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

BlindIdiots said:
The structural failure zone of that diagram is located in the VD range, while Flight 006 and 841 are located in the VMO range, or not in the structural failure zone. Yet they still experienced it.
Click to expand...
The silly Vg diagram range is fake. Balsamo made up the diagram, and pilots for truth can't source a structural failure zone.
The proof no major damage happens to a 767 at 590mph; we have video of 175 at 590 mph impacting the WTC. The fake Vg diagram is silly stuff, and has no gross weight, or altitude assigned to the engineering diagram made up by Balsamo. Like the flt77 pilot for truth 11.2g corrected to 34g for a less than 2.5g event, we get a fake Vg diagram.
 
SpaceCowboy said:
...

"The dive speed [Vd] is the absolute maximum speed above which the aircraft must not fly. Typically, to achieve this speed, the aircraft must enter a dive (steep descent), as the engines cannot produce sufficient thrust to overcome aerodynamic drag in level flight. At the dive speed, excessive aircraft vibrations [flutter] develop which put the aircraft structural integrity at stake." Source - http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/
Click to expand...
Your source for Vd is from journalist, and is not the definition of Vd. Flutter for 767 is based on 1.2Vd and more, thus the quote-mined journalist is bogus junk you googled up to support some silly claim. There is not much to debate, your claims are fantasy. Your fake Vg diagram debunks your Vg video.
 
Keith Beachy said:
The silly Vg diagram range is fake.
Click to expand...

To clarify: A VG​ diagram is based on known relationships that involve airspeed versus G-loads. This fact is not in dispute.

What is questionable is the way that a VG​ diagram is used in misleading ways, and for misleading intent. This is the crux of the thread OP.
 
Obviously the disagreement is with the implied immediacy of structural failure at the edges of the flight envelope.

That should be no surprise to SpaceC since its been part of the focus of the past seven pages of posts
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Obviously the disagreement is with he implied immediacy of structural failure at the edges of the flight envelope.
Click to expand...

THAT ( ^^^ ) is exactly correct, and the reason why the "VG-Diagram" as spouted by the "pilotsfortruth" website is disingenuous and (intentionally??) misleading in the extreme.
 
WeedWhacker said:
THAT ( ^^^ ) is exactly correct, and the reason why the "VG-Diagram" as spouted by the "pilotsfortruth" website is disingenuous and (intentionally??) misleading in the extreme.
Click to expand...
Its what I have seen referred to as "binary thinking" , an expectation of hard limits and ignorance of how combinations of factors affect so many complex actions.
In this forum we have seen many examples of structural failures being induced while within the VG diagram's envelope. For instance flight 587 ( coincidentally the episode of "Mayday" playing as I type) and we know that this accident resulted in specific instructions and explanations how and why to not flip the rudder back and forth.
This would illustrate that the flight envelope of the V-G diagram is not the end all and be all of the reactions of the airframe and this would imply that the onset of any structural damage is not a hard and fast limit and is affected both ways.
PfT has not responded to the very self explanitory flight certification regs that state that flutter onset be no lower than 1.2 Vd​ (with certain exceptions noted in the regs). PfT has said that Vd​=Vflutter​
 
Last edited:
Is this the one key point that pilot's for truth have in terms of evidence for conspiracy around 9-11? The planes should have fallen apart, therefore they were made special for the job?
Do they have any other talking points? Because this one appears very weak.
 
Pete Tar said:
Is this the one key point that pilot's for truth have in terms of evidence for conspiracy around 9-11? The planes should have fallen apart, therefore they were made special for the job?
Do they have any other talking points? Because this one appears very weak.
Click to expand...
OT but yes, they also claim that various FDRs and CVRs are fakes. For instance the FDR from flight 77 they claim, is a faske and does not contain data that illustrates a flight path consistent with the apparent path of physical damage, nor the so called official path.

IIRC they have also weighed in on WTC7, or at least its members have in the forums.
 
jaydeehess said:
OT but yes, they also claim that various FDRs and CVRs are fakes.
Click to expand...

There is more. The "pilotsfor911truth" once claimed that, based on the AAL77 FDR info, it was "faked" because the cockpit (or "Flight Deck") door was never opened (per the AAL 77 FDR).

However, this particular aspect of what the FDR is able to record was not included in that specific FDR parameter, and not part of its accumulated data.

Just ONE example of the "P4T's" many mistakes, over the last few years. This draws their "credibility" down to zero, for many reasons.
 
Yeah, I was thinking more of general claims. Listing all specific claims would take too long. One can, usually, view the forums on pft( though on occasion Rob Balsamo has allowed only registered members or dis- allowed nonregistered visitors from viewing the single subforum where dissident posts are permitted.
The general information pages are of course viewable and one can go there to see more of their take on the issue.
 
This particular one seems to be their 'smoking gun' case though. Is it only recently put together or has it been part of their core evidence from inception?
 
My apologies...this thread was giving me a headache (it seemed to be going in circles to me) so I walked
away from it for a few days. Now I see that there's lots more posts, but before trying to sift through all of them,
could somebody just briefly tell me if the questions that I asked way back in posts #134 & #148 ever got answered?
To me, the repeated Balsamo claims of imminent failure seemed to hinge on these basic stats. Thanks.
 
Pete Tar said:
This particular one seems to be their 'smoking gun' case though. Is it only recently put together or has it been part of their core evidence from inception?
Click to expand...

This is perhaps a poignant question, and targeted point in RE: the overall "credibilty" that should be afforded the site "PilotsFor9/11Truth", as we go forward.

(IMHO), the "credibility" of that site has been determined to be virtually zero. I am open to engagement, though (as always), if proper evidence is presented to the contrary.
 
WeedWhacker said:
This is perhaps a poignant question, and targeted point in RE: the overall "credibilty" that should be afforded the site "PilotsFor9/11Truth", as we go forward.

(IMHO), the "credibility" of that site has been determined to be virtually zero. I am open to engagement, though (as always), if proper evidence is presented to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Might be better served as a new thread in this forum though, or even in Rambles.
 
NoParty said:
My apologies...this thread was giving me a headache (it seemed to be going in circles to me) so I walked
away from it for a few days. Now I see that there's lots more posts, but before trying to sift through all of them,
could somebody just briefly tell me if the questions that I asked way back in posts #134 & #148 ever got answered?
To me, the repeated Balsamo claims of imminent failure seemed to hinge on these basic stats. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Posts #134 and #148 (from Page 4 of this thread) linked below, for clarity:

(Post #134):
134.jpg

(Post # 148):
148.jpg

ETA: I agree with MEMBER 'No Party' here.
 
Last edited:
NoParty said:
My apologies...this thread was giving me a headache (it seemed to be going in circles to me) so I walked
away from it for a few days. Now I see that there's lots more posts, but before trying to sift through all of them,
could somebody just briefly tell me if the questions that I asked way back in posts #134 & #148 ever got answered?
To me, the repeated Balsamo claims of imminent failure seemed to hinge on these basic stats. Thanks.
Click to expand...
personally I think the whole issue has been debunked with mick's flutter thread. (well from what I can gather pffts issue is. )


https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...lutter-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/#post-97659
 
deirdre said:
personally I think the whole issue has been debunked with mick's flutter thread. (well from what I can gather pffts issue is. )


https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...lutter-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/#post-97659
Click to expand...
You're probably right (though I had trouble getting past that animated gif in the OP...looked like a beached dolphin from a PETA video)

but I really wanted Rob to either point to some stats, or admit that he had no earthly idea how often failure occurred at that speed, in the real world.
To me, that was an essential point.
 
NoParty said:
You're probably right (though I had trouble getting past that animated gif in the OP...looked like a beached dolphin from a PETA video)

but I really wanted Rob to either point to some stats, or admit that he had no earthly idea how often failure occurred at that speed, in the real world.
To me, that was an essential point.
Click to expand...
Yes, Rob Balsamo posts passages from general interest books and articles about flying, this thread has on the other hand , had posts of passages directly from technical papers and flight certification standards.

It is akin to the difference between showing examples of a misspelled word in newspaper articles and the spelling found in a dictionary. It does not matter how many times it is found spelled incorrectly, the dictionary is the higher, recognized, authority
 
jaydeehess said:
Obviously the disagreement is with the implied immediacy of structural failure at the edges of the flight envelope.
Click to expand...


Clearly you have not bothered to view the video in the OP. Because if you did, you would not be making such a comment if you wish to hold any credibility to your statements.

Why not take 5 mins to actually view the video before creating such a strawman argument?


This is from page 151 of the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics....




Who is going to correct the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics which is used in virtually every Aerodynamics course in every aviation college on this planet?
[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SpaceCowboy said:
Clearly you have not bothered to view the video in the OP. Because if you did, you would not be making such a comment if you wish to hold any credibility to your statements.

Why not take 5 mins to actually view the video before creating such a strawman argument?


This is from page 151 of the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics....




Who is going to correct the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics which is used in virtually every Aerodynamics course in every aviation college on this planet?
[...]
Click to expand...

And what does it tell us? Simply that beyond these ranges the aircraft manufacture will not guarantee a lack of structural failure.

It's like if you buy a rope rated at 5000lbs, you would not expect it to always snap at 5001lbs, or even 6000lbs.

And as noted, regulations say there should be no flutter or control issues for 20% beyond the Vd line on that diagram.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/page-2#post-98307
 
Rob, why don't you find us a regulation that states what you espouse? As far as I can tell, the regulations tell the manufacturer the minimum standard that must be achieved for certification. I cannot find any regulatory reference that states that Vd+ is where structural failure occurs. Is there a reference in the textbook you cite?
 
Mick West said:
And what does it tell us? Simply that beyond these ranges the aircraft manufacture will not guarantee a lack of structural failure.

It's like if you buy a rope rated at 5000lbs, you would not expect it to always snap at 5001lbs, or even 6000lbs.

And as noted, regulations say there should be no flutter or control issues for 20% beyond the Vd line on that diagram.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/page-2#post-98307
Click to expand...
Exactly what I had in mind when I posted.

So far I don't think SpaceC has bothered to address the certification regs you posted.
 
SpaceCowboy said:
Clearly you have not bothered to view the video in the OP. Because if you did, you would not be making such a comment if you wish to hold any credibility to your statements.

Why not take 5 mins to actually view the video before creating such a strawman argument?


This is from page 151 of the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics....




Who is going to correct the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics which is used in virtually every Aerodynamics course in every aviation college on this planet?
[...]
Click to expand...
I certainly agree that going beyond Vd​ would never be a deliberate act by any sane pilot. I agree that in doing so the probability of structural damage rises precipitously. However, if I were determined to crash an aircraft into a large building as fast as I could get that aircraft to go, I would saw at the contro!s in all manner that could possibly make that happen. It would be done with the knowledge that even if the aircraft broke in one way or another, even if that meant a catastrophic airframe failure, that my mission would at least be a partial success.
By " implied immediacy", I am referring to the contentions by PFT that flight 175 should have had its wings tear off ( as per their animation). There is nothing at all to suggest that such a thing should have occurred.

In point of fact, it has been shown that the design of modern aircraft is such that, aside from a couple of specific exceptions, there should be no flutter until 20% above max dive speed, much less have the wings tear off before that velocity is reached.
 
SpaceCowboy said:
Clearly you have not bothered to view the video in the OP. Because if you did, you would not be making such a comment if you wish to hold any credibility to your statements.

Why not take 5 mins to actually view the video before creating such a strawman argument?


This is from page 151 of the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics....




Who is going to correct the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics which is used in virtually every Aerodynamics course in every aviation college on this planet?
[...]
Click to expand...
Balsamo thinks he can make up an aeronautical engineering chart photo shopping training Vg diagrams and using the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics partial example of a Vg diagram. No, you have to have the engineering details for the aircraft, flight test and computer models to fill in a Vg diagram which is good for an altitude and gross weight of the aircraft. What is the gross weight and altitude of Balsamo's fake Vg diagram. Balsamo baffled by the Structural failure zone on his cherry picked Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics Vg diagram, has him make up the fake 767 with this zone at Vd+5, thinking it is real. Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics fools Balsamo into thinking Vd is the structural failure speed. Quote mined knowledge which is wrong, but he can blame the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.

In pilot training our T-37 and T-38 had Vg diagrams done by engineers who worked for the aircraft companies - They were done for specific altitudes and gross weights. We did not take some speeds and a generic graph and make them up like pilots for truth think you can.

At 5:06, past the 5 minute mark of being tortured by woo, the video says EA990 suffered structural failure at 425, and skips the fact EA990 was over Vd+50. Skips the failure was due to the pilots fighting for control, one pushing on the column, one pulling. Skip the facts and spread silly claims.

The next lie, the video says.
just 5 knots into the structural failure zone as determined by Boeing.
Click to expand...
Show the source for the structural failure zone defined by Boeing. The video lies about a lot of stuff, and pulls this gem out of thin air.

At this point from 5:06 to 5:14 the video talks about the fake Vg diagram Balsamo made up. They think they can use the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics training Vg diagram, add number and ignore the rest of aerodynamics.

Making a fake 767 Vg diagram, hiding behind the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics training Vg diagram is funny stuff.
 
Last edited:
Its Mick betting "flight certification regulations" and SpaceC trying to convince us that he is raising the bet by putting up "The Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics"
 
There are two points: One that the regulations state that the aircraft will be free of flutter through to 20% greater than Vd for constant mach number and altitude.
It seems that SpaceC is objecting that this is to apply for the condition that the aircraft be in level flight and maintaining a constant Mach number, and that the descent of flight 175 and the manouvering of flight 175 negates the effect of the 20% margin contained in the regulations.
I say that "it seems" to be his objection because he has not actually stated it. Instead he has simply repeated the phrase "constant Mach number and constant altitude" and cast ad homs attacks on those who do not simply succumb to his assertion that this disproves Mick, TWC, WW, and KB

Second; that there exist examples of aircraft that, due to deliberate pilot command or simple error, experienced greater than Vd and either suffered major airframe damage at greater than the speed and g forces of flight 175, or suffered minor or no damage and landed safely. SpaceC disputes that this has occurred at anything greater than a few knots over Vd. He cannot or will not coherently explain his objections to the points raised by other pilots.
 
Looking through the posts in which SpaceC continues to refuse to address his claims , I come to the suspicion that he is deliberately setting himself up for permanent ban.
He responds to, for instance, my reference to the 727 that was TWA841, but will not address the flight certification regs other than to keep reiterating "constant Mach number and constant altitude". He utterly refuses to explain how this negates the +20% in the specific case of AA flight 175.

Furthermore and wrt TWA841, he now outright rejects that it rolled through 360 degrees twice, hit 0.96M, and experienced 8g. I explained that these stats are directly from the original NTSB report on the accident, he implies its incorrect but won't explain why he says so,
Do I want a hint concerning the Md of 727? Actually I specifically ASKED what it is. I assume that being an older model it is less than 0.96M, or at least less than that for a 767. If I am wrong I wish for and invite correction rather than pedantry.

I had asked what the Vd/Md of a 727 was,SpaceC responded that 0.96M is not well beyond Md for a 727 but does not answer my question.

He has done similar wrt EA990 and all other examples put forth, denying a point made by others is correct but offering no basis or explanation for his opinion.

There are a few possible lines of thought for this behavior;
- SpaceC/Balsamo is an egotist who cannot accept that he has erred
- He is of a nature to dangle bits and pieces, and speak cryptically, simply in order to maintain his image of an all knowing master over his opponents. He is therefore never interested in debating a point, just drawing discussion out in such a way that he always can claim " they just don't get it" about his opponents.
- He uses these tactics of frustration and insults knowing , expecting , and actually wishing for, a permanent ban. Being banned allows him to proclaim to his followers that the government loyalists couldn't debate him so they banned him. Its a badge of honour for him, not a highly unusual theme on internet forums.

Most posters here see full well that PfT's claims about AA175 have been thoroughly debunked.
 
Last edited:
As an aside: I have no interest in registering, again, at Pilots for 911 Truth. I have chosen to discuss these matters on this forum and invite all members, including SpaceCowboy , to illuminate me on specifics . I am however a man well beyond my 50th birthday and have little use for pedantry and childish egotism. If I am wrong, I invite explanation as to how and why, if I ask a question I prefer an answer, not another pedantic question.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Before anyone suggests I left it out, I should mention that the above testing paper is written with a combat aircraft as the subject.
Click to expand...
BlindIdiots said:
MIL Requirement refers to a United States Military Standard, which means that a requirement of a 15% margin in the flutter speed(VD) over the maximum design speed being met at all altitudes is only a requirement for military aircraft, which is what this document is referring to.

There is no evidence that that requirement is present in Boeing commercial airliners.

Such a requirement is also not present in FAR 25.335 which refers to design airspeed for transport category airliners.
Click to expand...


I seem to have missed blindidiots post which included a response to one of mine. This is to address my overlooking it back when it was posted.

Of course I had posted that the test procedure I had found was for a military jet.
However, Mick has since found that these parameters do indeed apply to a Boeing 767.
 
www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-08.pdf
Report on flight twa841

I see that in reading this PDF photocopy of the report I got one thing incorrect. Max g was 6.0 this occurred at around as the aircraft pulled up from the dive at 4500 feet and 450 knots IAS sending it up to 10,000 feet again.


Max mach was indeed 0.96M, the report states this was at 31,800 feet.

At 4500 feet had an IAS of 450 knots
See the conclusions on page 35 (page 39 in my PDF reader) and the graph on page 39(page 43 on my PDF reader)

So, what does SpaceC say about this? ,,, obfuscate and deny.
For instance regaining control - SpaceC asks what the pilots did to regain control.

Answer is twofold. Control was determined in the report to not be attainable until the errant leading slat tore off. (IOW this failure of structure was necessary to regain control, and which should never have been in that configuration in the first place. How ironic). Second, despite being well over speed the gear was extended. More irony, this did cause greater stability, reduced airspeed and the flight was brought under control but the landing gear was damaged due to the high speed deployment. The gear did hold through landing though.
 
Last edited:
Yup. This accident (although yes, another airplane type other than a B767) is quite a testament to the robustness of every Boeing airplane.

Ummm...one only has to also look back in history to the B-17. A design and construction that served well, and in some very adverse conditions.

But, of course, this is well known to 99.99999% of people who are familiar with aviation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TWCobra
Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked.
Replies
26
Views
18K
Evil Petting Zoo
Evil Petting Zoo
Mick West
Debunked: The Role of Aeroelastic Flutter in the Events of 9/11
2 3 4
Replies
122
Views
59K
Brent Holman
Brent Holman
TWCobra
Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds
2 3
Replies
94
Views
79K
Mick West
Mick West

Latest posts

Back
Top