It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Expert Top Gun/Airline Pilots say Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible

page: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by ProudBird
 


One question:

Is the V-G diagram accurate or not? You people have already accused that the diagram is FAKE.

So prove that it is fake.


Proven fake

Next.




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Man, wtf.

Is the fricken thing ACCURATE OR NOT? Who the heck cares if they used another template from whatever aircraft. I want to know if the figures plotted are ACCURATE. That is all I am trying to find out. And if it is not accurate for a stock 757, then can we see the accurate plot, please.

Why is this so hard?

:shk:



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Man, wtf.

Is the fricken thing ACCURATE OR NOT? Who the heck cares if they used another template from whatever aircraft. I want to know if the figures plotted are ACCURATE.


Call Boeing and ask them if AA 77 could have crashed into the Pentagon or not. (This time, don't hold back information which is crucial for their understanding, which is typical CIT & P4T MO) Balsamo was caught committing fraud. Personally, I think that's hilarious.
edit on 14-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.


Source

Anything else?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
The topic, since many of you seem to have forgotten is:


Expert Top Gun/Airline pilots say Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible.

Just checked... It still is.

Discuss the topic, or find another forum. It's that simple.


Since the topic is expertise, I would say it's very relevant whether or not the 'experts' in question are of good conduct, and whether or not they will resort to blatant fraud to buttress their claims. Don't you agree?

The main proponent of this claim is Robert Balsamo from "Pilots for 9/11 Truth", an organization with an extreme history of deception, intimidation and harassment, even on your own forum. Several posters have indicated they that have been victims of such harassment. This harassment is ongoing as we speak.

I have a good mind to start a petition to report Robert Balsamo to the FAA. This is not an expert, but a deranged maniac who has threatened several people with physical violence.

His claims of expertise are in question.

I'm very, very much dedicated to staying on topic in that regard. I trust and hope the moderators will allow discussion, if on topic, to flow freely.

Thank you.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Since the topic is expertise, I would say it's very relevant whether or not the 'experts' in question are of good conduct, and whether or not they will resort to blatant fraud to buttress their claims. Don't you agree?


The only thing I am agreeing with here at the moment is that Rob Balsamo and crew are proving to be the experts despite some mistakes in the past. Not any of you OS loyalists have jack doo doo. All you have is vitriol for Rob, and your posts are nothing but FLUFF. You hear me? FRICKEN FLUFF!

See, when it came right down to it, you will not admit, NO MATTER WHAT, that the V-G diagram P4T prepared is INDEED accurate, even if they used another template to plot the figures.

I advise readers to note that there appears to be a Q-unit agenda going on here, and not genuine debate with facts. They can't even produce a V-G plot for a 757 on their own. All they want to do is get YOU the reader to disbelieve ANYTHING Rob says.
When Rob himself has admitted to mistakes and retracted those mistakes.

If I were readers, I would completely disregard ANYTHING this band of Q-Unit trolls is trying, miserably, to say. Get a real pilot in your group and call me.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Since the topic is expertise, I would say it's very relevant whether or not the 'experts' in question are of good conduct, and whether or not they will resort to blatant fraud to buttress their claims. Don't you agree?


The only thing I am agreeing with here at the moment is that Rob Balsamo and crew are proving to be the experts despite some mistakes in the past. Not any of you OS loyalists have jack doo doo. All you have is vitriol for Rob, and your posts are nothing but FLUFF. You hear me? FRICKEN FLUFF!

See, when it came right down to it, you will not admit, NO MATTER WHAT, that the V-G diagram P4T prepared is INDEED accurate, even if they used another template to plot the figures.

I advise readers to note that there appears to be a Q-unit agenda going on here, and not genuine debate with facts. They can't even produce a V-G plot for a 757 on their own. All they want to do is get YOU the reader to disbelieve ANYTHING Rob says.
When Rob himself has admitted to mistakes and retracted those mistakes.

If I were readers, I would completely disregard ANYTHING this band of Q-Unit trolls is trying, miserably, to say. Get a real pilot in your group and call me.


"Accurate but fake" is what you are saying.

I wouldn't expect you to know - or care - that diagrams such as the Boeing 7X7-series flight performance parameter charts are highly proprietary and corporate-classified information, to be relaeased only to those individuals who have a need for them. That is why you do not see the official Boeing 767 (you even got the aircraft wrong) Vg diagram floating around the net. As was said on another board, "The fact that the "need" is based on a whacko 9-11 conspiracy theory probably takes going to Boeing out of the picture." (I love that comment)

That is also why Cap't Bob had to make up his own with his own commentary and his own descriptive nomenclature on it.

So yes, it very likely does reflect airspeed and altitude regimes with regards to operating parameters, but that is as far as it goes. You will very likely not see the Boeing-produced Vg diagram on these pages unless someone who *does* have a copy of a Boeing 767 flight envelope manual document violates about a half dozen or a dozen industry security regulations and makes themselves liable for corporate espionage charges.

Cap't Bob comment on this board a few months ago of "When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period." really is one of the absolute dumbest things ever uttered in the history of the Internet, and to keep himself from looking even dumbers than he is (impossible) because he never recanted or repudiated that idiotic statement, he has to kludge together this basement-created Vg diagram with his own lables claiming "IF YOU FLY HERE YOUR PLANE WILL BREAK!!!@!@@"

It has been pointed out ad nauseum and over and over and over again (but I repeat myself) that Cap't Bob's lable in the far right edge of the envelope of this home-made diagram, "Structural Failure", is not even close to what Boeing says : "normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured". Sorry, but there is a huge delta...a Grand Canyon of a delta....between "Structural Failure" occuring when you exceed Vmo/MMo and "normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured". If Cap't Bob had put "Structural Failure...or perhaps not" he would have been more accurate, but we have proven and documented that Balsamo and his PfT "experts" do not think much of accuracy and attention to detail.

Let me give you a "Q"-tip....the clown car of stupidity that is PfT and their "Top Gun Experts" is best taken for what it really is - some of the best internet entertainmnet there is out there. If you want to suck up to Cap't Bob and his merry band of "Experts", feel free. You just add to the mirth.
edit on 15-2-2012 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Numerous Boeing airliners have exceeded Mach in a dive , which is far outside the performance envelope,

The aircraft survived - though with some damage caused by attempting to halt the dive

TWA 841

en.wikipedia.org...(1979)

China Airline 006

en.wikipedia.org...

Now you can continue to claim that aircraft can not exceed their performance envelope - in which case can
join Capt Bob and his clown car of stupid.....



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


"normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured"

That comment was made in reference to performance in a fricken flight simulator! You really think I am an idiot. I am not really even into this stuff much anymore, but damn.

So after all this, the OS loyalists FINALLY admit that Rob's figures are probably accurate. Thank you. Now see, that wasn't so hard, was it?

The deal here folks is that we are being asked to determine whether 77's maneuvers and airspeed were SO FAR OUT of acceptable flight envelope parameters, that it could not have possibly BEEN a stock 757.

Rob's opinion on how far out of envelope 77 was?

That's not just "pushing the envelope", that is considered extreme absurdity in aviation.

And he has backed this up with a lot of very pertinent references. You know where to go to see them, readers.

The OS people maintain that it is not, and that 77 could have indeed endured these stresses to make it to the Pentagon.

And there is where we sit. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, and at the mercy of experts. Through all the fluff and the vitriol, that is exactly where this is at. I hope I have helped to bring this down to a pinpoint, at least.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
See, when it came right down to it, you will not admit, NO MATTER WHAT, that the V-G diagram P4T prepared is INDEED accurate, even if they used another template to plot the figures.

I advise readers to note that there appears to be a Q-unit agenda going on here, and not genuine debate with facts. They can't even produce a V-G plot for a 757 on their own. All they want to do is get YOU the reader to disbelieve ANYTHING Rob says.
When Rob himself has admitted to mistakes and retracted those mistakes.

If I were readers, I would completely disregard ANYTHING this band of Q-Unit trolls is trying, miserably, to say. Get a real pilot in your group and call me.


In case it hasn't dawned on you...and it apparently hasn't...this supposed "band of Q-trolls" have shown lists of eyewitness accounts AS WELL AS photographs of aircraft wreckage strewn all over the Pentagon lawn AS WELL AS videos of planes flying almost ground level. That doesn't even take into consideration all the other evidence, from the flight recorder recovered to passenger effects showing it was indeed flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. In response, the only thing I've seen from the conspiracy bunch is insanely intricate charts and formula that 99% of people can't make heads or tails out of that only has "I'm a pilot so who are you to question me" excuses backing them up. It would be one thing if you could point out tangible flaws in their argument, but when you instead issue demands that everyone else needs to disregard everything your opponents say regardless of what it is, all your'e really doing is admitting you're LOSING this debate.

I would advise readers to remember that the motto of ATS is to deny ignorance, and to deny ignorance it necessarily means we need to listen to both sides to consider which one has the better credibility, rather than mindlessly swallow what one side says over the other. Your desperate plea of "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" didn't work on Dorothy so it certainly isn't going to work on anyone else.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Balsamo did not say that. He claimed that as soon as a plane passed the red zone on his diagram then it would instantly break apart.

Forget for a moment that he made the diagram, that the x axis doesn't make sense as plotted, and that he misleadingly labeled the 'structural failure' portion of it. Do you honestly think it likely that a plane instantly self destructs when it reaches that line? Does that sound right to you?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I am not qualified to MAKE that assessment, so I have no opinion. All I know is that they believe the observed performance exceeds the failure points to such a degree that it is very suspicious.

But then again I am not the one trying to take on an organization of real pilots- you people are.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Okay. So even ignoring the myriad problems with the diagram you're willing to take at face value Balsamo's claim that aeroplanes fall out of the sky as soon as they hit the edge of their VMO? Even when Boeing's own diagrams don't, as you acknowledge yourself, claim this.

You're being absurdly generous to Balasmo, to the point where you're ready to misquote him to put a positive spin on his claims. He isn't saying what you are - that there is some suspicion surrounding the performance of a plane for a few seconds operating outside its VMO. In fact he is claiming that it is impossible for a plane to operate for any length of time over that red line. Why are you willing to alter what he said to make it sound better?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Balsamo did not say that. He claimed that as soon as a plane passed the red zone on his diagram then it would instantly break apart.

Forget for a moment that he made the diagram, that the x axis doesn't make sense as plotted, and that he misleadingly labeled the 'structural failure' portion of it. Do you honestly think it likely that a plane instantly self destructs when it reaches that line? Does that sound right to you?


In documented support of this post:

A Pan AM 707 flying Paris – NY encountered CAT and began a dive to deck. Recovery occurred at 4.5 g’s (limit 3.75 g’s). This aircraft operated outside its "design limits"

In 1965 an outboard engine of a 707 exploded, destroying 25’ of wing. Plane circled around and landed. The aircraft exceeded its max landing weight because it could not dump fuel yet it landed safely. This event obviously meant the aircraft was operating outside of its "design limits".

Also in 1965, a 707 collided with a Connie at 11,000 and lost 35’ of wing. – a/c landed safely. This aircraft was obviously operating outside its "design limits".

767 static test aircraft subjected to test loads – the fuselage broke before the wings did.

EasyJet 737 on a customer demonstration flight profile, entered into a 21,000 fmp dive at observed speed of above 440 indicated. A/C recovered (Vmo was exceeded by 100 knots). This aircraft was obviously operating oustide of its "design limits"

Concorde had an MMO of 2.04, but the certification aircraft went up to M 2.23. Those 2 aircraft were operated outside their "design limits".

Aloha Flight 243, losing 18 feet of its upper fuselage while in flight at 24,000, returning to land safely. This aircraft *obviously* operated outside of its "design limits".

According to Balsamo and his "experts", every single one of those aircraft should have crashed and burned the *instant* they exceeded their "design limits".

There are obviously many more stories of aircraft that ended up operating "outside their design limits" and returned to land safely. It is not simply the experienced aircrew that saved these aircraft. The robust and multiple degress of built-in and designed safety margins allowed these aircraft to exceed their design envelope, for whatever reason, and safety return to earth.

The fact that a 757 or 767 aircraft exceeded their design speeds/limits in straight and level flight and remained in one piece, at least up until impact, is not remarkable in the least. Impressive, I would say, but not remarkable. Balsamo's claim that "when an aircraft hits its "design limit", it breaks. Period" remains the epitaph on the headstone of a dead and failed and discredited conspiracy organization that lacks any and all credibility in any professional aviation sense whatsoever.

Edited to add: Every single one (with the noted exception to follow) of the aircraft listed above were STOCK/Off-The-Production-Line aircraft. The Concorde aircraft were certification aircraft and did not enter service because of the unknown degradation of service life by exceeding their MMO, but the other certification Concorde aircraft did indeed enter scheduled passenger service.
edit on 15-2-2012 by trebor451 because: addition



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


I want you to show me where Rob is making, or made that claim- because from everything I am reading, he is not making that claim that the second it hits Vd the thing flies apart.

Show me the claim please.


I would like to make it clear that one knot over Vd does not guarantee structural failure. All it means is that you are now a test pilot flying in what is defined as the Structural Failure zone.


That is a direct quote from Rob.
edit on Wed Feb 15th 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 




The deal here folks is that we are being asked to determine whether 77's maneuvers and airspeed were SO FAR OUT of acceptable flight envelope parameters, that it could not have possibly BEEN a stock 757.


Rob is wrong. Specifically to American 77, its airspeed excursion beyond Vmo was very brief in duration. Up until the throttles were shoved forward, and the straight-in run up Columbia Pike was begun, at NO TIME did AAL 77 exceed any flight envelope parameters.


Rob's opinion on how far out of envelope 77 was?

That's not just "pushing the envelope", that is considered extreme absurdity in aviation.



Sorry, but Rob Balsamo has made such absurd claims in the past, the credibility is in the basement. Near the center of the Earth, it's dropped so low. He knows he's wrong (would be my guess) but must keep up this charade, partly because of all that he's invested in it, and partly because it is what he apparently doesn't mink being known for (a fool), because there is a "Gravy Train" aspect to the so-called "9/11Truth Movement".

Just look at how many entertainers make a living from playing a fool....and are devoid of embarrassment.....Jerry Springer, Rush Limbaugh, and every late-night TV pitchman ("Only on TV!! Buy the ShamWow!!")....et cetera.



And he has backed this up with a lot of very pertinent references. You know where to go to see them, readers.


He has backed up nothing, in reality......he uses double-speak, distraction, and irrelevant information to "appear" valid, but to actual airline pilots and other aviation professionals (**) his attempts are laughable, at best.

(**) Real ones, not "Kool-aid" drinkers.

When called out on his glaring mistakes, the only tactic he left in is arsenal is repeat, repeat, repeat (trotting out the same discredit "data"), and of course at his own site, he pulls out the "Administrator" hammer, which he can wield contrary to his own "T&Cs", with impunity.

He is unstable, and inconsistent.....tossing "bans", and of course before that, usually rude and snide comments first.....(contrary to the "manners" that he demands from others)....the snideness and sarcasm design to play to his audience of sycophants.


How many times must the FDR video of AAL 77 be played? Everyone can see clearly (and count the seconds) where the point occurs of the Vmo speed excursion.

One ALSO can see that his "Vg Diagram" (Transport Category airplanes do not have such simplistic charts and graphs) is irrelevant in any case, because the "MEAT" and intent of the Vg Diagram as a training aid is to illustrate the damaging effects of excessive G-loads....coupled with airspeed.

American 77 experienced very normal G-load factors (in the vertical axis) throughout the entire flight. At MOST, in a sustained turn at a 35° angle of bank, the G-load is 1.2 Gs.

Here is a calculator online:

www.csgnetwork.com...

(Do not feel intimidated, it has a lot more information than we need.....ALL we have to find is the G-load in the turn. The angle of bank in a steady-rate turn is the only determining factor in the G-load. You can use any unit of airspeed in the upper box, the angle is all that is important for the G result).


In a descending turn, as well.....often the g-loads are even lesser....depends on what direction of force the pilot is applying to the controls.

For instance, in a level steady-rate turn, the G-load is constant for the bank angle. IF you relax the back pressure on the elevators, the nose will lower, and the G-load will lessen momentarily. Once you re-establish stability, in this case now you are descending, as long as it's a constant rate, the turning G-load goes back to where it was.

If, alternatively, you decide to level, or even climb in the, the changes in G-load will be slight (for the same constant angle, again)....but will always re-stabilize...and re-coordinate. It is harder to describe than to just DO, and you feel it (the effect of your control movements) instinctively. You likely have even felt it when a passenger, if one is paying attention.


More reading: Bank Angle and G's ---- AersopaceWeb.org


Perhaps if you have a B'Day coming up, you can ask someone for an "Introductory Flight Lesson" as a gift...and go actually do it, with a Flight Instructor.

Many local airports offer this:

Here's a site with several options, in the California area (don't know where you are): www.xperiencedays.com...

(From this simple Google search


Here, this video someone recorded of their own experience (we all love videos, right??):



SO you see, it's even international in scope...the above is in the Netherlands.


(Gee...back in my day, we never bothered with those bulky headsets....just shouted to each other over the engine noise!! LOL. Communications better with those headset/boom mic set-ups.....but, worked fine without them before. It's a conspiracy, probably, to sell the dern things .....)


edit on Wed 15 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by trebor451
 


I want you to show me where Rob is making, or made that claim- because from everything I am reading, he is not making that claim that the second it hits Vd the thing flies apart.

Show me the claim please.


I would like to make it clear that one knot over Vd does not guarantee structural failure. All it means is that you are now a test pilot flying in what is defined as the Structural Failure zone.


That is a direct quote from Rob.
edit on Wed Feb 15th 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)


Here. Response 65.

Its nice that Cap't Bob qualified his statement above, but that is not what he was saying in June of 2010:


Obwon: Also, when a craft exceeds it's design limitations, how long can it be expected to survive?



Cap't Bob: Again, it's not so much duration rather that when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

Keeping it simple, how long can you hold a pencil at its breaking point? You cant, because it already broke. Its called a breaking point for a reason.


It remains one of the singular most idiotic statements I have ever seen on the internet. Bar none.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by trebor451
 


I want you to show me where Rob is making, or made that claim- because from everything I am reading, he is not making that claim that the second it hits Vd the thing flies apart.


He may perhaps have altered his story now. But I participated in an extraordinarily drawn-out thread where he made exactly that claim, via one of his innumerable socks.

The question is, if the P4T story has now changed, and the plane was simply operating outside of its normal paramaters... so what? I'm not sure the pilots were that bothered about safety.
edit on 15-2-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Its nice that Cap't Bob qualified his statement above, but that is not what he was saying in June of 2010.


That's not qualifying trebor451, that is again, fraud, just like with the Vg diagram. "TrueAmerican" is using Pilotsfor911Truth slang, like "government loyalists" and so can not be expected to do anything but brown nose Balsamo, if it isn't Balsamo himself, under yet another one of his many socks.

Here's what Balsamo did, again undermining his expertise:

Before, 2010:



After, 2012



Since his edits do not leave a time stamp (he can do that because Balsamo is the moderator), nobody would have detected this fraud if it hadn't been noticed by us, it would have seemed like Balsamo had already 'clarified' it in 2010)

This man is not an expert, but a fraud, and he's monitoring threads like these to revise history to cover up blatant transgressions and idiotic blunders that undermine his alleged expertise and show him for what he really is: a charlatan and a con man.
edit on 15-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Fascinating stuff that he writes to qualify his statement in your second extract. Also amusing because it is literally wrong. He can blame "duhbunkers" all he likes, but the extract does literally mean what he says it doesn't. How it could be "cherrypicking and spinning" to point this out, I don't know.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join