1. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    There is little point discussing at PffT when the dishonest tactics displayed by the site's founder are allowed to be wielded unfettered. And, frankly, he just "ain't worth the effort". Every professional...and I emphasize professional...aviation site where he has presented his claims have thoroughly debunked them already. The horse was already dead; beating it wont make any difference.


    For good reason, as I thought was clearly stated: Off topic.
     
  2. BlindIdiots

    BlindIdiots Member

    By accusing me of using gish-gallops, you are accusing me of using a variety of half-truths, lies, and straw man arguments. You must prove then, that I am indeed using those things, I am debating with facts and evidence, how am I not?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. BlindIdiots

    BlindIdiots Member

    So you refuse to engage in debate on pilotsfor911truth.org where you can show that his claims have been debunked?

    This is the problem with you debunkers, you never come out of your comfort zones.

    Then debate me and others on the site mentioned above.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Been there, done that already. I thought I had made it clear?

    In my experience it was not dissimilar to debating a fundamentalist christian on the non-existence of "god"...perhaps a better analogy would be:

    Trying to "debate" the facts of evolution with a fundamentalist believer in "creationism".

    ETA: And, I use the word "debate" with a full load of salt, because absent neutral moderation, there is no actual "debate" at all.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
  5. BlindIdiots

    BlindIdiots Member

    Partially, the fact is that when P4T first did their analysis,the NTSB reported the "peak speed" as .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. 0.99 Mach at 22,000 feet is 425 KEAS.
    They used this peak speed because it is a fact that the flight suffered structural failure sometime before water impact, using any slower speed than the "peak speed" would be moot
    Later, Rob retrieved the CSV files of the event which showed a slightly higher speed at a lower altitude,which turned out to be Vd+23

    You are also wrong regarding power loss due to engine cut-off as all systems were powered after the engines were placed into the cut-off position.

    Finally, you ignore that it is only an 18 knot difference, you still have 67 knots to go to compare to the 9/11 aircraft speeds.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  6. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

  7. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    No, I'm stating that you are doing this:

    This is against the posting guidelines. Again, you should read them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    I do not know if you intended to deceive me. I do know that it was deceptive. Such looseness of usage hampers the mind of the person that employs it, not the mind of someone not deceived by it.

    Is gibberish.

    I have told you what speed Boeing worked to, and my figures are reasonably accurate.

    There you go again, deceiving yourself. Conflating three aircraft traveling quickly and horizontally, the fourth in a vertical dive

    There's no truth at all in what you say. You just have to remove yourself from your present search environment. Use exclusion filter search terms like "pilots for 911 truth", for instance. I'm not here to wipe your bottom.

    I have different speeds. You will have to source them. Preferably not from p49t.

    I told you. Boeing.

    That's right. It's the difference between what the design team actually uses, and what the sales team recommends.

    Not at all. The plane's operational altitude determines the design of the plane. The design of the plane determines all consequences thereafter. Mach numbers are outside altitude considerations. Mach 0.93 at sea level is 707 mph.

    That's what sales will tell you. But planes perform according to what design teams work to, not to what sales teams recommend. In knots that would be 611 knots.

    And to suck an egg you need to make two holes.

    The difference between us is experience in the field. If you read what I say more carefully you may change your mind. Consider it to be documentation. There is never any documentation for this area of the flight envelope for reasons obvious to everyone except you.

    .
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. BlindIdiots

    BlindIdiots Member

    They will be accurate when I see a reputable source for them, you still have not provided me with one.

    Each of the aircraft were experiencing effects that would have caused them to break up in flight. You still have not proven that those aircraft were not well beyond their VD and VNE limits

    It is quite the opposite.

    Those speeds are sourced from the NTSB, not P49T, did you even read the beginning of the sentence?

    Show me your "different speeds" and where you got them from.

    Show it is from Boeing then.

    Except there are numerous examples of flights that have experienced structural failure way before the margin of 614 knots.

    If planes perform according to what design teams work to, which according to you is 614 knots, then how come there are numerous examples of Boeing jetliners that have experienced structural failure only a bit beyond their VD and VNE at sea level?

    According to the "design teams" the planes should not do that, it should continuing flying at upwards of 614 knots (.91 Mach) at sea level, correct?

    Below is a VG diagram of a Concorde


    [​IMG]

    So it is the "sales team" that recommends the Concorde stay below 405 knots at lower altitudes, but in fact it can travel at Mach 2.04 near sea level without consequence?

    Are you aware that .91 Mach at sea level (roughly 600 KTAS) produces the same dynamic pressure on airframe traveling at Mach 1.87 at 35,000 feet.
    Which would also mean that you believe that the 767 can accelerate to nearly Mach 2 in cruise at FL350!

    [​IMG]


    This is not an argument


    What you have consistently failed to realize is that the burden of proof lies on you and you only. You are continuing to assert that Boeing builds planes that can exceed up to 614 knots at sea level, you offered no evidence for this claim. The only backed up max speed at sea level is the one I have referenced from the Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet

    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library\rgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302E51A401F11A8625718B00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf

    There is documentation for this area of the flight envelope, I have shown it to you consistently, you just ignore it.

    You also assert that you have experience in this field, you must also back that up. Please provide me with proof of your credentials
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
  10. BlindIdiots

    BlindIdiots Member

    All of my arguments address claims made in this thread, I am not debating things that other people have not already brought up.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I'm sorry, but all I see is a logical fallacy.

    You say they "...were experiencing effects that would have caused..."

    Yet, they were observed and measured, and the did NOT "...break up in flight."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. BlindIdiots

    BlindIdiots Member

    According to the speeds of precedent flights experiencing structural failure, and the fact that speeds of those aircraft were way beyond those precedent speeds, they should have broken up. Yet they did not, so the pilots were just lucky, right?
    It is an issue, because there is numerous evidence showing the problems with identifying those flights, as being the flights that they were said to be.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    ??? No, there really is not any evidence, nor questions nor problems identifying those flights. However, such speculation would require its own thread.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  14. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    A) Do we have any reliable way of knowing how many times this model Boeing 767 has exceeded vd?
    Obviously, if there were 3 failures out of sample of 3, your assertions would clearly be valid.
    If there were 3 failures out of sample of 1,000, your assertions would clearly be ridiculous.

    B) I, like some of the others, are mystified by your constant assertion that these numbers ensure failure,
    instead of prescribing a speed beyond which the manufacturers will not vouch for safety. Since pilots can
    not be asked to test the planes at that max speed, doesn't a safety buffer have to be built in?

    C) Is this attempt to imply that the plane couldn't have functioned at observed speed a necessary cornerstone
    for some bizarre "those planes aren't what everyone thinks they were" theory? No, seriously.

    D) Do you know who wrote the script in the clip in the OP? It's certainly not you, correct?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  15. BlindIdiots

    BlindIdiots Member

    It is know that the opposite is true, there are few aircraft which have gone past their VD and VNE numbers for a measurable length of time and survived. Yet on 9/11 at least 3 of those aircraft went way outside those numbers and survived.


    There is a safety buffer built in, it is called the over speed warning


    The evidence means what you want it to mean, theorizing comes after you acquire and debate the evidence.


    No it is not me.

    It is not speculation, there is numerous evidence. But yes, it would require it's own thread.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Oh, come now!! Sorry, but is this meant in all seriousness?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. BlindIdiots

    BlindIdiots Member

    Do you understand that there is no source for there being a safety buffer when aircraft have gone past the speeds of their structural limitations.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member




    Apologies for the formatting...I'm still getting used to this quoting mechanism
     
  19. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    And those 3 referred to were in exceedance for mere seconds to minutes. Oh, and they did not "survive"!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Now you are mixing it up. The statement I referred to was one that you made about the "Overspeed Warning".

    That is related to Vmo/Mmo limits, NOT the Vd specifications.

    Here:


    I'm sorry, but when someone is confusing one thing with another, then it's time to start from Step 1.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Hang on. You really need to define your terms here, as the planes definitely did not 'survive'. How long did they 'survive' while under the allegedly impossible stress in question?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  22. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    highlight text you want to quote with the mouse and a quote button will pop up.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  23. BlindIdiots

    BlindIdiots Member


    I mean't survive in terms of surviving the speeds they undertook, I am aware that they "crashed".

    View the following regarding AA 77 from http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77



    It can now be observed that AA 77 was flying at nearly 434.knots from just before 9:30 am, it then accelerated to 460 knots and "impacted the Pentagon" at 9:37 am , therefore it was indeed traveling at speeds that exceeded it's structural limitations well before the time of impact.

    In the case of UA 175

    [​IMG]

    Notice that from 8:55 from 9:03 the NTSB states here that the aircraft's speed was 500-520 knots.

    http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c1/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf

    Therefore it was traveling outside of its structural speeds for ten minutes.

    In the case of UA 93, remember the sudden G Load Oscillations it experienced.
    [​IMG]
    Please show why these excessive G Loads are not fatal to the aircraft.

    Perhaps the "overspeed" statement was a bit weak. However, it still persists that there is no documentation of the structural failure zone having a safety buffer.

    Please show me examples of Aircraft that have gone past their Vd's and Vne's for a substantial period of time and survived.
    In order to determine sample size, documentation of those instances would need to be shown against Aircraft that have failed due to exceed their Vd's and Vne's. I have searched for such instances and I cannot find one.

    You need to show that a "safety buffer" is indeed built into the structural failure zone.

    What I should have said is that whatever the evidence means, is mean't to be factored into a theory, so if it supports a "those planes aren't what everyone thinks they were" theory, then so be it. I apologize for the confusion.

    Thank you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  24. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    THIS VIDEO:


    Skip to time reference 1:15:00. What is displayed in the video is a time of "EDT 13:30:36". That should read "UTC 13:30:36" (An error by NTSB). But, 13:30 UTC = 0930 EDT (Daylight Savings Time for East Coast USA time zone is UTC - 4 hours).

    Now....the airspeed as shown is NOT "460 knots"! It is 317 knots. That is well below Vmo. Continue the video, and watch the descending turn to the right, and the line-up with the Pentagon for the final approach. Note the airspeed!

    And why did you put quotation marks around the phrase impacted the Pentagon?
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Assuming we could agree that the aircraft exceeded their safety limit (which there does not appear to be any agreement on), by how much did it do so? I wouldn't expect anything under 20% to definitely guarantee aerodynamic failure.
     
  26. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Here is an image taken from the PDF that you linked. The NTSB report titled "Radar Data Impact Speed Study".

    UAL 175.

    Contrary to your assertion above, this graph (which begins just after 09:00:00 EDT) shows a groundspeed of about 456 knots. At that time, the altitude was ~17,000 feet, and this equates to M .75. The impact only a few minutes later.

    Keep in mind that this data are estimates, based on the TRACON ASR. (Or, the KEWR Tower's ASR, per the title of the chart. But the Local Tower receives the same data from the radar antennae).

    There was a brief speed excursion at about 09:00:55. And it was still above 10,000 feet.

    ETA: I also neglected to add the differences between GROUNDspeed and AIRspeed!

    In other words, using radar groundspeed data does NOT equate to the CAS that the airplane was experiencing. Not until CAS and TAS were approximately equal, and this was at near Sea Level.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This thread seem to be going round in circles. It seems incredibly clear to me that the high speeds do not lead to certain immediate failure. All this pointing at areas on diagrams seems deliberately misleading.

    Are there actually open questions here? Could they be excised into new threads?
     
  28. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    As I said before, the entire premise that this particular plane is likely to collapse at certain speeds (since there's some quibbling about what precisely that speed is, I'll just call it "Speed X") is on the table.

    You keep saying that two or three examples are really, really important.

    I'm saying--and I'm sure you wouldn't disagree--that if we knew that that design had only exceeded Speed X two or three times, then no doubt, your assertions would be proved right.

    On the other hand, if planes had exceeded that speed many, many times, with only the same two or three times failures,
    then it follows logically that this plane rarely fails right away when pushed beyond max speed.

    In other words, since your assertion rests entirely on the premise that exceeding that speed will almost certainly lead to failure,
    than the number of times those planes exceed that speed, in the real world, is absolutely essential to your claim.

    But you say you have no idea...and, if so, it logically follows that you can have no idea how likely this plane, pushed for a short while beyond that speed, is likely to fail.

    Thus, until you come up with a reliable figure for how often Boeing 767s exceed this top speed, you have no argument at all that there is a high probability of immediate failure.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  29. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Why should they have been? Transport Category airliners are rated per FAR Part 25, Section 337, and can be read at this link:
    http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-337.html

    Here is a screenshot:

    FAR25.

    Note the wording, especially (b) and (c). Note also the phrase: "...may not be less than..."

    No where is it to be inferred that reaching, for example, 2.6 Gs (if the published "Load Limit" is 2.5)** causes instantaneous destruction of the airframe!

    ETA: ** Or even brief, transient "bumps" to +4.0G, or even -2.0G. If a modern commercial airliner was not constructed to withstand such flight loads, then it wouldn't last long in service.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Then they are wrong.

    I am not able to do so. The links I have pointing to Boeing 767 testing and radar tracking are old and no longer pointing anywhere. You will have to DIY. If you experience difficulty finding out info then come back to me.

    I do not have a confidential letter from Boeing admitting they work to the onset of trans-sonic instability, which in the case of the 767 design is Mach 0.93, on the lower limit of the variability in build strength. I can only assure you that they do. If you don't accept that, it's nothing to me.

    Obviously not. The word "would" is wrong, and should be substituted by "might". You still fail to understand that in the absence of turbulence and control movements the aircraft were designed not to break right up to the onset of trans-sonic instability. Then they would, of course. Even in unruffled, undisturbed, straight-and-level flight.

    I don't suppose I will, seeing you're not disposed to search for yourself, or use reason.

    No. Careless of me, but natural in response to someone working within his own agenda. I had forgotten the cardinal rule that people in opposition to the truth (that's you) always bring with them the means of their own destruction.

    As there would be. All there needs to be, at the structural design speed limit, is a puff of wind outside, and a nervous tic on the inside. The further inside that limit, the less likely is the danger of disintegration. There may still remain unusual events or combinations of control forces (that testing missed) that will still cause disintegration.

    As there would be. All there needs to be, at the structural design speed limit, is a puff of wind outside, and a nervous tic on the inside. The further inside that limit, the less likely is the danger of disintegration. There may still remain unusual events or combinations of control forces (that testing missed) that will still cause disintegration.

    No. According to any reasonable person it is only less likely to be able to do so. But still possible. "Up to" 614 knots is not "upwards of" 614 knots. What makes it so difficult for you to be truthful?

    [​IMG]

    The ".91M above 23,000 ft" does indeed suggest that Boeing worked, as I said, to Mach 0.93 +. It is obvious, since aircraft performance doesn't run in steps, that we see here a recommendation and not some sort of finality.

    Ridiculous.

    Ridiculous.

    You haven't presented any cogent argument yet.

    Good thing, for I haven't claimed that. What makes it so difficult for you to be truthful?

    And it's a recommendation.

    I have covered the reasoning involved here.

    No I needn't.

    No.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
  31. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    Which is exactly what Ive been asking
     
  32. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I think (maybe) he said at least 7 mins. ?? post #143
     
  33. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Define "substantial" time.
     
  34. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    It really annoys me when CTs are coy and can't come right out and say what they mean. It's apparent (it's my opinion) that blindidiots does not think these flights actually hit the WTC and Pentagon. Which necessitates a lot of twisting and imagination about what happened to the real planes and people, what really did hit the buildings, etc.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  35. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yes, agreed. And for instance, in the OP of this thread by 'TWCobra':

    This thread is about one specific claim made by P4T, but a history of other (failed, debunked) claims precede this latest one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  36. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Yeah...it was kind of hard to understand why so much peculiar contortion re. plane speed,
    until it becomes clear that it's really just to create the appearance of a pillar...
    to prop up an even more far-fetched tale of (space?) abducted planes and mysterious 'replacement' aircraft. :rolleyes:

    Ironically, my impression was that the second tale wasn't really believed...so maybe just an angle to sell DVDs, or somesuch.
    Just one man's perspective.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  37. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Don't forget....P4T still proudly touts as one of its "expert" members, John Lear. He who claimed that the two B767s in NYC were, ahem:

    "Holographs".

     
  38. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    I don't think he believes that currently, however it does really raise questions about the credibility of his judgement if he was able to entertain the idea at all in the first place.
    Some people are just drawn to weird ideas because they're weird or anti- 'official story'.
     
  39. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    True, he might not. But, the damage has been done, it is now part of CT lore. Also, if IRC, he testified in court on the topic of 9/11 and the airplanes, then later in private life, changed his story. Will have to research that, or someone here knows?...(or veering OT...oops).
     
  40. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    At least that explains the final transmission: "Help me, Obi-Wan Trump, you're my only hope."

    This Lear clip is just reminder #2,473,961 that a person who is accomplished in one field,
    may be completely illogical in others.


    p.s. Minor: But to my ears, it seems like Lear is saying "holographs" instead of "holograms"
     
    • Agree Agree x 2