EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
:)
I don't know. Have you checked into it? Have you gotten your own copy? Or do you just believe it since it was posted on this forum by some anonymous person....?
its the title of the thread. Don't you think it would be in your interest to check it out yourself? The AAIB report that is.
So, again,,, what didn't do what?

Surviving with a crew which has thousands of hours in flight and time in type is very different than those with zero time in type. Or perhaps you disagree?
What does the serial numbers of the United Airlines 767 parts have to do with survivability of aircraft that have been proposed to have demonstrated that they exceeded Vd​?

This has nothing to do with the experience of the crew, this has nothing to do with my lack of a pilots license. Its a matter of following a logical argument and not devovling to a Gish Gallop.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
No FDR data, no radar data.... and based on pure speculation.

Who are you trying to fool?

The methodology for UA 175 was explained and the data was extrapolated from this graph. Do it yourself if you wish. You didn't give me that. The Egyptian air data came both from the official report and the CSV data you gave me. They matched.

The UK AAIB report for the Easyjet incident can be found here and the data extracted yourself.

Robert...
How much flight time do you have?
Appeals to authority may work on P4T but not here. The members see through them. You actually have to earn respect here.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
its the title of the thread. Don't you think it would be in your interest to check it out yourself? The AAIB report that is.
So, again,,, what didn't do what?

Do you think it would be in your interest to check it out for yourself before arguing in favor of your apparent bias?

Unlike you, we at P4T don't automatically take the word of some anonymous person on the "internets".




This has nothing to do with the experience of the crew, this has nothing to do with my lack of a pilots license. Its a matter of following a logical argument and not devovling[sic] to a Gish Gallop.

And yet here you are... arguing in favor of data that some anonymous guy on the internet told you is in support of the govt story.. .and has also told you the source is P4T.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Why wouldn't I? You aren't the source of the info.. the NTSB is and you obtained it under a FOI request. Ergo it is public information.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Do you think it would be in your interest to check it out for yourself before arguing in favor of your apparent bias?

Unlike you, we at P4T don't automatically take the word of some anonymous person on the "internets".
I haven't defended anything TW said in any of my posts. I have asked you a few questions, several times each, and you refuse to answer them.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
If that is the case, why are you giving data to the readers that you obtained from me?
Why wouldn't I? You aren't the source of the info.. the NTSB is and you obtained it under a FOI request. Ergo it is public information.


So where did the data come from SpaceCowboy?

If its erroneous and you are the source of it, why do you think supplying incorrect information increases your credibility?
If its you passing on NTSB data explain how you come to determine it is incorrect.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
What does the serial numbers of the United Airlines 767 parts have to do with survivability of aircraft that have been proposed to have demonstrated that they exceeded Vd?
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
If its erroneous and you are the source of it, why do you think supplying incorrect information increases your credibility?

It depends on the target.

I remind you of an elaborate "April Fools" joke perpetrated by "Unsecured Coins" in which he fabricated a military document and was supported by the JREF staff not too long ago...

Of course no one in the P4T organization fell for it... but many within the "Loose Change" environment did.... (and if I recall, so did many JREFers...).

lol
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
While I may not be a pilot , I do have a pretty good grasp of math.
While a poster on PfT I witnessed a pilot poster divide the descent in feet , of flight 77, by the number of minutes the descent took and declare this as the feet per second descent rate. Not a single 'real' pilot corrected this poster, including Rob Balsamo. I pointed out that his rate was off by a factor of 60.
OK, so I was the first to notice perhaps.

Later though PFT posted its now infamous 11g 'paper' which displayed a complete and utter misapplication of physics.

So, yes, I have reason to disbelieve proclamations from PfT.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
It depends on the target.

I remind you of an elaborate "April Fools" joke perpetrated by "Unsecured Coins" in which he fabricated a military document and was supported by the JREF staff not too long ago...

Of course no one in the P4T organization fell for it... but many within the "Loose Change" environment did.... (and if I recall, so did many JREFers...).

lol
I am unfamiliar with that or do not recall the thread.

Are you stating that the Data is NOT from the foia you submitted to the NTSB?

Are you going to claim that the 11g calculations were a joke as well?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.

Oh yeah. I invite people to read the jref thread you refer to. If its mine and BCR's posts that are to be looked at I suggest looking at exactly hoew each of us describe what we refer to and the direction of forces and the reference planes we use as opposed to those of pft..
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Oh yeah. I invite people to read the jref thread you refer to. If its mine and BCR's posts that are to be looked at I suggest looking at exactly hoew[sic] each of us describe what we refer to and the direction of forces and the reference planes we use as opposed to those of pft..


Yes, I especially invite the readers to look through the math and understand how John Farmer and "jaydeehess" still were stubborn to the fact they were calculating the wrong vector regarding vertical acceleration on an aircraft after being corrected by yours truly.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Can I ask what this has to do with an erroneous VG diagram?


Are you saying that Vd is not the end of the flight envelope and the start of the structural failure zone?

And if so, are you saying the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics have this all wrong?

 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
The thread is about the illustration that aircraft have exceeded Vd​ by significant degree without falling apart.
Several examples were put forth and the only dispute SC has mounted in way of argument is to post implication that one set of data may be wrong and that another set of data, supplied he claims, by him, is incorrect.

Not a particularly robust argument against what TWcobra posted.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
What does positive identification of such parts have to do with a certainty of killing kids thousands of miles away?
???ETA: oh I see, more Gish Gallop, bombing and drone strikes now is it? Do try to stay focused.

I asked, and then asked several more times,What does the serial numbers of the United Airlines 767 parts have to do with survivability of aircraft that have been proposed to have demonstrated that they exceeded Vd?
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
The thread is about the illustration that aircraft have exceeded Vd​ by significant degree without falling apart.

There has never been an aircraft in the history of aviation to have exceeded Va+220, Vmo+150, and Vd+90, which has either held together or remained in control before 9/11 or after. This has been the position of P4T since day 1 when we have investigated the 9/11 data.

And it is why our lists grow with qualified experts on the matter.... and why people like "Weedwhacker" and "TWCobra" refuse to confront us directly in an open forum, on camera... or in a radio interview.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
UA175 exceeded Vd​ +44 only 9-10 seconds before impact.
Tell me how far away from tower two was this aircraft , ten seconds before impact? Round numbers will do. Say a ground speed of 500 mph.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
and why people like "Weedwhacker" and "TWCobra" refuse to confront us directly in an open forum, on camera... or in a radio interview.

Robert, your style of argument is the problem here

Insults, appeals to authority, strawman tactics, evasion and refusing to admit even basic errors are not conducive to finding the truth, particularly when you are conflicted financially by the vending of DVD's putting forward your point

I have proved that your VG diagram video is in error when you claim EA990 broke up at VD+5. Until you admit that is an error, and mend your ways with your style of "debate", there is little point engaging with you. I will however continue debunking views of yours that are provably erroneous, for as long as you continue to put them forward.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
What does the serial numbers of the United Airlines 767 parts have to do with survivability of aircraft that have been proposed to have demonstrated that they exceeded Vd?
Last time I'll ask as I have little confidence that it will be answered in any other fashion other than OT Gish Gallop.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
You've seen it.
Also scanned through the AAIB report. The OP is correct.

The AAIB report refers to EasyJet.. .not "Ua175".

Can you please provide the Radar Data for UA175 in which you have claimed it was at VD+44... 9-10 seconds prior to impact?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Let's dispense the semantics, shall we?

Indeed, let's.

The "crux" of the P4T claim when referring to the VG Diagram is the semantic and inexact term "Structural Damage" as labeled on the Diagram.

The vague term "Structural Damage" does not automatically mean "complete airframe destruction". As with the A380 flutter test (in a video below), the structural damage that was observed was not fatal to the airplane - only fairings and related attachment points were damaged.

,

Also important to note the proximity to Mach 1 that was achieved (M .96) and yet, no flutter problems. Save for the aforementioned fairing panel(s), and a simple design correction was made as a result of the flight certification testing program.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So you agree that this diagram is accurate?

Make your point please. It does not matter if people agree with you.

This thread seems to lack focus. Please try to state your rebuttal of the OP only. New topics in new threads, and following the posting guidelines.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Trailspotter Racetrack contrails near Genoa, Italy on December 26 [Air France and EasyJet flights on hold, Fog] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
MikeC Easyjet to create ash cloud over Europe Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mythic Suns Claim: chinless ghost photographed at a Police incident in Irvine, Ayrshire, Scotland Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 9
Whitebeard Another suspected Novichok incident in Salisbury UK Current Events 4
Mick West How Big is a Tic-Tac? Scale Models of the Nimitz Incident UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 23
Mick West Explained: Photo of "UFO" Used in Connection with Nimitz Incident [Balloon] UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
Mick West Conspiracy Theories, Bad Reporting, Bunk, and the Malheur Militia Incident in Burns, Oregon Conspiracy Theories 74
Josh Heuer MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident Flight MH17 121
Josh Heuer Is Diane Reidy incident propaganda? Conspiracy Theories 26
Mick West Debunks: The Dominion-Venezuela-Smartmatic Vote Theft Conspiracy Theory Election 2020 4
MikeG "History" Channel: Quick Debunks General Discussion 9
Rory How Antarctica debunks the flat earth Flat Earth 99
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Bfahome ElectroBOOM debunks "Current Mohan" (History Channel) General Discussion 8
Ray Von Geezer Ian Simpson / Look-up.org.uk debunks chemtrails & geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 13
deirdre Sandy Hook mom "Debunks" Hoaxers <3 Sandy Hook 28
Balance Irish Weatherman debunks chemtrail speculation Contrails and Chemtrails 19
TWCobra Max Bliss inadvertently debunks most chemtrail theories Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Jay Reynolds Bill Cooper Debunks Chemtrails (Vintage Audio) Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Jay Reynolds London Telegraph Debunks Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Leifer Jessie Ventura Debunks Icke, sorta Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Leaked Osama bin Laden Abbottabad Commission report on Al Jazeera - Debunks Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 95
HappyMonday MSN Debunks 'Facebook Page' set up before the Boston Bombing' theory Boston Marathon Bombings 2
MikeC Cracked.com debunks "Flouride lowers your IQ" Health and Quackery 37
Jay Reynolds Historical Aerosol Thickness Debunks "Chemtrails are Geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 86
Related Articles

























Related Articles

Top