Discussion in '9/11' started by Tony Szamboti, Jan 12, 2014.
there is nothing in the data sheet about structural failure at 425 knots. Nor is that diagram in it.
Ah. How can I say this politely?
Have YOU ever made a typo, ever in your life? Have YOU ever written something that was taken out of context? IF you answer "Yes" to either or both of those questions, then welcome to the club....of HUMANITY.
Now...again, to be polite as possible....please have a good life, and please, by all means, consider the many wonderful options available to us now, via the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure a variety of medical, mental, and other physical health options are available.
OH! Before you go, Robert!! My avatar, over to the left? Yeah...that is actually ME! Was taken in 1985, on the ramp at Stapleton (the OLD Stapleton...not to be confused with DIA). Can you name that airplane? (Maybe not fair, since I have the advantage). The quality? Well....that is an older 8x10, in a frame, and I took a pic of it with a cellphone camera...so, hence the poor resolution. If you ask nicely, maybe someday I'll scan it and make a JPEG or something....but, I am not really that much of a narcissist. Sorry.
But, don't you think I'm cute? Even a little bit??
"Jazzy" has claimed, "for contemporary passenger aircraft and is common across the industry. It produces a certified rugged aircraft which will never disintegrate, no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces it meets, within its operational envelope."
Does the American 587 picture prove "Jazzy" correct?
Here is another in case you need it....
Was this aircraft operating outside its aircraft envelope?
You tell me to have a "good life", but you and many of your cohorts have continually libeled me across the web for years from the comfort of your anonymity?
I tell you what, tell us your real name... then let's see how much of a "good life" you have when people attack you daily across the web for years...
Yes, it was:
No. American flight 587 was NOT outside its normal envelope. Why even bring this up? It is highly irrelevant. I would, and can, explain in great detail how, and why, that horrible crash occurred. But, I've already linked the sources, and trust that viewers of this thread will read them, and thence understand on their own.
EDIT: I see member MikeC's contribution. I may respectfully disagree with the assertion of AAL 587 being "outside" the envelope...in the sense that I usually consider a "flight envelope" to be. What happened in that case was an over-exuberant pilot on the rudder pedals, who over-reacted to a minor wake turbulence encounter. The "envelope" that was "exceeded" in this instance was the design lateral loads on the airplane structure, specifically the vertical fin attachment points. Exacerbated by the pilot-flying's over-use (and completely unwarranted) use of the rudder.
NO reason to continue an off-topic rant.
I see captain bobby created a new sock account. At least he's not pretending to be a women this time..
The assumptions put forth are wrong for the same reason they have always been wrong Robert.
1. Limits do not mean that once they are exceeded failure happens instantly. Examples, among others,
China Airlines 006 > still flew for another 20 years.
Federal express flight 705 > still flying today.
Enough control will remain at speeds well above limits to recover the aircraft. As I have stated before, never has an aircraft that I am aware of, lost control below sonic from going too fast. It is a completely false assertion.
I have exceeded Vne in aircraft and still live, along with the aircraft.
2. Your claim is nit picking at desperate falsehoods to distract people from the bigger picture; that radar tracked UAL175, AAL77, AAL11, and UAL93 all the way to their crash. Aircraft spotted these aircraft after they had been hijacked. Delta Airlines 2433 identified UAL175 as a 'Boeing 76-200' just minutes before its crash. Controllers saw it on radar and with their eyes all the way to the towers. AAL77 was identified as a Boeing 757 just moments before it crashed into the Pentagon by Goffer 06. UAL93 was spotted by N56865 rocking its wings back and forth moments before it crashed.
The big picture always debunks conspiracy theorists.
lmao.... ok...fair enough....
Are you aware that the FAA definition of Va was changed as a result of the AA587 accident?
I was based LGA when that accident happened. I was shooting a visual to LGA 31 and saw the smoke from the accident. I have been caught in wake turbulence a few times in and out of JFK, LGA, EWR... and used my rudder to full deflection... side to side multiple times... in all types of airplanes. I have never lost a vertical stab yet.
This is sort of what "Jazzy" was claiming. That you can basically do anything within the flight envelope and not cause structural damage.
You, MikeC, have just proven "Jazzy" wrong.
And who are you?
Obviously you know something about me... clearly I know nothing about you.
Are you also one of those "debunkers" who are obsessed with P4T yet at the same time claim we are insignificant?
Because "Jazzy" claims that an aircraft will not fall apart within the flight envelope.
And you are right, weedy... at least that is what we were taught.
But it appears AA587 has proven "Jazzy" wrong... and you have proven "MikeC" wrong.
Your failed reputation precedes you.
I have never been obsessed with P4T. I was tempted after your failed documentary "9/11 intercepted" came out to do a debunking of every single point and lie and manipulation you made in it, but then when I realised hardly anyone was even watching it, I didn't bother.
You points have been debunked for years, ignoring the fact they are all built on totally false assertions, and in some cases, blatant lies. Just like your VN diagram, and your radar manipulation.
No - NTSB report, which is reported on wiki.
Was anything in it actually WRONG?
yes - and so what?
Here's what the FAA has always said about Va:
(retyped by me 'cos I couldn't cut and paste)
So operating at Va DOES NOT MEAN you are always inside your design envelope
How on earth do you get that an aircraft operating at twice its design loading is operating within its design envelope??
Are you now just trying to "score points"? It's hard to interpret your off-topic posts.
Oh....well, again. Hope your life turns out OK for you, trying to stay polite....and all.
SC has been given a four day time out for lack of politeness.
I think I'll miss the way he LOL'd at everything the most…
I always called Robert "Maurice" 'cause he speak'd of the pompitous of love
You? Shakespeare?? LOL (I'm teasing, I'm teasing!!)
Meh...I was enjoying watching him being unable to answer questions while complaining that other people had not answered questions.....
I like to think of this as the "interval" (as the British say) or the "Intermission" (for the Americans). Act One has ended, now we enjoy a respite, before Act Two begins.
Not to delve far from topic, so a reminder:
"Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds"
OK....that helps. I guess, "like a moth to flame", eh?
What is Balsamo trying to say by relating that despite his full deflection left/right, of the rudder, that his aircraft remained intact?
I thought that his opinion was that if an aircraft is treated to commands well outside design that it would , necessarily, result in catastrophic failure of parts of the aircraft. Flight 587 did not survive such "over exuberant " rudder commands, Rob Balsamo's did. That would appear to invalidate his original contention regarding airframe failure.
Not like him to self debunk is it?
I cannot tell, actually. I mean, I am puzzled as to why that photo of AAL 587's vertical fin being hauled out of the bay had any relevance to the discussion of the Boeing 767s used to attack the WTC Towers.
Maybe he is trying to assert that the AAL 587 vertical fin (an Airbus A300-600, btw) structural failure is due to....no, even now I can't find the "link". The "P4T" so-called 'argument' is that the B767s on 9/11 would be uncontrollable at high airspeeds. Yet, the AAL 587 tragedy occurred when the jet was at only about 250 Kts airspeed.
I am truly gobsmacked by the grasping of straws exhibited at the "P4T" website.
Grasping at straws is a good term, however my opinion is that even at that they are overreaching.
At first it was the flt77 FDR does not match damage pattern on the ground. Ok, that was a technical issue but instead of dealing with it purely in the technical realm it was simply fodder for antigovt ranting.
It became quite gobsmacking, as you put it, when flt 77 was then said to have flown over the Pentagon, ala the CIT. At that point I truly lost any remaining respect I had for the group.
Lately, as attested to in this thread, they moved out to flts 11 and 175 and propose very odd scenarios beginning on a technical issue.
Basically it seems that every issue they bring up is then attributed to a basically 'magic' solution. I prefer rational and reasoned to the invocation of magic.
Oh, believe me, it's much worse than that. How about when it was breathlessly claimed that AAL 77's cockpit door wasn't opened? (The irony here is, whilst defaming the validity of the FDR of American flight 77, they then turned around and used data FROM the FDR, to make this "door" claim!!
Of course, after only a wee bit of research, it was proven that the FDR on Flight 77 did not record the parameters of the door latch).
I fear we may be straying off-topic, and lest this becomes a bash-fest...I will stop here, and try to focus on the specific claims by "P4T", as represented in this thread title. (But, I could go on and on...and on...).
It does. Five full rudder reversals was outside the operational envelope, in that it was never included within it by the Airbus designers, who have since ruled it outside, with strict warnings to the airlines never to employ such a maneuver.
Notice I wrote "no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces". Consider the inclusion of the word "normal".
To come up with "Because "Jazzy" claims that an aircraft will not fall apart within the flight envelope" is to demonstrate poor reading comprehension.
It's typically irrelevant to the issue of whether the hijacked aircraft exceeded their maximum achievable air speed, which WeedWhacker cleared up, I think, in post #187.
Clearly they didn't.
Are you claiming that 5 rudder oscillations can not be performed on an Airbus during departure below Va without the danger of structural failure?
And if so, I would like to know if "TWCobra" agrees with you....?
Back again? What, no one visits your forum so you have to make sock accounts everywhere else?
Would you like to link us a real world example of a plane which has lost controllability from going too fast (below sonic prior to failure)?
Its five full rudder oscillations while flying through wake turbulence.
Fact is that 587 did not survive this. OTOH , space cowboy says he's done exactly that and had his a/c survive, several times.
So apparently different aircraft can perform certain manouvers and survive, others performing the same manouver experience a major failure.
Then there is the Easyjet 737 that survived Vd+44 with no damage at all.
Actually the WT is irrelevant. (OT, but the A300-600 rudder authority and limiter programming logic that was not fully trained properly by AAL led partially to that tragedy. Combined with the PF's inappropriate usage).
But what is pertinent is question of controllability. RE: AAL 11 and UAL 175. No claim as to their potential for "uncontrollability" has ever been proven by 'P4T'.
The Allied pilots response to the crash is very informative. As usual, this accident has no single cause. They point to 10 reports of A300 rudder overstress, including some of ultimate failure, before this accident. The "aircraft pilot coupled" event which induced increasing amounts of sideslip and increasing aerodynamic loads seems to be the main cause. Separation standards, pilot training, certification standards and testing are all contributory causes here.
"SpaceCowboy", you seem fixated on this and I cannot understand why. Unless you are an aircraft structural engineer, and I know you aren't, why do you find it difficult to accept official explanations for events such as this? The FAA had to redefine Va in the light of this accident.
The Airbus I fly is FBW and I still wouldn't pump a rudder like this. Maybe light aircraft pilots have a different view on such things?
Are you saying that if one makes a UserId on a forum other than their real name, they are using a "sock"?
What makes you so sure?
No real world example linked? Thought so.
So you feel NASA wind tunnel flight testing is fake?
Of the 25 messages you posted none of them contained any evidence. Interesting.
I never said that. You already know the B767 has systems built into significantly reduce the occurrence of flutter. I want a real world example of an aircraft* which has lost control in flight from going too fast (below sonic).
*modern aircraft, preferably an airliner.
Of the examples in the video, specifically the wind-tunnel examples, show proof that each of those flutter and airframe destruction instances wasn't the result of testing to approach or exceed the airframe's critical Mach number, to include supersonic destruction tests as well.
Are you not familiar with how Vd is established?
Here, let me help you....
Be sure to scroll to the bottom.. .and watch the video....
And if you still are uncertain (since most of the above video is based on Mach number), let me know and I'll get you more sources so you can understand EAS... and the reasons why there is in fact a Vd and a Md.
Here's a hint.. .the NASA video included flutter on a Stop sign, bridge and what looked to be a Seneca twin. Do you think a PA-34 is limited by a Mach number? lol
That wasn't my question, and I certainly did not need to have a "lesson" directed towards me by an amateur.
The question was simple: Evidence was presented in the form of a video titled: "Flutter at a Glance". The video consisted of several short clips with no context. Show the context specific to the wind tunnel examples in order to support the implied claim, as suggested by the posting of that video.
Or, withdraw the claim.
By an "amateur"? Well, now, that isn't very "polite". is it?
Do I know you personally?
Or, have you been following me personally?
The simple fact of the video is that you do not need to hit a "crtical mach number" as you initially claimed, in order for flutter to occur. The Stop Sign and Bridge example clears that up....
There are reasons for Vd... and Md. Do you know why?
Or, do you just expect everyone to answer your questions.... without having to answer any questions of others....
Furthermore, why should anyone listen to you, when you have already discredited yourself at ATS and had to change your name to "ProudBird" at the ATS forum?
Why is it that you constantly attack P4T from the comfort of an throw-away name?
It was the most polite way to indicate that from what I've read so far on this Forum, I can presume (as an opinion) that what I saw was written by an amateur.
ETA to clarify: "amateur" in the sense of inexperience with high altitude commercial airliner type airplanes.
I have high altitude operations under my belt and can be verified. I have many aviators who support my work to include everything from American, to United, to 737, 747, 757, 767, 777... the list goes on...
We use our real names, they can be found in my signature and confirmed at faa.gov.
Why exactly should anyone listen to you?
Separate names with a comma.