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

[WeedWhacker]

WeedWhacker, I have seen that many of your arguments against the claims of P4T have all been rebutted on the forum, which you are invited to come to for debate.

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.

You also have yet to respond to the "gish gallop" I have posted with a point by point rebuttal.

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

 

[BlindIdiots]

You also have yet to respond to the "gish gallop" I have posted with a point by point rebuttal.
Because gish gallops are against the posting policy here at Metabunk. You should read it.

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?

 

[BlindIdiots]

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.

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.

You also have yet to respond to the "gish gallop" I have posted with a point by point rebuttal.
For good reason, as I thought was clearly stated: Off topic.

Then debate me and others on the site mentioned above.

 

[WeedWhacker]

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

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.

 

[BlindIdiots]

this thread only discusses the speeds of the aircraft on 9/11.
No, this thread discusses a video put out by Pilots for truth which claimed that EA990 broke up at Vd+5, a claim debunked comprehensively.
So Blindidiots, do you agree that the specific claim addressed in the OP is correct?

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.

 

[Svartbjørn]

For AA 77, refer to this article http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77

I think you misunderstood my question, I wasnt asking you for a time line of events from a website, I was asking you how long the aircraft were achieving the speeds you're saying would have caused them to 'break apart.' Was it five seconds, 50 seconds, 5 minutes?

 

[Landru]

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?

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

Debating opponents said that Gish used a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."[11] She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12] The phrase has also come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax.[13][14]

This is against the posting guidelines. Again, you should read them.

 

[Jazzy]

unless you think I mean't to deceive you by saying "past" rather than "of".

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.

all of the recorded speeds of those aircraft are beyond the documented speed of 410-420 knots at which structural failure occurs

Is gibberish.

You still have not proven that they were "at only 65%, 72% and 80% of their structural failure speeds".

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

I was showing how the aircraft experienced stress way past the limit they are designed for. And the fact is that the aircraft were traveling in the structural failure zone.

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

Saying "common knowledge" is no excuse for a source, the fact remains that you still have not provided a single one. I cannot ignore something that does not exist.

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.

NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots ...

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

Where did you get the figure "707 mph at sea level" from?

I told you. Boeing.

That is 614 knots, way past Boeing's documented VD speed.

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

You are ignoring low altitude limitations and assuming high altitude limitations apply to all altitudes

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.

VD at sea level is in fact 420 KCAS. Past this zone causes flutter leading to structural failure, period.

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.

Each object has its own flutter resonance and is not dependent exclusively on Mach. It is based on dynamic pressure

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

Wrong, it is your interpretation of it that is at fault. I have already shown you several VG diagrams with the Structural Failure zone defined as such. You were claiming that it should say "anticipated structural failure" even though various sources on aviation disagree with this statement. You are also claiming that there is some sort of safety margin beyond the flight envelope, when there is no documentation for that statement as well.

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.

.

 

[BlindIdiots]

You still have not proven that they were "at only 65%, 72% and 80% of their structural failure speeds".
I have told you what speed Boeing worked to, and my figures are reasonably accurate.

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

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

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

There's no truth at all in what you say

It is quite the opposite.

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

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.

I told you. Boeing.

Show it is from Boeing then.

That is 614 knots, way past Boeing's documented VD speed.
That's right. It's the difference between what the design team actually uses, and what the sales team recommends.

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

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.

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

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!

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

This is not an argument

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.

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

 

[BlindIdiots]

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?
No, I'm stating that you are doing this:
Content from external source
Debating opponents said that Gish used a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."[11] She also criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.[12] The phrase has also come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax.[13][14]
This is against the posting guidelines. Again, you should read them.

All of my arguments address claims made in this thread, I am not debating things that other people have not already brought up.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Each of the aircraft were experiencing effects that would have caused them to break up in flight.

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."

 

[BlindIdiots]

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."

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.

 

[WeedWhacker]

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.

??? No, there really is not any evidence, nor questions nor problems identifying those flights. However, such speculation would require its own thread.

 

[NoParty]

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.

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?

 

[BlindIdiots]

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

D) Do you know who wrote the script in the clip in the OP? It's certainly not you, correct?

No it is not me.

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.
??? No, there really is not any evidence, nor questions nor problems identifying those flights. However, such speculation would require its own thread.

It is not speculation, there is numerous evidence. But yes, it would require it's own thread.

 

[WeedWhacker]

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

Oh, come now!! Sorry, but is this meant in all seriousness?

 

[BlindIdiots]

Oh, come now!! Sorry, but is this meant in all seriousness?

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.

 

[NoParty]

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.

So you're saying we have no idea what the sample size is? (or if I'm misunderstanding you, please cite that reliable source)


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

I was taking that into account...my question was about the higher number that you keep saying dictates failure


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

No. That is not how reality works. Nothing means what I (or you) want.

No it is not me.

I'll take you at your word...you seem like an honest soul. (and you also do not know?)

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

 

[WeedWhacker]

....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.

And those 3 referred to were in exceedance for mere seconds to minutes. Oh, and they did not "survive"!

 

[WeedWhacker]

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.

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

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

 

[Pete Tar]

Yet on 9/11 at least 3 of those aircraft went way outside those numbers and survived.

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?

 

[Pete Tar]

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

highlight text you want to quote with the mouse and a quote button will pop up.

 

[BlindIdiots]

And those 3 referred to were in exceedance for mere seconds to minutes. Oh, and they did not "survive"!

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?

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

Several of the facility's controllers now observe a primary radar target heading eastbound toward Washington at high speed, almost 500 miles per hour. Although the aircraft has no transponder signal to identify it, it is later determined to be Flight 77.

However, according to another account, just before 9:30 a.m., a controller in the same tower has an unidentified plane on radar, "heading toward Washington and without a transponder signal to identify it. It's flying fast, she says: almost 500 mph

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

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.

Please show why these excessive G Loads are not fatal to the aircraft.

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.
Now you are mixing it up. The statement I referred to was one that you made about the "Overspeed Warning".
There is a safety buffer built in, it is called the over speed 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.

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.

So you're saying we have no idea what the sample size is? (or if I'm misunderstanding you, please cite that reliable source)

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.

I was taking that into account...my question was about the higher number that you keep saying dictates failure

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

No. That is not how reality works. Nothing means what I (or you) want.

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.

I'll take you at your word...you seem like an honest soul.

Thank you.

 

[WeedWhacker]

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...

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?

 

[Pete Tar]

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.

 

[WeedWhacker]

In the case of UA 175 [snip image] Notice that from 8:55 from 9:03 the NTSB states here that the aircraft's speed was 500-520 knots.

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

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.

 

[Mick West]

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?

 

[NoParty]

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.

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.

 

[WeedWhacker]

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

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:

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.

 

[Jazzy]

They claim it is not possible for an unmodified 767 to survive at these speeds

Then they are wrong.

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

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.

Each of the aircraft were experiencing effects that would have caused them to break up in flight.

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.

You still have not proven that those aircraft were not well beyond their VD and VNE limits

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

did you even read the beginning of the sentence?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

Ridiculous.

Are you aware etc.

Ridiculous.

This is not an argument

You haven't presented any cogent argument yet.

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.

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

The only backed up max speed at sea level is the one I have referenced

And it's a recommendation.

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

I have covered the reasoning involved here.

You also assert that you have experience in this field, you must also back that up.

No I needn't.

Please provide me with proof of your credentials

No.

 

[Svartbjørn]

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?

Which is exactly what Ive been asking

 

[deirdre]

Which is exactly what Ive been asking

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

 

[JRBids]

Please show me examples of Aircraft that have gone past their Vd's and Vne's for a substantial period of time and survived..

Define "substantial" time.

 

[JRBids]

And why did you put quotation marks around the phrase impacted the Pentagon?

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.

 

[WeedWhacker]

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.

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

Pilots for 9/11 truth make these videos in an attempt to push their claim that UA 175, a United Airlines 767-200 was in some way modified to achieve the highest speed reported by the several studies that were done ...

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

 

[NoParty]

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.

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.

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.

 

[WeedWhacker]

...to prop up an even more far-fetched tale...

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".

 

[Pete Tar]

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'.

 

[WeedWhacker]

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'.

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).

 

[NoParty]

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:

"Holograms".

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"