Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
So you feel that dynamic pressure, EAS and CAS calculations are a "non-sequitur" as it pertains to this discussion?

Care to put your name on that?

(of course you won't... and is one of the main reasons why you abandoned your "weedwhacker" userID at ATS)

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read, nor should anyone else. As it is clear you do not understand the importance of dynamic pressure, EAS, CAS, nor manufacturer limitations. Which is perhaps why you will never put your name to your claims, and have been attacking Pilots For 9/11 Truth for years, from the comfort of your anonymity.

Ah. How can I say this politely?

Have YOU ever made a typo, ever in your life? Have YOU ever written something that was taken out of context? IF you answer "Yes" to either or both of those questions, then welcome to the club....of HUMANITY.

Now...again, to be polite as possible....please have a good life, and please, by all means, consider the many wonderful options available to us now, via the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure a variety of medical, mental, and other physical health options are available.

OH! Before you go, Robert!! My avatar, over to the left? Yeah...that is actually ME! Was taken in 1985, on the ramp at Stapleton (the OLD Stapleton...not to be confused with DIA). Can you name that airplane? (Maybe not fair, since I have the advantage). The quality? Well....that is an older 8x10, in a frame, and I took a pic of it with a cellphone camera...so, hence the poor resolution. If you ask nicely, maybe someday I'll scan it and make a JPEG or something....but, I am not really that much of a narcissist. Sorry.

But, don't you think I'm cute? Even a little bit??
 
Last edited:

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
I am at a loss to understand the reason for that picture, as posted.

"Jazzy" has claimed, "for contemporary passenger aircraft and is common across the industry. It produces a certified rugged aircraft which will never disintegrate, no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces it meets, within its operational envelope."


Does the American 587 picture prove "Jazzy" correct?

Here is another in case you need it....



Was this aircraft operating outside its aircraft envelope?
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Now...again, to be polite as possible....please have a good life,

You tell me to have a "good life", but you and many of your cohorts have continually libeled me across the web for years from the comfort of your anonymity?

Really?

I tell you what, tell us your real name... then let's see how much of a "good life" you have when people attack you daily across the web for years...
 

MikeC

Closed Account
......

Was this aircraft operatring outside its aircraft envelope?

Yes, it was:

(my emphasis)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Was this aircraft operating outside its aircraft envelope?

No. American flight 587 was NOT outside its normal envelope. Why even bring this up? It is highly irrelevant. I would, and can, explain in great detail how, and why, that horrible crash occurred. But, I've already linked the sources, and trust that viewers of this thread will read them, and thence understand on their own.

EDIT: I see member MikeC's contribution. I may respectfully disagree with the assertion of AAL 587 being "outside" the envelope...in the sense that I usually consider a "flight envelope" to be. What happened in that case was an over-exuberant pilot on the rudder pedals, who over-reacted to a minor wake turbulence encounter. The "envelope" that was "exceeded" in this instance was the design lateral loads on the airplane structure, specifically the vertical fin attachment points. Exacerbated by the pilot-flying's over-use (and completely unwarranted) use of the rudder.

NO reason to continue an off-topic rant.
 
Last edited:

cjnewson88

Member
I see captain bobby created a new sock account. At least he's not pretending to be a women this time..

The assumptions put forth are wrong for the same reason they have always been wrong Robert.

1. Limits do not mean that once they are exceeded failure happens instantly. Examples, among others,

China Airlines 006 > still flew for another 20 years.
Federal express flight 705 > still flying today.

Enough control will remain at speeds well above limits to recover the aircraft. As I have stated before, never has an aircraft that I am aware of, lost control below sonic from going too fast. It is a completely false assertion.

I have exceeded Vne in aircraft and still live, along with the aircraft.

2. Your claim is nit picking at desperate falsehoods to distract people from the bigger picture; that radar tracked UAL175, AAL77, AAL11, and UAL93 all the way to their crash. Aircraft spotted these aircraft after they had been hijacked. Delta Airlines 2433 identified UAL175 as a 'Boeing 76-200' just minutes before its crash. Controllers saw it on radar and with their eyes all the way to the towers. AAL77 was identified as a Boeing 757 just moments before it crashed into the Pentagon by Goffer 06. UAL93 was spotted by N56865 rocking its wings back and forth moments before it crashed.

The big picture always debunks conspiracy theorists.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Yes, it was:

(my emphasis)


Wiki? Really?

lmao.... ok...fair enough....

Are you aware that the FAA definition of Va was changed as a result of the AA587 accident?

I was based LGA when that accident happened. I was shooting a visual to LGA 31 and saw the smoke from the accident. I have been caught in wake turbulence a few times in and out of JFK, LGA, EWR... and used my rudder to full deflection... side to side multiple times... in all types of airplanes. I have never lost a vertical stab yet.

This is sort of what "Jazzy" was claiming. That you can basically do anything within the flight envelope and not cause structural damage.

You, MikeC, have just proven "Jazzy" wrong.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
I see captain bobby created a new sock account. At least he's not pretending to be a women this time..

And who are you?

Obviously you know something about me... clearly I know nothing about you.

Are you also one of those "debunkers" who are obsessed with P4T yet at the same time claim we are insignificant?

Obviously....lol
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
No. American flight 587 was NOT outside its normal envelope. Why even bring this up? It is highly irrelevant.

Because "Jazzy" claims that an aircraft will not fall apart within the flight envelope.

And you are right, weedy... at least that is what we were taught.

But it appears AA587 has proven "Jazzy" wrong... and you have proven "MikeC" wrong.

lol
 

cjnewson88

Member
Your failed reputation precedes you.

I have never been obsessed with P4T. I was tempted after your failed documentary "9/11 intercepted" came out to do a debunking of every single point and lie and manipulation you made in it, but then when I realised hardly anyone was even watching it, I didn't bother.

You points have been debunked for years, ignoring the fact they are all built on totally false assertions, and in some cases, blatant lies. Just like your VN diagram, and your radar manipulation.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Wiki? Really?

No - NTSB report, which is reported on wiki.

lmao.... ok...fair enough....

Was anything in it actually WRONG?

Are you aware that the FAA definition of Va was changed as a result of the AA587 accident?

yes - and so what?

Here's what the FAA has always said about Va:
(retyped by me 'cos I couldn't cut and paste)
So operating at Va DOES NOT MEAN you are always inside your design envelope

I was based LGA when that accident happened. I was shooting a visual to LGA 31 and saw the smoke from the accident. I have been caught in wake turbulence a few times in and out of JFK, LGA, EWR... and used my rudder to full deflection... side to side multiple times... in all types of airplanes. I have never lost a vertical stab yet.

This is sort of what "Jazzy" was claiming. That you can basically do anything within the flight envelope and not cause structural damage.

You, MikeC, have just proven "Jazzy" wrong.

How on earth do you get that an aircraft operating at twice its design loading is operating within its design envelope??

 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Because "Jazzy" claims that an aircraft will not fall apart within the flight envelope.

And you are right, weedy... at least that is what we were taught.

But it appears AA587 has proven "Jazzy" wrong... and you have proven "MikeC" wrong.

lol

Are you now just trying to "score points"? It's hard to interpret your off-topic posts.

Oh....well, again. Hope your life turns out OK for you, trying to stay polite....and all.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I think I'll miss the way he LOL'd at everything the most…

I always called Robert "Maurice" 'cause he speak'd of the pompitous of love
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Meh...I was enjoying watching him being unable to answer questions while complaining that other people had not answered questions.....

I like to think of this as the "interval" (as the British say) or the "Intermission" (for the Americans). Act One has ended, now we enjoy a respite, before Act Two begins.

Not to delve far from topic, so a reminder:

"Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds"

OK....that helps. I guess, "like a moth to flame", eh?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
What is Balsamo trying to say by relating that despite his full deflection left/right, of the rudder, that his aircraft remained intact?
I thought that his opinion was that if an aircraft is treated to commands well outside design that it would , necessarily, result in catastrophic failure of parts of the aircraft. Flight 587 did not survive such "over exuberant " rudder commands, Rob Balsamo's did. That would appear to invalidate his original contention regarding airframe failure.
Not like him to self debunk is it?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
What is Balsamo trying to say by relating that despite his full deflection left/right, of the rudder, that his aircraft remained intact?

I cannot tell, actually. I mean, I am puzzled as to why that photo of AAL 587's vertical fin being hauled out of the bay had any relevance to the discussion of the Boeing 767s used to attack the WTC Towers.

Maybe he is trying to assert that the AAL 587 vertical fin (an Airbus A300-600, btw) structural failure is due to....no, even now I can't find the "link". The "P4T" so-called 'argument' is that the B767s on 9/11 would be uncontrollable at high airspeeds. Yet, the AAL 587 tragedy occurred when the jet was at only about 250 Kts airspeed.

I am truly gobsmacked by the grasping of straws exhibited at the "P4T" website.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Grasping at straws is a good term, however my opinion is that even at that they are overreaching.:)

At first it was the flt77 FDR does not match damage pattern on the ground. Ok, that was a technical issue but instead of dealing with it purely in the technical realm it was simply fodder for antigovt ranting.
It became quite gobsmacking, as you put it, when flt 77 was then said to have flown over the Pentagon, ala the CIT. At that point I truly lost any remaining respect I had for the group.
Lately, as attested to in this thread, they moved out to flts 11 and 175 and propose very odd scenarios beginning on a technical issue.

Basically it seems that every issue they bring up is then attributed to a basically 'magic' solution. I prefer rational and reasoned to the invocation of magic.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
At first it was the flt77 FDR does not match damage pattern on the ground.

Oh, believe me, it's much worse than that. How about when it was breathlessly claimed that AAL 77's cockpit door wasn't opened? (The irony here is, whilst defaming the validity of the FDR of American flight 77, they then turned around and used data FROM the FDR, to make this "door" claim!!
Of course, after only a wee bit of research, it was proven that the FDR on Flight 77 did not record the parameters of the door latch).

I fear we may be straying off-topic, and lest this becomes a bash-fest...I will stop here, and try to focus on the specific claims by "P4T", as represented in this thread title. (But, I could go on and on...and on...).
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
"Jazzy" has claimed, "for contemporary passenger aircraft and is common across the industry. It produces a certified rugged aircraft which will never disintegrate, no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces it meets, within its operational envelope." Does the American 587 picture prove "Jazzy" correct?
It does. Five full rudder reversals was outside the operational envelope, in that it was never included within it by the Airbus designers, who have since ruled it outside, with strict warnings to the airlines never to employ such a maneuver.

Notice I wrote "no matter what normal combination of internal or external forces". Consider the inclusion of the word "normal".

To come up with "Because "Jazzy" claims that an aircraft will not fall apart within the flight envelope" is to demonstrate poor reading comprehension.

It's typically irrelevant to the issue of whether the hijacked aircraft exceeded their maximum achievable air speed, which WeedWhacker cleared up, I think, in post #187.

Clearly they didn't.
 
Last edited:

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
It does. Five full rudder reversals was outside the operational envelope, in that it was never included within it by the Airbus designers, who have since ruled it outside, with strict warnings to the airlines never to employ such a maneuver.

Are you claiming that 5 rudder oscillations can not be performed on an Airbus during departure below Va without the danger of structural failure?

And if so, I would like to know if "TWCobra" agrees with you....?
 

cjnewson88

Member
Back again? What, no one visits your forum so you have to make sock accounts everywhere else?

Would you like to link us a real world example of a plane which has lost controllability from going too fast (below sonic prior to failure)?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Its five full rudder oscillations while flying through wake turbulence.

Fact is that 587 did not survive this. OTOH , space cowboy says he's done exactly that and had his a/c survive, several times.

So apparently different aircraft can perform certain manouvers and survive, others performing the same manouver experience a major failure.

Then there is the Easyjet 737 that survived Vd​+44 with no damage at all.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Its five full rudder oscillations while flying through wake turbulence.

Actually the WT is irrelevant. (OT, but the A300-600 rudder authority and limiter programming logic that was not fully trained properly by AAL led partially to that tragedy. Combined with the PF's inappropriate usage).

But what is pertinent is question of controllability. RE: AAL 11 and UAL 175. No claim as to their potential for "uncontrollability" has ever been proven by 'P4T'.
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The Allied pilots response to the crash is very informative. As usual, this accident has no single cause. They point to 10 reports of A300 rudder overstress, including some of ultimate failure, before this accident. The "aircraft pilot coupled" event which induced increasing amounts of sideslip and increasing aerodynamic loads seems to be the main cause. Separation standards, pilot training, certification standards and testing are all contributory causes here.

"SpaceCowboy", you seem fixated on this and I cannot understand why. Unless you are an aircraft structural engineer, and I know you aren't, why do you find it difficult to accept official explanations for events such as this? The FAA had to redefine Va in the light of this accident.

The Airbus I fly is FBW and I still wouldn't pump a rudder like this. Maybe light aircraft pilots have a different view on such things?
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Back again? What, no one visits your forum so you have to make sock accounts everywhere else?

Are you saying that if one makes a UserId on a forum other than their real name, they are using a "sock"?


Would you like to link us a real world example of a plane which has lost controllability from going too fast (below sonic prior to failure)?

 

cjnewson88

Member
So you feel NASA wind tunnel flight testing is fake?

I never said that. You already know the B767 has systems built into significantly reduce the occurrence of flutter. I want a real world example of an aircraft* which has lost control in flight from going too fast (below sonic).

*modern aircraft, preferably an airliner.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
So you feel NASA wind tunnel flight testing is fake?

Of the examples in the video, specifically the wind-tunnel examples, show proof that each of those flutter and airframe destruction instances wasn't the result of testing to approach or exceed the airframe's critical Mach number, to include supersonic destruction tests as well.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
Of the examples in the video, specifically the wind-tunnel examples, show proof that each of those flutter and airframe destruction instances wasn't the result of testing to approach or exceed the airframe's critical Mach number, to include supersonic destruction tests as well.

Are you not familiar with how Vd is established?

Here, let me help you....

http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/

Be sure to scroll to the bottom.. .and watch the video....


And if you still are uncertain (since most of the above video is based on Mach number), let me know and I'll get you more sources so you can understand EAS... and the reasons why there is in fact a Vd and a Md.

Here's a hint.. .the NASA video included flutter on a Stop sign, bridge and what looked to be a Seneca twin. Do you think a PA-34 is limited by a Mach number? lol
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Are you not familiar with how Vd is established?

Here, let me help you....

http://theflyingengineer.com/tag/vdmd/

Be sure to scroll to the bottom.. .and watch the video....


And if you still are uncertain (since most of the above video is based on Mach number), let me know and I'll get you more sources so you can understand EAS... and the reasons why there is in fact a Vd and a Md.

That wasn't my question, and I certainly did not need to have a "lesson" directed towards me by an amateur.

The question was simple: Evidence was presented in the form of a video titled: "Flutter at a Glance". The video consisted of several short clips with no context. Show the context specific to the wind tunnel examples in order to support the implied claim, as suggested by the posting of that video.

Or, withdraw the claim.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
That wasn't my question, and I certainly did not need to have a "lesson" directed towards me by an amateur.

By an "amateur"? Well, now, that isn't very "polite". is it?

Do I know you personally?

Or, have you been following me personally?

The question was simple: Evidence was presented in the form of a video titled: "Flutter at a Glance". The video consisted of several short clips with no context. Show the context specific to the wind tunnel examples in order to support the implied claim, as suggested by the posting of that video.

Or, withdraw the claim.

The simple fact of the video is that you do not need to hit a "crtical mach number" as you initially claimed, in order for flutter to occur. The Stop Sign and Bridge example clears that up....

There are reasons for Vd... and Md. Do you know why?

Or, do you just expect everyone to answer your questions.... without having to answer any questions of others....

Furthermore, why should anyone listen to you, when you have already discredited yourself at ATS and had to change your name to "ProudBird" at the ATS forum?

Why is it that you constantly attack P4T from the comfort of an throw-away name?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
By an "amateur"? Well, now, that isn't very "polite". is it?

It was the most polite way to indicate that from what I've read so far on this Forum, I can presume (as an opinion) that what I saw was written by an amateur.

ETA to clarify: "amateur" in the sense of inexperience with high altitude commercial airliner type airplanes.
 

SpaceCowboy

Rob Balsamo of P4T
Banned
It was the most polite way to indicate that from what I've read so far on this Forum, I can presume (as an opinion) that what I saw was written by an amateur.

ETA to clarify: "amateur" in the sense of inexperience with high altitude commercial airliner type airplanes.

I have high altitude operations under my belt and can be verified. I have many aviators who support my work to include everything from American, to United, to 737, 747, 757, 767, 777... the list goes on...

We use our real names, they can be found in my signature and confirmed at faa.gov.

Why exactly should anyone listen to you?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TWCobra Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Joe Kerr Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 67
C 9/11 P4T FDR analysis of flight 77 9/11 26
M 9/11 flight Simulations: United 175 9/11 8
SpaceCowboy Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 132
TWCobra EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
TWCobra Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
flarkey Cigar Shaped UFO - March 23, 2021 Captured by commercial airline pilots Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Leifer Pilots report JetPack flyer...... Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
KC-10FE "Team Chemtrail" & Chemtrail Pilots Anonymous Satirical Facebook Group Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Mick West G. Edward Griffin: Don't Blame the Pilots! Contrails and Chemtrails 52
FreiZeitGeist FB: Airline Pilots Who Believe that Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 28
JRBids Question for the pilots here Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Jay Reynolds Jet Pilots Fear "Chemtrail" Attacks Contrails and Chemtrails 129
TWCobra Debunked: Photo of pilots protesting chemtrails - it's Photoshopped Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Advocating violence against "Chemtrail" planes, pilots, scientists, and debunkers Contrails and Chemtrails 1762
Oystein Debunking resource: Engineers Assess the Truth in AE911Truth (Scott & Hamburger, 2021) 9/11 36
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 9/11 174
Mick West TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Nada Truther How Big is the Audience at 9/11 Truth Events? 9/11 4
Mick West Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 33
Mick West Has the 9/11 Truth Movement Stagnated? 9/11 129
Mick West Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
Mick West How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 16
Mick West Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
SR1419 NYT article: How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth Practical Debunking 23
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
Mick West Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
FreiZeitGeist Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
David Fraser The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
T Understanding Truth Above All Else Conspiracy Theories 14
Joe Newman MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West buffdaddy3144: Recovering from 9/11 Truth and how it relates to Religion Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rroval Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
N Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
HappyMonday Attribution of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth Quotes Debunked 8
Mick West Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
Rory Claim: Covid vaccines contains self-aware aluminum parasites Coronavirus COVID-19 12
T Claim: Offguardian article claiming that Covid PCR testing is flawed and not reliable Coronavirus COVID-19 3
Edward Current Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 3
SkepticSteve Claim: Existence of an Allied Forces Report about a 1963 Mass UFO Sighting in Europe UFOs and Aliens 10
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top