still allowed to post, and there's very little chance that I'll even see it, much less "stalk" you.
How does a "B-List conspiracy huckster and a fraud" attract so many of these people......?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
and...
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots
Are they all "B-List conspiracy huckster(s]) and a fraud(s)"?
Seger says - "but I really couldn't care less what bullshit you post elsewhere"
Is that why you cried for back-up on the JREF?
- Says the guy who has spent more than a half decade posting thousands of incoherent repetitive posts following P4T around to virtually every forum, failing to post a recent photo of himself in an actual airplane... unable to understand structural limitations on his own VG diagrams, admitting he has only 25 hours in a "Heavy Jet"....which is basically IOE... (google it)... but the rest of the time flew a desk... while constantly complaining that I may put a bullet in his head cherry-picked from an exchange more than 7 years ago.... which is not sourced and taken out of context.
No Beachy... you are the one who is 'paranoid'... not to mention obsessed. It is probably the reason why you only flew 7 combat support missions.... and flew a desk for the rest of your career.
Still upset I have thousands of hours in heavy jets, so you make up 25 hours, quote mined from a post I estimated the 7 sorties were 25 hours, flown from Janurary 16 to Feburary 28th 1991. I flew heavy jets from 1976 and have thousand of hours - you must be real upset the USAF said no thanks. Why can't you comprehend a desk job with flying duties? Right you never served your country, you make up lies about your country, only fooling people like the Boston bombers, anti-American conspiracy theorists.
As usual, pilots for truth spread lies, and must be slow typists, as they are upset someone can type up posts faster than pilots for truth can quote mine and fake more nonsense.
Why do you make threats to people? Are you upset they expose your lies.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt
pilots for truth fake a Vg diagram to fool people, and instead of supporting it, they make my flight time for me - not logical, kind of silly
pilots for truth lie and say "structural failure at 425 KEAS", and can't source it.
Fake math - http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
Fake Vg diagram - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188863
... and you've only got 250 of 'em? That's not very impressive. Maybe your marketing strategy needs some work.
Why some people believe conspiracy hucksters and frauds is a question that some psychologists have looked into, but it's completely irrelevant here. No, Mr. Logic, that does not mean that they are also hucksters and frauds -- not unless they also try to make a living peddling what they know to be bullshit.
> Is that why you cried for back-up on the JREF?
Here's the entirety of what I posted on JREF about this thread:
That reads like a call for help to you? Help with what -- wiping the coffee off my keyboard? As I said, it's a shame you don't appreciate how funny that graphic is, given your history, but I'm pretty sure some JREFers did. Look at it this way: You have become famous for something.
I did a quick count using the ctrl-f function.
"Superbeachnut" has 18 posts made to this thread, while repeating "fake VG" over 31 times.
It is almost like he is trying to convince it to himself....
Has anyone ever informed Beachy of the definition of insanity according to Einstein?
Why do you fake a Vg diagram? cat got your tongue
Why do you lie about structural failure at 425 KEAS?
Why do you make up silly claims about the acts of 19 terrorists? Are you apologizing for the terrorists because the USAF would not take you to fight the terrorists you now make up lies about.
I keep seeing a fake Vg diagram on line, you have not retracted it, why?
I keep seeing the lie structural failure at 425 KEAS, when will you fix that?
Has anyone ever informed Beachy of the definition of insanity according to Einstein? - johndoeX
Go ahead make my day, what did Einstein say? Why are your posts so short, skip typing class.
Did you forget what Einstein said, or is it too long to type up. ???
25 posts to 65 "fake VG" repeated.
Keep going Beachy.. you might break your record from our last exchange on the last forum... where I think you made 20 total posts while repeating "fake VG" over 70 times...?
Maybe one of these days you'll actually convince yourself?
Better yet, why not actually learn how to construct a VG diagram when the data is known?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21888&view=findpost&p=10803788
(includes a short 3rd party instructional video of how to plot your own VG diagram if the data/limitations are known)
Ralph Edward Kolstad and Jeffrey Lynn Latas endorse your fake Vg diagram?
A Vg diagram is an engineering document, not your fake construct your own woo diagram to fool dumbed down followers.
You can't do math and physics, how do you expect to do the engineering and flight test required to make a Vg diagram?
This is the best math you can do.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
As for your Vg diagram, you admit is fake, by showing how you did it. It is funny you debunk yourself, yet you don't have a clue.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188863
A lie introduces a video of woo.
You make up the dumbest claim, "structural failure at 425 KEAS". A silly lie your fellow conspiracy theorists pilots, Ralph Edward Kolstad and Jeffrey Lynn Latas, endorse, or what?
Thought you were going to say something about Einstein...
Has anyone ever informed Beachy of the definition of insanity according to Einstein? - johndoeX
A fake quote to go with your fake Vg diagram... that is funny
Wow, beachy... you replied within 31 mins of my post. Do you sit in front of your computer all day waiting for me to reply?
Beachnut claims - "the 767 was built to 1.2Vd"
Why do you continually fail to post a source for such a claim? Should people just believe you because you post pics of your family?
By the way, does your family know that you posts pics of them to people who you think want to "put a bullet in your head" due to a "disagreement"?
(edit: note to the "Jury" - Beachnut constantly posts a heated exchange from 2007 I had with "Mark Roberts", in a poor attempt at character assassination. One would think if he really believed what he writes, he would not posts pics of his family on a forum in which people 'disagree')
The 767 was built to 1.2Vd, and pilots for truth can't figure it out.
Did you know you can post from anywhere, and even from you computer from somewhere else? I guess my team of operatives texting me helps, don't you have a staff?
Wow, beachy... you replied within 31 mins of my post. Do you sit in front of your computer all day waiting for me to reply? - johndoeX
The only thing I can say, is smart phone/wifi/tablet/etc
Or... I can't sit in front of my computer all day? Can I use a phone, and "call it in"
My kid flew left seat above 20,000 feet.
Practice typing faster, you can then spend more time with the kids, and grandkids, etc, golf...
That was cool, later the C-130 crew gave her a headset while she was in the left seat.
Why did you make threats to Mark? The threats sound like things McVeigh would say.
Did you know you can work from your computer...
If so, please show me one aircraft which has maintained control and was stable at Vd+15 (or 20%)... before 9/11 or after, and has been positively identified through parts recovered.
Clearly you still do not understand the FAR. Which is why you never became an Engineer and are only a "Draftsman" who takes orders from actual Engineers.
But hey, if you feel "superior" on this forum.... I suppose everyone needs a purpose to live.
Certainly you will never confront us in a formal debate.
Right?
(by the way, I overestimated you and lost 10 bucks. I thought you would have had more of a life and would not reply till 24-48 hours. You cost me 10 bucks. My colleagues bet on you replying the same night. They won, I lost. But I am still up 5 bucks due to Beachy...lol)
....and this is why you cannot find one verified Aero Engineer to support any of your creative interpretations of the FAR's based on your bias.
Meanwhile....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Again.. keep an eye on it, I have many more to add.
Seger says - "Since it seems the Hot Air Core isn't willing to engage "engine guy"
So, let me get this straight, you want me to talk to an "engine guy" who admits - "I'm an engine guy not an airframe guy so I can't comment on specific plane designs" on a forum which doesn't allow discussion of "conspiracy theories" after you have already poisoned the well?
If and when you decide to go to another forum, try not to poison the well, and perhaps get a real and verified aero engineer, then you will perhaps understand that Flight Loads act along the vertical axis, and that Vd is not a limit load defined in FAR Part 25.
Good luck... I'll check back when I feel like it... with my prediction in regular ink. 
Seger will never get an Aero Engineer to agree with his interpretations under FAR Part 25.
I said - (without having to hide it within 'invisible ink')
"Seger will never get an Aero Engineer to agree with his interpretations under FAR Part 25."
So far.. so true...
Pilots for truth, with experts who can't do math and physics, make up stuff out of thin air. Like 11.2g needed for Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon, silly physics.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
When called on the made up number, and failed math, they used a hockey stick method and finally came up with 34g required for 77. People told pilots for truth the required g would be about 2, 2.5, but pilots for truth used 34gs. Endorsed by their experts, who have problems with the reality of real evidence, the FDR.
The real g force required, from the FDR found in the Pentagon along with all Passenger but the kid's DNA.
Only 30 plus gs off, pilots for truth ignore real evidence, making up fake evidence.
Unable to find 1.2Vd for the design of the 767, they use a different standard to mislead people.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-role-of-aeroelastic-flutter-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/
Lay people can find it, but pilots for truth can't? Is that because pilots for truth lie about 911, and make up fake Vg diagrams?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188863
Pilots for truth make up a fake speed for structural failure.
They can't source structural failure speed for a 767, they make up like the 11.2g special pilots for truth physics.
No ATP, is that a problem with the understanding flight related 911 events? Having never flown heavy jets, is that why you fall for the fake Vg diagram, and fake speeds you make up?
I have an ATP, flew heavy jets. Wonder if that helps me understand you claims ar bogus.
Flight above Vmo was smooth, and I had more control. Must be why so many aircraft, heavy jets had the ability to recover way over Vmo and save the aircraft.
Pilots for truth can't figure out what hit the Pentagon after 13 years. Flight 77 was tracked from takeoff to impact at the Pentagon. Pilots for truth say not. These pilots use RADAR for separation and safety, and not one of them has written up RADAR as fake, a fraud, or false. Thus pilots for truth debunk themselves on Flight 77. Not sure how they intend to refute the DNA, FDR, and RADAR.
Was that Jeff? Is he the jet blue pilot who went nuts? How many jet blue pilots believe the false information pilots for truth have.
Why is jeff not posting here? Is he a fake pilot, or what? Where is he? Why did he fail to get the g force for 77 right?
11.2g, was that jeff who did that error, or you?
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
The real g force for 77, and you said 11.2 first, then 34? What did Jeff say?
Why are pilots for truth wrong by over 30 gs? Any clue.
Wait, you have the aero experts. off by 30 gs, for a less than 2.5 g problem. Wow, that is experts in action. Good job, no wonder 13 years and pilots for truth offer no theory, except the lie of impossible speeds, and the silly wave of hands, 11.2g failure.
Here is a link to help you...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
We understand it...
Clearly you need help.... hopefully the above will point you in the right direction.
Have you yet told the people at pprune that the Airbus is crap and that is why you are unable to visually identify it from a 757?
Ok Beachy.... enough fun with you for tonight... till the next time I am bored... take care of yourself...
So you make a weak attack on me, when you can't explain your post. Why can't you answer the simple question?
Explain what you mean?
""by an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude"", - johndoeX
Explain in detail what it means. Wait you will attack me and say I can't identify an Airbus. Who wants an Airbus?
Is this an Airbus? Oops, no it is one of my photos as my squadron refuels the SR-71. Oh noes, it is not an Airbus, your silly quibble because you can't explain what this means...
""by an increase of 20 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude"", - johndoeX
And you will never explain what this means because you can't do aerodynamics past the prop planes you instructed in and are now non-current. No ATP, no clue what you are talking about, as you fake Vg diagrams and lie about the speed a 767 can reach, as seen on 911. What is your next failed claim?
13:20, the ground controller is on record taxing out Flight 77,
30:04 - 34:11 Pilots for truth try to justify faking a Vg diagram for a 767,
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188863
oops, fake Vg diagram
Not surprising, pilots for truth don't do reality, can't do physics.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/ephemera/sept11/balsamo/balsamo2.html
They speak in plain English....
"But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast" - superbeachnut
...and always proof-read before they post....
Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)
dballance, there are no special maneuvers on 911 made by the 4 terrorists pilots. They all crashed, and crashing is the easiest maneuver in the book. Plus the WTC towers were 207 minimum cross section to hit. When landing on a 150 foot runway, a pilot has to hit the center or he will not pass his check out, landing off center like Flight 175 would be unsatisfactory. Did you crash your Honda the first day you learned to drive, did you drive off the road? My daughter drove our car and learned to shift a standard transmission at 8, and the first time driving, on centerline. Wow, rookie driver. And moving to formula one, you say you can't drive it? Better stop driving all together with that failed attitude. 911 was done by 4 terrorists who studied flying for years, rented/paid for simulator time - have you? Have you tried to fly? First time I flew a small plane, C-150, on centerline, on speed, and landed; FIRST time. First time in a heavy jet, a KC-135, first landing no help, on centerline, on speed, perfect. And you say 4 pilots trained in jet simulator, all 4 with FAA tickets to fly cause they flew for years, can't crash on 911. 
LUS, you can't name or describe a maneuver they did that a rookie pilot can't do better. Name the maneuvers you are talking about, because the terrorists pilots did nothing special; zero special maneuvers, they all crashed, and flew poorly. Are you saying something was hard to do?
Explain in detail, bank angle, g force, decent rates, etc, that was hard to do on 911?
You know nothing about autopilots - you can use the turn knob and altitude hold and go where you want, not some pre programed path. You don't have to program anything, you can hand fly, and the terrorist pilots hand flew the final sections - did you try to research this, or are you going with Google junk from 911 truth sources? Sounds like you are talking with zero experience in heavy jets.
Then you skip to structural engineering, and think WTC 7 is special. Many buildings have been totaled by fires, and those buildings totaled in fire were fires that were fought. Did you try to look at this? Are you an engineer now, after messing up flying now you have an open mind and are an expert on structural engineering and want to say WTC 7 was CD, when it was not. Good, you are in the 13th year of not being able to understand fire did WTC 7, NIST says thermal expansion of some steel started the collapse. It makes sense, some engineering disagree what started it, but they all agree it was not CD, not thermite, not your silent explosives, but a building totaled by fire that collapsed; fires not fought.
Windsor Building, fire fought, building never used again, like WTC 7 but it only partially collapsed because of a concrete core and fires were fought for 24 hours.
One Meridian Plaza, fire fought, building never used again. Fire fighter left building fearing a collapse, the building totaled by fire, never used again, like WTC but did not collapse because the fires were fought.
WTC 7, totaled by fire before the collapse started, fires burned all day, fires not fought, and due to a unique design, WTC 7 collapsed. There are no sane engineers who believe WTC 7 was CD. But go ahead, believe the less than 0.1 percent of all engineers who fall for the same dumbed down nonsense from 911 truth says about 911. You have the support of a fringe few who can't figure out 911, and they are less than 0.1 percent of all engineers. Wow, you got nothing and support liars who spread lies about things, and you and the Boston bombers both are gullible on 911, believing lies from 911 truth.
The first time I flew heavy jets was 1976, your silly "The Big Bamboozle" is nonsense made up by a paranoid conspiracy theorist who killed himself and his kids. Not a sane person, and at best a BS artist who lies to sell books.
The author of your great book of woo, lies. There is nothing hard about flying a 767. Did you think? What if you took the jet, and wanted to see the WTC towers? What if you took the plane headed west? What do you do to see the WTC? Oh, fly east, put the E in the compass and go east. Wow, that was hard. Now you see the WTC from over 100 miles away sticking up over 1,000 feet. You can see the WTC from a hundred miles away, this was such and easy task it would take people dumber than idiots to miss the WTC. The only pilots in the world who brag about not being about to hit the WTC are pilots for truth, and it seems the pilots you know, failed pilots who can 't do. Can't do it. Can't, not in the normal pilots tool box, we usually are type A, not type Can't. Where do you find all the failed pilots? Special filter on Google?
Anyway, there was no beating the USAF on 911. The USAF had no mission over the USA to shoot down or harass airliners. Our skies over the country were not patrolled by armed fighters. If you meet a fighter armed for intercept it was over the water next to Warning Areas, in the ADIZ - sorry, but before 911 our skies were truly like the founding fathers wanted, free of the military. We usually don't use military for law enforcement, it is prohibited - do you want to go use the military for police actions in the USA. The military would be called upon by the FAA to follow hijacked aircraft, the time frame would be hours, maybe an hour. Would it be an Alert bird, maybe not, it could be a training mission diverted to help they FAA, like Payne Stewart's plane. Over 80 minutes to the first USAF plane to watch the aircraft.
So the "The Big Bamboozle" says the terrorists beat the USAF, there was no USAF to beat, we did not patrol what used to be FAA civilian controlled skies over the USA. The terrorists had a way to surprise us, we did not instantly shoot down radio out planes, planes with broken Mode3, if you stop squawking there is no instant scramble on 911. The book is a big lie. You were fooled by a suicidal lair, or if you want, BS artist who spreads lies, and gullible people love to repeat the false junk.
"The Big Bamboozle", dumbed down fiction for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. Nothing in the book is good for anything in the real world. The author is a hateful nut, who killed his kids. The only people his tripe will fool are people like the Boston bombers and conspiracy theorists, Bigfoot has better moral grounds than this crap spreading lies and blaming ourselves for a fantasy delusional false flag. Why spread lies about 911? 13 years and this tripe still fools people who claim to be rational open minded, super smart, and only exposes massive ignorance of 911, flying, engineering, fire science, etc.
Debate pilots for truth, how do you debate delusional fantasy, Fake Vg diagrams, lies of impossible speeds? Go ahead, support one of the claim you have. Debate the fantastic maneuvers you can't explain the in the first place. Go ahead, take your book "The Big Bamboozle" and support it with fact.
The complex plot of 911
1. take planes
2. crash planes
So complex, must of taken super smart guys to murder the crew and kill the pilots, only super smart people can kill... Complex? Fellow American's were murdered on 911 and you support liars and celebrate fantasy, ignorance and nonsense.
Which maneuver was too hard for the pilots you know, we know the pilot for truth can't hit a 900 plus foot wide Pentagon, what did your pilot friend say they Can't do?
You can't debate your fantasy, and you have no experts, you have the support of less than 0.1 percent of all pilots, the Internet has you thinking you have massive support, it is zero support and you have no evidence. Proof you have nothing, you will never come up with a maneuver that was hard on 911. You don't know anything about 911, you have Google knowledge, and it is worthless, and the working brain stuff is funny, wait till you wake up to realize 911 truth is a fake movement based on hearsay, lies and fantasy. You lack of knowledge is why you don't understand the lies, and look where we are posting, where fantasy is discussed, and you bring the fantasy.