1. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    The Video-

    The claim: That hobby level Flight Simulation software; Microsoft Flight Simulator X (10) can be used to scientifically discredit the NTSB reports on the speeds that were evidently achieved by AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 during the September 11 attacks.

    Background: The video in question features an attempt to disprove the NTSB reports by utilizing the "crash logic" of FSX. This is done, for some reason using a 737 (?), by flying towards a Manhattan scene first with the crash logic off and then with the crash logic of the simulator turned on.

    The video is strange for a number of reasons, not the least being that is appears to hang its argument on whether or not FSX accurately models flight structures beyond normal operating limits. The video also ignores the certification requirements of a real Part 25 airliner which requires extension of the flight envelope to Design Dive Speed (VD) and +2.5G, and once those inconsistencies are taken into account, paradoxically refutes one of the principle arguments of P4T, that a 767 would be uncontrollable at the speeds attained.

    The question of whether or not FSX accurately models structural damage beyond VMO (Velocity Max Operating) is quickly answered.

    It doesn't.

    Either Robert Balsamo is developing a contempt for the people he is trying to deceive or he is just getting sloppy. Numerous dialogues with Balsamo reveal that he is well aware of the flight envelope on a Part 25 airliner and the speed and G limits at the boundary, so it seems to require a lot of "front" to publish a video that claims a 737 will fatally overstress at VMO+42 (382 kts) and 1.2G as seen in this part of the video.

    Simulations bunk 3.JPG

    VD for a 737-800 is 380 KEAS and the aircraft was certified safe to that airspeed at 2.5G during its test phase. As mentioned elsewhere on this forum, 737s have been known to survive large excursions past VD and survive without any structural damage. An Adam Air 737-400 went to 495 KCAS knots and 3.5 G before breaking up

    Therefore the crash logic of FSX is way out and really renders the rest of the video moot. Why Balsamo used a 737 makes this particular exercise even more baffling.. there are many 767 add-ons available for the program.

    Balsamo also shows a demonstration of the terminal dive with the crash logic off. The early speeds shown on the demonstration are in error, as it shows the aircraft maintaining approx 510-520 KCAS during the entire descent. The aircraft never approached those speeds until approximately 10 seconds before impact as can be interpolated from the official radar speed analysis.

    UA 175 speed analysis.

    In another thread I did and approximation of the speeds required from 10,000, reproduced here;

    UA 175 final speed profile.

    In the demonstration Balsamo is flying the terminal groundspeed as the indicated airspeed all the way down, instead of the indicated airspeeds needed to maintain the recorded groundspeeds. The IAS's required to fly the correct speed profile are substantially less at higher altitudes.

    Having said that, Balsamo manages to fly the aircraft quite easily into the target tower, even allowing for the large TAS errors caused by using the wrong (too high) IAS for most of the descent. TAS (and G forces) is the major determinant of the radius of a turning circle at any given altitude so flying too fast would make the lining up of a target substantially more difficult. Yet Balsamo accomplishes the feat with little difficulty.

    So what does that say about his use of FSX to make his supposed points? The crash logic is not real world as evidenced by the numerous aircraft that have made forays past VD without crashing. P4T has made much of the supposed difficulty of flying an airliner at such speeds and the problems that may cause for controllability. Yet in this simulator it doesn't appear to be an issue, as also seen in X-Plane, a far more advanced FAA approved piece of Flight Sim software.

    I leave that for other to decide.

    Sufficient to say that the legitimacy of using FSX to "prove" structural failure at speeds much lower than that seen on 9/11 and during other real world over-speed incidents is - Debunked
    Last edited: May 31, 2016
    • Winner Winner x 7
    • Like Like x 3
  2. TWCobra,

    Well-done, sir! :D
  3. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    Perhaps it is because I paid little attention to various "false flag" theories before, but now I can't help noticing an ingenuity of some CTers in Creative Misapplication of existing computer tools and simulations to forge "a 100% Fraud Proof". This thread is a third example in a row that I've encountered recently. The other two are a poor fitting of a 3D model of human body to reveal an "anatomical impossibility" of Jeff Bauman photos and using SunCalc for a wrong time zone to shift the Sandy Hook shooting timeline two hours ahead of actual time.

    Having looked into these examples in details, I am reasonably confident that they are not innocent mistakes but a deliberate deceit.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Seems logical to me the Truth movement and/or debunkers could do much by sponsoring a real life experiment. Why not use almost any aircraft targeting a set of laser or light columns spaced 200 feet or so apart 2,000 feet AGL over the desert. Take three runs with six different pilots. Three experienced pilots and three newly licensed first time in the airframe except for simulator time. Let's record the results and continue the debate with the results.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Or he just needs to fill a release schedule to remain relevant in a crowded topic.

    I ran into this problem writing for a gaming website a few years back. My column topic was pretty specific, but I still got hounded for once-a-week updates and twice-a-week near update releases, because if the site wasn't posting 2-3 things a day it just lost most of its traffic (read: ad revenue) to sites like Curse. After a few months my good ideas were running dry and I started slapping together some really dumb stuff just to fill the slot. When that started to thin out, my editor told me to post something controversial for clickbait, because yes, it would piss people off, but in order to comment they had to click, and that's what counted.

    It's worse these days, since marketing logic of how much social media a page needs to stay relevant has become public logic and it doesn't take much silence for your pageviews to go somewhere more interesting.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
  6. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    That's actually pretty sad. I would happily go to a page daily and see nothing for weeks if they ONLY ever posted relevant and useful stuff when they DID post.
  7. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yes. Despite his attempt in previous videos and online posts that it was the "equivalent" of driving your car accurately into your garage at 100 MPH (or some equally absurd, excessive speed). He has now shot himself in the foot (feet) in multiple levels of failure.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Driving your car into your garage at 100 mph is not that difficult. It's stopping before crash through the other end that is a pain in the butt.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I was thinking of starting "Explosive Engineers for 911 Truth", to see what sort of people I would get, and their calculations... Might be amusing, but I would have to admit eventually that I did so under false pretences, which could damage the debunking movement, if there is such a thing....
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Further debunking of the "Simulations" DVDS.

    In 1983 the Boeing 737 was flight tested By Boeing to incorporate a composite stabiliser as a replacement for the fitted metal stabiliser.

    The test report can be read http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19850005603.pdf.

    As the stabiliser is a flight critical component, it was subject to a full flight envelope test program, including test flights to Design Dive Speed of 400 KEAS as shown below.


    The report also documents static load tests on the stabiliser.


    Of note are the statements that tests carried out simulating aerodynamic loads on the stabiliser @ 440 knots represents only 67% of the ultimate load of the structure.

    The report comprehensively debunks Robert Balsamos video and along with the along with the report on the EasyJet 737 which exceeded VD by 44 knots and landed undamaged, places the burden of proof squarely on P4T to come up with something other than a $35 dollar simulator package to support their claims regarding UA 175 .

    FSX cannot be used to verify any claims regarding aerodynamic performance of commercial airliners.
  11. drommelsboef

    drommelsboef Member

    Back in 2006 an employer of the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory tried 3 times to hit the Pentagon at the same location as Hanjour and made 3 out of 3 with limited flight experience. This whole pentagon issue started as a little piece of disinfo that became one of the biggest ones.
  12. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    I remember watching a documentary on UA flight 232, which suffered catastrophic failure of one of its engines that rendered the flight controls all but useless

    The pilots flew it by adjusting the thrust on the remaining engines, the landing was successful, although sadly there were casualties/fatalities

    It was seen (rightly so) as a triumph of piloting and crew management

    The documentary explained that the feat of flying simply could not be repeated on a flight simulator by experienced pilots

  13. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    The final few seconds of the CVR audio of that and other crashes is available here: http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/cvrwav.shtml
  14. Chemfusion

    Chemfusion New Member

    I know I'm coming to this extremely late. But let's pretend that FSX could accurately predict all the conditions within the flight envelope faithfully...so...the plane would break up before it hit the building. Then the what is the alternative that CT's would have to believe? I mean, we have actual video of commercial aircraft hitting the buildings. So...hoe does that get explained away?
  15. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    it's usually meant to be holograms or missiles or drone planes or missiles disguised as holograms or doctored footage (even though there were plenty of eye witnesses etc)
  16. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    don't forget the lasers and other 'unknown' sci-fi energy weapons.
  17. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    P4T don't go into the hologram/fake aircraft theories. They believe the aircraft were modified for speeds outside the certified envelope.

    It is discussed elsewhere on the site.

    The VD (design dive speed) of a 767 is 420knots. AA 11 struck the WTC about 10 knots faster than that.

    In the light of the damage caused to the North Tower by that aircraft, ( sufficient to destroy the building) P4T have never explained why any high speed modifications were actually necessary to the fulfil the conspiracy.
  18. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    I suspect the terrorist had little sympathy for any "design" speed anyway

    It wasn't as if they thought the planes were going to be re-used, so inflicting over stress and some structural damage in the last few seconds was probably not that high up on their list of priorities
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I was talking about how people managed to see planes if the hijackers couldn't possibly have flown planes in to the buildings.
  20. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Holograms. Yes, I know....
  21. Arbitrary

    Arbitrary New Member

    I am aware this thread is a bit old, but, did anyone else pick up on the accidents used on the Flight Envelope picture as proof that the 9/11 planes can't have gone that fast?

    P4T img.

    I daresay some people watching the video might see it as proof of a sort, but The choice of accidents isn't great to my knowledge. The top two incidents (China Air 006 and TWA 841) as far as I can tell, didn't actually crash, they came close to it. The AdamAir got to the same speed (relative to Vd) as UA93 apparently so that probably doesn't tell us much and I can't find reference to an Easy jet Overspeed incident. The listing of EA990 is especially interesting, given the conflicting reports of Egypt and the NTSB. I guess if you are P4 911T you might distrust the NTSB, but even then why would it necessarily be on there?

    Feel free to correct me if I got any of that wrong - most of it is from memory.
  22. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Hi Arbitrary. I have had numerous conversations with the author of that graph; the hallmarks of which are his abiding refusal to correct any errors pointed out.

    His main criticism of me is that I suggested using FSX in the first place, and now debunk it.

    I did suggest it, but very quickly realised that a 35 dollar Flight Simulator program was useless for the job. I merely thought anyone else would come to the same conclusion and thought no further about it.

    I think I have mentioned this elsewhere but a conversation on the topic with a former simulator manager in my airline revealed that the major aircraft manufacturers are very cagey regarding the veracity of simulator data they provide when the aircraft is greatly outside the certified envelope.

    I mentioned this to Robert Balsamo and his reply was typically myopic, in that he claimed I had thrown an Australian sim tech "under a bus" when this tech published an account of flying one of my airlines Level 5 767 sims well beyond the envelope and found it relatively easy to fly, even as a non pilot.

    Balsamo of course did not see that the managers remarks potentially invalidated ALL attempts to prove or disprove the UA175 speeds via simulation, including his own.

    Airbus and Boeing make strong aircraft. How strong? Only they or some structural engineer with access to a super-computer and time on their hands really know.

    The A330 I fly has a VD of 365 knots. In the documentation for the aircraft is a reference to flight control law mode reversions that occur during a flight upset resulting in speeds above 440 knots or VD+75!

    Balsamo was dismissive of this fact, despite it being devastating to his case. The guy needs to peddle DVDs to make a living these days. His aviation career has gone nowhere and I believe he does not fly any more. 14 years after the fact, Google Trends reveals that there is no traction for P4T. It will die a natural death sooner rather that later.

  23. Arbitrary

    Arbitrary New Member

    Well, he wouldn't be a true conspiracy theorist if he admitted fault, would he? :)

    I did wonder about the use of FSX for such a scenario - it's hardly like many simulation games model all (or even a lot of) aspects of an aircraft's design. At least, in regard to structural failure. I've not played much of Flight Simulator series but the impression I got of it was that the detail level was pretty damn good.

    Well, that tidbit of info is quite reassuring, maybe (I'd hope they don't get that fast first!), for the next time I go on an A330. Or any aircraft, for that matter.

    Oh and rereading my earlier post:
    I wasn't meaning you supplied the bunk, in case that came across wrong.
  24. SamBST

    SamBST New Member

    It has come to my mind the infamous FedEx flight 705, was flown like a fighter jet and it didn't disintegrated:
    So, there's more evidence that aircrafts can be abused. Many have problems with this and have described commercial airliners as "flimsy, thin-sheet aluminum balloons that can be cut with wood sticks."
  25. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    One of the other hallmarks of P4T is cherry picking and leaving out certain critical facts. Balsamo is trying to create the impression that flying above VD causes immediate loss of control and leads to structural failure.

    He is hoping no-one with any aeronautical knowledge/experience will critically assess what he produces.

    The graph he produced actually debunks what he asserts as none of the loss of control factors in these accidents were caused by flying above VD. Any loss of control was caused by other factors, before the aircraft achieved high speeds. With the exception of EA990, all of them recovered safely from their high speed excursions and the structural damage recorded was generally due to excessive G forces, generally assymetric, at very high speeds.

    This is how the graph should read with the critical information, omitted by Balsamo, highlighted.

    EasyJet Incident : lost control at normal cruise airpeed values, as a result of flight control test mishandling. Recovered at VD+44. UNDAMAGED. Still flying today.

    Adam Air 574: Loss of control caused by pilot mishandling of navigation system problem in cloud at normal cruise airspeed values . Structural Failure at VD+80 whilst pulling asymmetric 3.6G in spiral dive. Look up "Rolling G" to see why this is significant.

    EA990: No evidence of Loss of Control/Structural failure at VD+23. This was the point the flight recorders ceased working due to being unpowered by the engines being shut down. The aircraft was subsequently tracked climbing after loss of electrical power before beginning its final descent. At some point in that descent some structural failure probably occurred due to the left engine and some other bits being recovered a short distance from the main wreckage. The final speed before water impact was never determined.

    China Air 006: Loss of Control caused by mishandled engine failure at high cruise altitude at normal cruise airspeed values. The aircraft recovered safely after pulling 5.1 g coupled with a high, possibly supersonic descent speed. MMO Mach 0.92 was exceeded early during the descent.

    TWA 841: Loss of Control caused by extension of a leading edge slat flight control whilst at normal cruise airspeed values. The only /Structural damage to the aircraft was the offending slat being torn off the aircraft which rolled twice and descended at Mach 0.96 and experienced 6.0Gs. The aircraft recovered normal flight by 5000 feet.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. ADDIS77

    ADDIS77 New Member

    That is an excellent question. Not only that, but then also have the airliners fly at "impossible speeds" for everyone to see and hope that a couple of [...] Internet sleuths don't notice and blow the the biggest conspiracy in history completely out of the water.

    Conspirator 1: "Let's structurally modify a 767 so that it is able to obtain impossible speeds."

    Conspirator 2: "Why?"

    Conspirator 1: "I dunno, just to add unnecessary numbers of engineers, mechanics, and fabricators to the list of people we have to kill to keep our plan secret."

    Conspirator 2: "Okay."

    Conspirator 2: "What do we do if someone notices these impossible speeds?"

    Conspirator 1: "I dunno."
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. The FAA doesn't not recognize Flight Sim X as a valid simulator. It is a good judge of the realism of the program.
    • Agree Agree x 1