ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags black boxes , rob balsamo

Reply
Old 3rd March 2011, 08:54 PM   #81
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
... I see no reason at all to come to those conclusions because there is likely to be a far more prosaic answer to the questions raised in the video about the speed of the aircraft. One of those could be the very thing that I think Balsamo pointed out; the speeds estimated by NTSB are likely to be unreliable anyway as there was no black box data. The fact that his whole theory (although Balsamo pretends he has no theory) is based on unreliable data and ignores all the many, many questions that would inevitably arise if his theory is correct (i.e where is the real plane? What about the phone calls? What about the DNA evidence found at the sites of the other attacks? etc...)

So, would anyone mind tackling the subject of the OP? If not we can just let this thread die a natural death.
Balsamo's goal is to sell lies on DVD, his offer no theory lies. He clearly makes claims, he forgot his offer no theory lie.

The speed of impact for flight 11 is a known speed, Vd, it was flown in test, therefore the impossible speed lie for 11 is nonsense. Flight 11 hit at about 470 knots, it is possible to estimate the speed from a film. Speed from NIST is close to what happen.

Speed of 175 appears to be about 510 knots, about 590 mph. NIST and the NTSB are close to real value and anyone who understand physics can look at the damage done and estimate the kinetic energy required and back in a good estimate of speed. Robertson who designed the WTC said the WT would resist an impact at 180 mph, and that design spec was verified by a study after 911 to be 200 mph with no major damage to the WTC.

The fact is Boeing jets do not disintegrate above the low altitude speed limit, if they did there would be a lot more dead people and crashes throughout history of Boeing Jets. I have personally flown faster than Vmo in a Boeing jet by accident, the plane handled better, smoother, and lots faster. I have had fellow USAF pilots fly low a lot faster than Vmo and do slight damage to the skin. You can't exceed Vmo constantly and expect your jet to have a long life.

What does Boeing say about flight above Vmo. Flying fast.?
Quote:
Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured. http://www.biggles-software.com/soft...40_vmo_mmo.htm
No talk of impossible.
No talk of sure destruction.
No wall of can't do.

I have heard insane claims a plane can't go that fast because of thick air, but that is a lie. If that was true it would be simple to present the math. No math yet, only 11.2g moron math from Balsamo.

It takes morons to claim it is impossible for a 767/757 to exceed Vmo. We have access to the FDR for 77 and as 77 appraoched 483 knots the engines were beginning to overheat (at the limit) and roll back slightly.

Flight 175 made an approach on the WTC an lined up at 40 miles out, it was a clear day, the terrorist pilot on 175 had no problem seeing the WTC from over 20 miles out, people on the ground can, so could he! Balsamo's moronic talk of navigating to large visual targets sound hilaroius. Balsamo makes it seem hard to find the largest building on the east coast, in the largest city on the east coast. What a moron.

Balsamo brings up a plane which went 0.99 MACH and did not fall apart, not a good idea to bring up since the max MACH of 175, the alamost fastest plane on 911 was only 0.76 MACH. We have Boeing jets that can go .99 MACH and still fly, and Balsamo is saying 0.76 MACH is not possible before crashing into the WTC, and 0.72 MACH at the Pentagon.

The Pentagon flight 77 was only over Vmo for 20 or 30 seconds, after a lazy turn to line up visually with the Pentagon. No fancy flying, any kid off the street in the USA could fly without training better than the terrorists, and Balsamo lies and says it takes a professional pilot; and he and his moron pilots, Rotten Ralph, and Rusty Aimer can't hit the largest building in a simulator. What a group of failed aviators, make up lies and sell them on DVD. This is what pilots for truth is, a way to make money and tell lies about the government. Real political issue are all over the place, and Balsamo has to create his own delusions, so he can make a living.

I have been over Vmo for seconds, the plane was outstanding. No pilot would take his plane over Vmo knowingly, and in airliners there would be evidence the pilot was speeding.

The FDR at the WTC were not found, and FDR are not made to survive two building collapses of 130 tons of TNT kinetic energy, that is a fact someone can look up and destroy Balsamo implied lie; wait, Balsamo doesn't have a point.

The entire video is designed on purpose or in ignorance by Balsamo to mislead. He implies airspeed indicator is not used above 22,000 feet, he is funny in a moronic way.

Did anyone do the KEAS for 700 feet at 510 knots? Anyone? It is only 504 KEAS. Balsamo said it would be more than 586 KEAS and like 1.3 MACH, but it is exactly like .77 MACH at 700 feet. Funny how speed is speed, if you know what speed u b looking for. Balsamo can't do math, Balsamo can't do 911, Balsamo makes it clear he offers no theory, and the reason is, he can't do math, he can't do aerodynamics. The only thing Balsamo got right is the total pressure at 700 feet is higher than flying 1.36 MACH at 22,000 feet? SO? (from part 2/5, Balsamo's failed aero class, for morons, by morons)

It gets worse! If someone takes Balsamo seriously, they have zero knowledge on flying and are near insane to believe someone who threatens to kill people who expose his nonsense. Not someone to take seriously; Balsamo is a moron on flying and math, the video proves it will very little effort. In fact, Balsamo debunks himself on the speed issue; it is real funny in a boring jargon filled world of flying. This is a stundie, but it would take too much effort to explain why Balsamo's 1.36 MACH math is far out dumber than rocks falling faster than free-fall into the black-hole of ignorance.

The video set only gets worse... wow, the stupid burns and has no equal save Judy Wood and her myopic beam weapon.

In the second video, Balsamo talks about 1.36 MACH, but to have the same total pressure at 22,000 feet as 175 going 510 knots at 700 feet, you have to go 1.5 MACH at 22,000. But the KEAS stuff was applied back-wards, and 175 is only going 510 knots, that is equal to 510 KTAS, which is 504 KEAS. At 22,000 feet 504 KEAS would be 1.17 MACH and still not be more total pressure than 175 going 504 KEAS at 700 feet. Balsamo never had it, and never will.


At standard sea level KEAS is the same as calibrated airspeed (KCAS) and true airspeed (KTAS). Balsamo has no clue. You can't do what Balsamo did in the video, the video exposes Balsamo as a moron, get copies now, a rational person would pull the videos.

It was funny Balsamo compares an aircraft carrier with a 60 foot wide runway, on the ocean where the pilot has to land within feet of center to 207 foot wide 1300 foot tall WTC towers on a clear calm day. A few feet of spot landing is not the same as hundreds of feet hit anywhere WTC terrorist flying. I would do the math but Balsamo will not comprehend the results.

Did you watch all 5 videos?

Last edited by beachnut; 3rd March 2011 at 09:55 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2011, 09:54 PM   #82
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,663
Beachnut, thanks for the response.

Quote:
Balsamo's goal is to sell lies on DVD, his offer no theory lies. He clearly makes claims, he forgot his offer no theory lie.
Yeah, this seems typical with a lot of Truthers who one minute claim to be just asking questions or only exposing the "official story" and the next minute claiming that "9/11 was an inside job!" or "There were no hijackers on the plane!" etc...

Quote:
The speed of impact for flight 11 is a known speed, Vd, it was flown in test, therefore the impossible speed lie for 11 is nonsense.
Interesting. Is this the test that Balsamo claims is illegitimate because it was flown in a simulator? Or is there another one?

Just asking questions...

Quote:
Flight 11 hit at about 470 knots, it is possible to estimate the speed from a film. Speed from NIST is close to what happen.
Yeah, I imagined that such speeds could be estimated to some degree (although I don't know to what level of accuracy) I asked my co-workers why it is that no one had disputed that the plane flown was a 767 as it would have been easy to identify. They tried to wave it away as being difficult to identify and that there wasn't much footage of it. Obvious nonsense, of course, and the would-be-government-conspirators would have had no idea how many people would have captured the plane on film in New York on a clear day. Any claims that video or news media have manipulated footage must immediately be put to the sword on the basis that the event was so public that any would-be-conspirator simply couldn't be idiotic enough to dismiss the risk of exposure in using a completely different plane to the one they claimed was used and yet this seems to be the very basis of all of PfffffffT's (non-)theories.

And, yes, you are right that my co-workers have no knowledge of aviation, just like me.

Quote:
Speed of 175 appears to be about 510 knots, about 590 mph. NIST and the NTSB are close to real value and anyone who understand physics can look at the damage done and estimate the kinetic energy required and back in a good estimate of speed.
That counts me out. Yet, common sense tells me that plane hit the Towers at a considerable speed and the size of the fireball suggests a lot of fuel. The endless attempts to minimize these factors by Truthers through extreme pedantry seem ludicrous to me and, apparently to the millions of people around the world with genuine knowledge of aviation.

Quote:
Robertson who designed the WTC said the WT would resist an impact at 180 mph, and that design spec was verified by a study after 911 to be 200 mph with no major damage to the WTC.
Thanks. I have argued with people who claim X,Y,Z about what the buildings were designed to withstand. I'm on fairly firm ground here about each of the claims and how they don't stand up.

Quote:
The fact is Boeing jets do not disintegrate above the low altitude speed limit, if they did there would be a lot more dead people and crashes throughout history of Boeing Jets. I have personally flown faster than Vmo in a Boeing jet by accident, the plane handled better, smoother, and lots faster. I have had fellow USAF pilots fly low a lot faster than Vmo and do slight damage to the skin. You can't exceed Vmo constantly and expect your jet to have a long life.

What does Boeing say about flight above Vmo. Flying fast.?
Yeah, it amazes me that some Truthers expect the hijackers to fly within safety guidelines. In fact, it has seemed to me that the more they broke safety protocols while flying the more it confirms that they were amateur pilots. They didn't need to be great pilots and they certainly didn't need to worry about the longevity of their planes.

Quote:
I have heard insane claims a plane can't go that fast because of thick air, but that is a lie. If that was true it would be simple to present the math. No math yet, only 11.2g moron math from Balsamo.

It takes morons to claim it is impossible for a 767/757 to exceed Vmo. We have access to the FDR for 77 and as 77 appraoched 483 knots the engines were beginning to overheat (at the limit) and roll back slightly.
I've seen 11.2g mentioned here a lot. I don't know what it is though or what Balsamo's claim about it is. (Maybe it appeared in the video but to be honest the thing was so awful I couldn't watch it all and I may have already disagreed with his reasoning by the time he got to it.)

Ah! But the AA77 data is faked, right? At least, they will have to claim that and find all kinds of bizarre reasons for saying it such as the cockpit door never opened etc...

Quote:
Flight 175 made an approach on the WTC an lined up at 40 miles out, it was a clear day, the terrorist pilot on 175 had no problem seeing the WTC from over 20 miles out, people on the ground can, so could he! Balsamo's moronic talk of navigating to large visual targets sound hilaroius. Balsamo makes it seem hard to find the largest building on the east coast, in the largest city on the east coast. What a moron.

Balsamo brings up a plane which went 0.99 MACH and did not fall apart, not a good idea to bring up since the max MACH of 175, the alamost fastest plane on 911 was only 0.76 MACH. We have Boeing jets that can go .99 MACH and still fly, and Balsamo is saying 0.76 MACH is not possible before crashing into the WTC, and 0.72 MACH at the Pentagon.
Yeah, I put in my OP that I couldn't make sense of this claim since even Balsamo points out that the planes were flying well under Mach 1. Then I simply didn't understand his argument about "equivalent to Mach 1.35" or whatever it was. I got the impression he was being somewhat deceptive here.

Quote:
The Pentagon flight 77 was only over Vmo for 20 or 30 seconds, after a lazy turn to line up visually with the Pentagon. No fancy flying, any kid off the street in the USA could fly without training better than the terrorists, and Balsamo lies and says it takes a professional pilot; and he and his moron pilots, Rotten Ralph, and Rusty Aimer can't hit the largest building in a simulator. What a group of failed aviators, make up lies and sell them on DVD. This is what pilots for truth is, a way to make money and tell lies about the government. Real political issue are all over the place, and Balsamo has to create his own delusions, so he can make a living.

I have been over Vmo for seconds, the plane was outstanding. No pilot would take his plane over Vmo knowingly, and in airliners there would be evidence the pilot was speeding.
Yeah, it is funny that his experts are Rusty and Rotten. My co-worker claimed that experienced pilots couldn't possibly do what the hijackers did. This is why I'm interested in finding out from other pilots what they think of the hijackers performance on that day. I have only heard non-pilots saying this was impossible.

Quote:
The FDR at the WTC were not found, and FDR are not made to survive two building collapses of 130 tons of TNT kinetic energy, that is a fact someone can look up and destroy Balsamo implied lie; wait, Balsamo doesn't have a point.
Yes, I have no trouble with the fact that the black box recorders weren't found. I wouldn't have expected them to be.

Quote:
The entire video is designed on purpose or in ignorance by Balsamo to mislead. He implies airspeed indicator is not used above 22,000 feet, he is funny in a moronic way.

Did anyone do the KEAS for 700 feet at 510 knots? Anyone? It is only 504 KEAS. Balsamo said it would be more than 586 KEAS and like 1.3 MACH, but it is exactly like .77 MACH at 700 feet. Funny how speed is speed, if you know what speed u b looking for. Balsamo can't do math, Balsamo can't do 911, Balsamo makes it clear he offers no theory, and the reason is, he can't do math, he can't do aerodynamics. The only thing Balsamo got right is the total pressure at 700 feet is higher than flying 1.36 MACH at 22,000 feet? SO? (from part 2/5, Balsamo's failed aero class, for morons, by morons)
Thanks, I might watch that bit again.

Quote:
It gets worse! If someone takes Balsamo seriously, they have zero knowledge on flying and are near insane to believe someone who threatens to kill people who expose his nonsense.
Do you have any links to his threats?

Quote:
Not someone to take seriously; Balsamo is a moron on flying and math, the video proves it will very little effort. In fact, Balsamo debunks himself on the speed issue; it is real funny in a boring jargon filled world of flying. This is a stundie, but it would take too much effort to explain why Balsamo's 1.36 MACH math is far out dumber than rocks falling faster than free-fall into the black-hole of ignorance.

The video set only gets worse... wow, the stupid burns and has no equal save Judy Wood and her myopic beam weapon.
Thanks for helping out there. I hope I haven't put you to too much trouble.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2011, 10:35 PM   #83
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,266
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...antasizeaboutt

Balsamo also bans people without displaying that they are banned and thus it looks like the people who post facts are wrong and too afraid to post again.

Flight 175 was on a steep approach, the darn plane went very fast due to gravity. Boeing jets are very stable, the video talks about dutch-roll, and the 707 would have a mean dutch-roll, but the Boeing engineers have fixed that problem by design, and the 757/767 are easy to fly. No dutch roll like the 707 and KC-135, which could lead to engine separation due to side loads - so in the 50 or 60s an attack like 911 might of ended with pilots crashing before targets. Balsamo and his failed pilots on 911 are not making up all the nonsense, they are applying what they get right, wrong. Balsamo applied his KEAS back-wards.
KEAS at 700 feet for 510 KTAS, is 504 KEAS. How did I get 510 KTAS, from Balsamo, the 510 knots is equal to 510 KTAS, and that is 504 KEAS at 700 feet. Balsamo presented the equation for KEAS, and then failed to use it correctly. Self debunking. He has no idea what actual air density or standard sea level density is so he can't do the math to figure out he is a moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed
It is cool when wiki debunks Balsamo, who debunked himself with the same formula (also in wiki) while telling lies in his/Balsamo's video, exposing failed aviators talking about dutch-roll, and Balsamo showing wings falling off at .76 MACH, KEAS 504. What a dork.

wow

Last edited by beachnut; 3rd March 2011 at 10:38 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 07:33 AM   #84
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,664
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
KEAS at 700 feet for 510 KTAS, is 504 KEAS. How did I get 510 KTAS, from Balsamo, the 510 knots is equal to 510 KTAS, and that is 504 KEAS at 700 feet. Balsamo presented the equation for KEAS, and then failed to use it correctly. Self debunking. He has no idea what actual air density or standard sea level density is so he can't do the math to figure out he is a moron.
What a dork. wow
Shame on you beachnut!

You finally provoked me into watching this piece of garbage. Yep, he miscalculates in order to shock the audience. I suspect it is intentional.

It goes by so fast, it is difficult to catch and I've never seen him write this in any of the Forums he's spammed. From the very beginning I've speculated that's why he does this crap in video format as opposed to writing it in non-erasable words in a document.

Why should it matter if he deceives again? He's lying about the circumstance of the 990 crash anyway. He indicates the aircraft broke up in-flight and he pretends to know at what airspeed and under what conditions it did that. That is false.

The only item in the separate debris field was an engine pod. That's it. That is not in-flight breakup. Also, the FDR stopped recording, so he has NO CLUE at what airspeed or what other flight conditions occurred to cause that separation.

We do know there was a fight for control in the cockpit of Egypt Air 990 from it's behavior shown on the FDR. We DO NOT know at what point or under what other conditions that engine pod separated. In that he speculates and theorizes the conditions is deceptive and misleading in order to promote an agenda, period.
__________________
[Noc]

Last edited by Reheat; 4th March 2011 at 07:36 AM.
Reheat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 03:15 PM   #85
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Yes tfk, we know you are the greatest and I bow before you.
My status, whether internally or externally perceived, is not the issue.

The issue is that you appear to be curiously proud of the fact that you "contributed significantly" to the work of an obvious dolt (on the matters of 9/11).

That doesn't bother you?

His doltishness is a matter of public record. I could pull a few examples & start a new thread if you like.

Or you could tell me the revelations that he produced that you found insightful...


tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 04:30 PM   #86
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...antasizeaboutt

Balsamo also bans people without displaying that they are banned and thus it looks like the people who post facts are wrong and too afraid to post again.

Flight 175 was on a steep approach, the darn plane went very fast due to gravity. Boeing jets are very stable, the video talks about dutch-roll, and the 707 would have a mean dutch-roll, but the Boeing engineers have fixed that problem by design, and the 757/767 are easy to fly. No dutch roll like the 707 and KC-135, which could lead to engine separation due to side loads - so in the 50 or 60s an attack like 911 might of ended with pilots crashing before targets. Balsamo and his failed pilots on 911 are not making up all the nonsense, they are applying what they get right, wrong. Balsamo applied his KEAS back-wards.
KEAS at 700 feet for 510 KTAS, is 504 KEAS. How did I get 510 KTAS, from Balsamo, the 510 knots is equal to 510 KTAS, and that is 504 KEAS at 700 feet. Balsamo presented the equation for KEAS, and then failed to use it correctly. Self debunking. He has no idea what actual air density or standard sea level density is so he can't do the math to figure out he is a moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed
It is cool when wiki debunks Balsamo, who debunked himself with the same formula (also in wiki) while telling lies in his/Balsamo's video, exposing failed aviators talking about dutch-roll, and Balsamo showing wings falling off at .76 MACH, KEAS 504. What a dork.

wow
My head started spinning from the stupid as I watched him plugging in the wrong numbers into the on-line calculator and then my brain shut down entirely when he claimed a 767 can reach Mach 1.3. That was two days ago and it just started working again so that is why I am late to asking you a question. Why does the 767 have such a slow Vmo at low altitudes? I assume it has more to do with flight rules than physics.
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 05:33 PM   #87
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Shame on you beachnut!

You finally provoked me into watching this piece of garbage. Yep, he miscalculates in order to shock the audience. I suspect it is intentional.

It goes by so fast, it is difficult to catch and I've never seen him write this in any of the Forums he's spammed. From the very beginning I've speculated that's why he does this crap in video format as opposed to writing it in non-erasable words in a document.

Why should it matter if he deceives again? He's lying about the circumstance of the 990 crash anyway. He indicates the aircraft broke up in-flight and he pretends to know at what airspeed and under what conditions it did that. That is false.

The only item in the separate debris field was an engine pod. That's it. That is not in-flight breakup. Also, the FDR stopped recording, so he has NO CLUE at what airspeed or what other flight conditions occurred to cause that separation.

We do know there was a fight for control in the cockpit of Egypt Air 990 from it's behavior shown on the FDR. We DO NOT know at what point or under what other conditions that engine pod separated. In that he speculates and theorizes the conditions is deceptive and misleading in order to promote an agenda, period.
Don't need an engine pod to fly. An engine separation is not aircraft breakup.

Sorry, the OP asked for input... while tring to find my PB-6 Bellows to copy slides, I watched the video. When I heard math moron Balsamo say flying 510 knots at 700 feet was like flying 1.36 MACH at 22,000 feet, or some nonsense like that! I remember at sea level KEAS, KTAS, and KIAS kind of all look the same, sort of - and even more so when you look up the formula and do the math. I figured out KEAS based on the pressure alone, it was 504 KEAS, and Balsamo lied again.

I was laughing at his Indicated Airspeed stuff, we could calculate our KIAS for any altitude, for max range I flew the triangle on the AOA, calculated a MACH, and added .02 to be ahead of the power curve, never behind it. He never gets specific as he makes up nonsense.

990 went up to .99 MACH, no break up. Balsamo lies about the break up of 990 as you say.

Another Balsamo failed math video, further proof Balsamo and his pilots are lairs, anti-government morons. 11.2gs and 1.36 MACH; Balsamo math for morons.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 06:09 PM   #88
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,664
Originally Posted by matt.tansy View Post
Why does the 767 have such a slow Vmo at low altitudes? I assume it has more to do with flight rules than physics.
Here's a discussion that might be of interest.......

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/9961-...mo-mmo-uk.html

It has nothing at all to do with flight rules of the FAA or ICAO. That rule is a speed limit of 250 KIAS below 10,000' MSL and 200 KIAS in Class B Airspace (the former Airport Traffic Area). Military Fighters and Trainers are exempt since most have a specified minimum flight manual speed above those. Their limit is whatever is specified in their flight manual for that phase of flight.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2011, 07:31 PM   #89
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by matt.tansy View Post
My head started spinning from the stupid as I watched him plugging in the wrong numbers into the on-line calculator and then my brain shut down entirely when he claimed a 767 can reach Mach 1.3. That was two days ago and it just started working again so that is why I am late to asking you a question. Why does the 767 have such a slow Vmo at low altitudes? I assume it has more to do with flight rules than physics.
For long life of the airframe, flying fast put stress on the airframe.

FAA flight rules, 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet.
The Vmo of 360 KCAS and at altitude 360 KCAS is replaced by .86 MACH, Balsamo puts in enough information from FAA documents and Boeing data to keep non-pilots on the hook, then he plugs in the numbers back-wards, or worse to form a lie. It is not impossible for Balsamo to think he is doing it right, he is not the sharpest tool in the pit of ignorance.
Boeing makes the following comment on Vmo.
Quote:
Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured. http://www.biggles-software.com/soft...40_vmo_mmo.htm
At low altitudes and high speed the Total pressure on the airfame is more than that at high altitude. Flying .91 MACH at 23000 feet, Vd, is half the Total pressure that 175 had at 700 feet going 504 KEAS, at .77 MACH.

In the USAF people who flew over Vmo experienced skin de-lamination, and in one case the gear door ripped off. The planes did not fall apart. In an extreme cases the plane was bent, never flew the same, the pilot pulled too many gs to recover. I accidentally went over Vmo at 500 feet and the plane was stable, no vibration, we easily went too fast. Would I try to go 50 to 90 knots over Vd? If a MIG was chasing me yes, I would slow down to do turns, but I would beat feet to the deck if that was required, who cares if the speed is 150 knots over Vmo?

Take the Vmo for a 767 at 0 feet, plug in 360 KTAS on a standard day, we get a pressure equal to a plane going 1.4 MACH at 23,000 feet. WE have a 767 which is allowed to have the total pressure at sea level going Vmo, equal to the pressure of a plane at 1.4 MACH at 23,000 feet. Does not mean a 767 can go 1.4 MACH. Balsamo applied it back-wards and messed up. 175 exceeded limits, 11 did not, 77 did for 20 to 30 seconds, 93 exceed by a bunch and crash; oops, they all crashed.

The magic speeds.
Quote:
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VD Design diving speed, VFC Maximum speed for stability characteristics.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M
Balsamo can't do the math; a 767 going 510 knots at 700 feet, about the same as a 767, 420 knots at sea level; both have about the same total pressure.

Boeing has to be in on 911, with the FAA and the NTSB, because Flight 175 flew 510 knots, 504 KEAS at 700 feet. Balsamo is insane and a moron at math. Crazy people say Flight 175 can't go the speed it was seen going on 911. And it was 175, proved by RADAR and more. Balsamo lies to sell DVDs, he offers no theory due to mental problems, ignorance, and his paranoid anti-government conspiracy theories.

The engineering is more complex than a simple 360 KCAS and pick up .86 MACH during the climb. I have flown over Vmo refueling an SR-71, a lot over; guess what the engineering guys said...

What happens at the edge of the envelope? Chuck Yeager would laugh at us talking about going 510 knots, turning in a measly .77 MACH at 700 feet, we are not on the edge of control for the 767, we are at the edge of long airframe-life. We are putting too much stress on the airframe over Vmo low down, at sea level. What we have here(hear) is a failure at math. The 767, flight 175 is in the center of the flight envelope, not pulling too many gs, not pulling negative gs, just going fast, pushing the can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity. As we go faster an lower, things will not go well, but 510 knots at 700 feet and crashing, is not much better.

The expert pilot stuff is hogwash. I flew the KC-135 for the first time in 1976, on my first flight I landed the KC-135 on the exact centerline with only a few minutes in type, no help from the instructor. Perfect landing first time in a heavy jet. I had only flown small aircraft, and only had 250 hours total time. The terrorists on 911 had flying experience, Balsamo say Hani could not land on a 40 foot wide runway; no wonder he got the 900 foot wide Pentagon as a target. Pilots who washed out of pilot training were able to get to the runway, they could not do it properly; most likely Hani's problem. It would be easier and less boring going 500 knots to hit the WTC, it would lower the drift, and give the pilot a stable platform.

Landing is harder than hitting a runway, or building. Remember Balsamo and his failed aviators can't hit buildings in a simulator; flying is too hard for them.

Did 175 hit the center of the building? Not very precise to hit at 38 degrees of bank.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2011, 12:19 AM   #90
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Dutch Roll. Is that like a Dutch Crunch because that's my favorite sandwich roll after fresh sourdough.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2011, 06:27 PM   #91
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Is it permissible to nominate videos for Stundies?
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2011, 06:47 PM   #92
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by matt.tansy View Post
Is it permissible to nominate videos for Stundies?
I give it a 3 Stooges up ....

__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2011, 06:33 PM   #93
patchbunny
Graduate Poster
 
patchbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Right about... here.
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
He pretends to be a firefighter and yet he isn't one. This doesn't stop Lindorff in the Counterpunch article from calling him one: "There has always been some skepticism about this assertion [that the black boxes were never found], particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) "
I'm popping in this rather late, and I've not read this whole thread, but this comment is rather beyond belief to me. Two distinct sites, each buried under tons and tons of rubble, yet the same two people claimed to have found three of the 4 black boxes? I don't need the FBI to tell me that's a bunch of BS.
__________________
"So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66
patchbunny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2011, 09:37 AM   #94
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,663
Originally Posted by patchbunny View Post
I'm popping in this rather late, and I've not read this whole thread, but this comment is rather beyond belief to me. Two distinct sites, each buried under tons and tons of rubble, yet the same two people claimed to have found three of the 4 black boxes? I don't need the FBI to tell me that's a bunch of BS.
It looks like it has convinced a number of others, though (Truthers! ). Maybe I'd have to go back to the original sources of these claims as it is possible that the same two merely claimed three of the boxes had been found rather than they had found the boxes themselves. But as you say, if it turns out that they claimed by themselves to have discovered three out of four (the missing one to strengthen their argument perhaps or does it defeat the argument that there is no such thing as an unfound black box?) then we can dismiss them as obvious liars from the beginning.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2012, 08:34 PM   #95
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
You have no data to plug into your formula. You made it up by taking parts of witness testimonies over literal while ignoring other parts. Out of this you construct an artificial impossible scenario and run it through your formula to prove that it is impossible. Then you turn around and claim that the same witnesses you cherrypicked couldn't have seen what they report at all and would be mistaken about such a basic detail as the side on which they saw the plane pass. BS in, BS out. The OP of the thread I linked is a more than sufficient debunk. A few lines like those I just have written would have sufficed.
That's not a rebuttal. That's a bunch of unsupported claims. The entire point of Reheat's article is that if you follow CIT's logic and the claims of its witnesses to its, ahem, logical conclusion, it cannot be reconciled into a theory that is even remotely physically plausible.

Has anyone, anyone at all, presented an alternative interpretation that is physically possible, or have they just gainsaid Reheat's?

I also note that you fled the thread after the first page, CE. Good job. Good effort. Of course, sticking around would've meant actually having to prove Reheat's interpretation of the statements were wrong.

Originally Posted by BCR View Post
CE, regardless of yours, P4T and CIT rhetoric, it is impossible for a 757 to get from where Paik saw the plane and where Lagasse says he saw it.

That means the CIT eyewitnesses are lying or they are making errors in recall. Take your pick, but I prefer the later.
Seconded. Hanlon's Razor.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2012, 03:15 AM   #96
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,677
Until a few days ago, I didn't realize in my 2 1/2 years in this subforum, when I frequently encountered CE, that he is a believer in the CIT/NoC nutjobbery. What a let-down And he hid it sooo well. Typical no-claimer.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2012, 06:57 AM   #97
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,664
There is no valid reason to bring up this issue again. It has been settled for at least 3 years now and there is nothing further to debate unless there is something new brought to the table. That is quite unlikely at this point.

CE is a believer, just like other believers in fantasy and he/she perhaps may always believe what he/she wants perhaps for the rest of his/her life. He/she simply believes to the exclusion of all other evidence that those "cherry picked" outlier witnesses have revealed the conspiracy and proven facts don't interfere with those beliefs.

CE's only argument is that he/she doesn't like my flight path and contends it was made up. Well, that's true, it was made up just like they all were. There is no flight path that is plausible allowing this to be a plausible possibility based on CIT's own witnesses. It is truly a self debunking alternative to the proven flight path for the Pentagon attack. CE simply identified the wrong side as self-debunking.

My analysis at 911myths has not been debunked. It never will be debunked by prose alone. It can only be debunked by accurately stated aerodynamics of a plausible path to the north of that gas station from a known proven point to the impact point on the building while complying with the statements of the "cherry picked" outlier witnesses. Pffft has attempted that with a fraudulent lying video full of bamboozle techno babble to fool people just like CE. It has obviously worked for those in that category who have no technical skill to detect the fraud.

While there are detailed issues surrounding the Pentagon attack which have not been fully answered, there are none that change the basic facts. For example, there are strong indications that the VDOT radio antenna atop the pole at the VDOT facility was struck. This can not be proven and I can conceive of no reason why this would be intentionally withheld information. However, it does remain a possibility.

Anyway, CE is not likely to return to the thread, so I suggest allowing it to die a quiet death as it truly is a waste of time and bandwidth to discuss it further...
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2012, 07:16 AM   #98
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 17,373
If my paragraph is not good enough for you, you can follow the link I put into my earlier post. Here, all the details you want and Reheat knows very well. But it REALLY isn't necessary if one is familiar with the witness accounts and understands what Reheat did in his "debunking".

He's right, the matter is settled since years. His work is pseudo-scientific claptrap created to deceive casual observers and MikeW is aware of it but lets it stay on his website. That's why I brought it up in the other thread.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2012, 07:22 AM   #99
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
There is no valid reason to bring up this issue again. It has been settled for at least 3 years now and there is nothing further to debate unless there is something new brought to the table. That is quite unlikely at this point.

CE is a believer, just like other believers in fantasy and he/she perhaps may always believe what he/she wants perhaps for the rest of his/her life. He/she simply believes to the exclusion of all other evidence that those "cherry picked" outlier witnesses have revealed the conspiracy and proven facts don't interfere with those beliefs.
I admire you Reheat. As you know, for the past week or so I've been trying to inject a little reason into some of the debates over at ATS. This of course being one of them. This stuff is more akin to a religious belief than anything else IMHO and there is no reasoning with such individuals. I post a photograph a helicopter pilot took during his recreation of the flight path for FAA officials. He took the photograph as documentation of that recreated path so there could be no ambiguity (the ole picture is worth a thousand words premise). My mistake was including his original CMH statement. No somehow his statement is evidence of NoC, although he witnessed nothing and documented the reconstructed path that was not NoC.

I don't know how you continue to have the patience to debate such foolishness over there at ATS. I guess I just needed to remind myself just how disconnected with reality some people are.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2012, 11:44 AM   #100
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
11 years and no flyover witnesses, and no release of the raw unedited CIT interview videos,

  1. Sean Boger describes the aircraft plowing into the pentagon
  2. Morin describes watching the aircraft fly smoothly mentioning even a small flash as it hit lightpoles, ANY NOC flight path would interrupt his view, Unless of course the four story navy annex wings 5 through 8 are blocks of glass,
  3. Paiks view from his office is blocked by the top of his window, Any view of fuselage therefore confirms flight directly over and along Columbia pike
  4. Paik believed aircraft clipped VDOT tower, Not possible if he believes flight passed directly over his shop.
  5. No witnesses to staged light pole scene even though entire area is heavily trafficked not only by pentagon employees parking but pedestrians as well as evidenced by dirt paths crisscrossing the area surrounding the light poles
  6. Even CIT outlier witnesses "corroborate" direct aircraft impact with the pentagon. An aircraft impact fuel fireball CANNOT OCCUR until the tanks located in the wings and center fuselage at the wings impact the building, consistent with witness descriptions of aircraft "melting into the building" and thence fireball. QED no "shock and awe" special effect possible.
  7. No flyover witnesses whatsoever describing the aircraft beyond north east, east, or even south east of the pentagon.
  8. Vegetation debris scattered on the pavement of route 27 and damage to the tree at the overpass confirms starboard engine ingestion.
  9. Aircraft debris picked up on route 27 from witness and foot peg knock off / scar on VDOT camera pole as well as camera damage confirms aircraft contact.
  10. path of destruction ending at exit hole within pentagon confirms SOC flight path.
CIT conspiracy debunk confirmed, Stick a fork in them, they have been done and now ignored for years, NOTHING to see but the old debunked garbage brought back out to the curb. If they didn't have a part time band they wouldn't even have childlike groupies hanging on.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2012, 01:51 PM   #101
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
If my paragraph is not good enough for you, you can follow the link I put into my earlier post. Here, all the details you want and Reheat knows very well. But it REALLY isn't necessary if one is familiar with the witness accounts and understands what Reheat did in his "debunking".
I thought you said it would only take a paragraph? Yet that link seems to have a good deal more than a paragraph. In fact, it also seems to have a lot of backpedalling. Eyewitnesses are unreliable, as anyone involved in the law can tell one. And CIT are still positing nonsense about "decoy aircraft" which apparently vanished. And the same witnesses CIT is relying on also say the plane hit the Pentagon, yet CIT thinks it was a decoy. If you want to complain about someone cherry-picking...

Quote:
He's right, the matter is settled since years. His work is pseudo-scientific claptrap created to deceive casual observers and MikeW is aware of it but lets it stay on his website. That's why I brought it up in the other thread.
By way of attempting to discredit MikeW instead of the actual arguments he was making, yes. As I asserted several times, it had no real relevance to the thread.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2012, 05:48 PM   #102
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
If my paragraph is not good enough for you, you can follow the link I put into my earlier post. Here, all the details you want and Reheat knows very well. But it REALLY isn't necessary if one is familiar with the witness accounts and understands what Reheat did in his "debunking".

He's right, the matter is settled since years. His work is pseudo-scientific claptrap created to deceive casual observers and MikeW is aware of it but lets it stay on his website. That's why I brought it up in the other thread.
All the witnesses, CIT witnesses, and all the other witnesses, verify 77's real flight path as seen by RADAR and FDR. Of course you must be trained as an aircraft accident investigator, or be naturally smart (albeit, I was trained). CIT are moronsidiots on 911; why do you fall for lies from moronsidiots on 911?

Reheat's work is called math, yes CIT would call it pseudo-science. I understand why CIT can't figure out math and flight stuff, why can't you? Even Paik is pointing to the real flight path, only CIT can't figure that out.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.