Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

page: 60
20
<< 57  58  59    61 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


An amateur pilot wouldn't know how to keep a damaged plane airborne. It would have taken all the skill a professional pilot had to bring home those damaged planes.


And sure enough, AA 77 crashed a few seconds later.




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
And ThePostExaminer/OneSliceShort:

I noticed Balsamo's little Core i7/Commodore 64 analogy at his little forum.

What Balsamo is saying is roughly analogous to the following:

A Commodore 64 cannot cope with data generated at its own clock frequency.

(Or: a simpler analogy for simpler minds: your brain is incapable of processing the words you speak fed back through your own ears)

Balsamo is implying that magical ground particles emit fairy tale radio waves which increase in frequency resolution the faster a plane travels.

Riddle me this, geniuses: why is the height in the RA signal reception interval formula multiplied by 2?

The only reason I showed you the formula... is because this is a formula well known to RA designers, and it puts the kibosh on the notion that the plane can 'outrun' the radar reflection for any clueless P4T acolyte who might be delusional enough to believe that. Can't hurt to mention it, can it? Read carefully: The RA circuitry itself determines the volume of data per time unit it gets back. And it is constant.

Are you falling for this bollocks OSS? No wonder you're so mentally captivated by these fast-talking acronym littering charlatans. You're unable to discern the verisimilitude of the pseudo-authoritative garbage you're being spoonfed.

Until you learn how a radio altimeter really works, you'll accept Balsamo quoting a TSO from the sixties (!) describing the conditions under which test flights were flown, as if it represents a ground speed reference for modern radio altimeter limitations. (Which Balsamo boasts, are 'exceeded' by the LRA 900... wow, who woulda thunk it!
)

Unbelievable. Or maybe not.

OSS: notice how Balsamo did not answer all your questions. Ask yourself why.
edit on 5-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I want Cimino to post LRRA circuitry schematics and explain in great detail just how, in his words, "it gets behind".

Remember, it takes two parties to be conned by P4T. The con and the contwat.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Is all of this because Balsamo keeps repeating the "330 fps" criteria as if it's some sort of upper limit of ability for a Radar Altimeter???!


And, people just lap up his nonsense?

The RA works with GPWS too.....at all speeds.

So, this begs the question: Is Balsamo that ignorant of aviation, and the airplanes he flies and has had experience in? OR ---- does he simply cherry-pick little data-sets that suit the tale and con-job he is weaving and pulling in order to keep his "reputation" as leader of a cult intact?

Sorry, that was rhetorical of course........



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I don't think we'll be hearing from OSS much anymore. The RA issue is above his pay grade, and neither Balsamo nor Cimino can bail him out of this one with more sciolist gibberish.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
And sure enough, AA 77 crashed a few seconds later.


Conveniently exactly where they wanted it to. Normally an uncontrollable plane doesn't crash where the pilot wants it to.


When a plane stalls it's not like a car, you can't just brake and turn the wheel. If they stalled the plane anywhere on its approach, it would have been forced into the ground long before it hit the pentagon. At the supposed speed of 500mph, at a few feet above the ground, would make handling of the plane almost impossible. 500 mph would create massive lift at ground level which the pilot would have to compensate for by pushing the stick all the way forward making it very unstable to control pitch and yaw. Trying to point the nose in a certain direction would be extremely difficult, and they had only seconds to react to all this.

Double


edit on 1/9/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

The plane was damaged/fluttering not long before it struck the Pentagon so keeping it airborne may not have been the problem you perceive.


What proof do you have it was damaged? Damage is not really the problem though.


I defer to the professional pilots on whether the fly-by-wire systems on the aircraft and its structural integrity would have kept it from immediately falling out of the sky.


I think you are misunderstanding, it isn't the physical moving of control surfaces that is the problem, it's the amateur pilot not having the skill and experience to handle a stall. At 500mph, at ground level, the amateur pilot would have no time to react to a problem. Hitting light poles would have caused a problem. Trying to keep the plane from climbing and level would be a huge problem. Yet he managed a flight path pro's say would be hard.


So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

edit on 1/9/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Oh, and to add.....NOW I see the source of your disinformation....you cited it........the "P4T"......oh, dear...... (*** see below) ---



.....it's the amateur pilot not having the skill and experience to handle a stall.


A "stall"???

Sorry, but you seem to be over your head here, as regards flying.

I'm afraid you are attempting to "discuss" something that you lack proper knowledge and experience in. American 77 was never anywhere close to stalling.



At 500mph, at ground level, the amateur pilot would have no time to react to a problem. Hitting light poles would have caused a problem.


Hitting the light poles happened in the realm of split seconds' time frames. The leading edges of the wings took the brunt, and with the airplane's inertia and momentum, it just carried forward. It would not have immediately affected flight controls, the striking of the light poles. Any physical damage to the wings at the leading edge contact points wouldn't have cause mush in way of altered control feel, due to airfow disruptions....not in those very few seconds, and fractions of seconds.

Finally, the ONE case that could be argued is a loss of hydraulic fluid, IF a leading edge slat actuator or hydraulic fluid line was ruptured.....but there are a total of three independent hydraulic systems on the B-757. The leading edge SLATS, and the trailing edge FLAPS, are all operated solely from the LEFT hydraulic system. A total fluid quantity loss in just the LEFT system still leaves the two others, CENTER and RIGHT to provide full flight control authority to all the other flight controls.



In case you're interested, also hydraulic system reservoirs on large commercial jets are designed to retain a certain amount of quantity as "back-up", in the event of a system breach and fluid loss overboard. major leak will only drain the reservoir tank down to a certain level......and, then in that emergency, the small amount of remaining fluid is still there to go to alternate components, designed just for that purpose.

SO, on the B-757, even IF you lost the LEFT hydraulic system fluid quantity, the SLATS can still be extended because there's a dedicated little pump that only operates is this situation.....it's called the "PTU" (Power Transfer Unit), and the PTU's power comes from the RIGHT hydraulic system pressure. Also, in this scenario, the trailing edge FLAPS are now extended by using an electric motor back-up system. FLAPS usually only to about 2/3 of normal "full" position.... (well, 20° versus full @ 30°) .....this is procedure, because the electric motors are very slow, and extending FLAPS fully means they take too long to retract, if you have to abort the emergency landing for any reason......



(***)....this right here, is the lie from Balsamo:



So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots......


Flat out lie where he writes "Since we don't know bank angles or speed."

That IS a lie, since it's in the FDR. His speed was about 270 - 280 knots though out the descending turn. Bank angles varied, barely up to 35° a few times, in that right-hand turn.

This was all perfectly controllable, even for the most basic of skills a new or inexperienced pilot will possess, with just a few hours' of time.

Again, IF you are using "P4T" as a "source"???



Oh, and this part from "Cap'n Bob" makes me
too:


Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle.....


If you don 't realize how ludicrous that is, I can try to explain it to you.......


edit on Mon 9 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Conveniently exactly where they wanted it to. Normally an uncontrollable plane doesn't crash where the pilot wants it to.



Exactly where they wanted to? EXACTLY?

So what are you telling me here, ANOK? That Hanjour had "column 14" and a map of the location of "column 14" on the Pentagon façade on his lap while flying AA 77 into the Pentagon? Did he "plan" to clip the VDOT pole, trim a tree, slam into five light poles and a generator before stumbling into the Pentagon at an oblique angle? That totally unnecessary loop-de-loop over DC airspace, did that help his chances much?


Originally posted by ANOK
When a plane stalls it's not like a car, you can't just brake and turn the wheel. If they stalled the plane anywhere on its approach, it would have been forced into the ground long before it hit the pentagon. At the supposed speed of 500mph, at a few feet above the ground, would make handling of the plane almost impossible. 500 mph would create massive lift at ground level which the pilot would have to compensate for by pushing the stick all the way forward making it very unstable to control pitch and yaw. Trying to point the nose in a certain direction would be extremely difficult, and they had only seconds to react to all this.


For your information, no planer notions of AA 77 ground effect are mythical.

The article addresses Hanjour controllability too, and debunks it.

I would advise against "teaching" others about concepts you really don't understand.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Hitting light poles would have caused a problem.


This always makes me LOL to a robust and great degree whenever I see the Truthers throw this out here.

Claiming that a 180,000 lb jet airliner traveling at 450 miles per hour would feel anything more than a structural or aerodynamic hiccup (eyeblink, really) if it hit lamp posts designed to break away when a 2,500 lb car hit sit is really just another indication how silly these Truthers are and how much they really, *really* do not know about anything in the discussions about this.

Next thing you know you'll be hearing them claim the aircraft should have broken apart when it reached 1 knot over design speed! Bwahahahaha!!!!!!
edit on 11-1-2012 by trebor451 because: typo



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Well laugh on buddy. Look what happens when a car hits a light pole.






Enough force to cause damage to a car would be enough force to cause a plane to become uncontrollable to a novice pilot, who would not have the experience to handle such an event. Not saying it did, but it's just one piece of massive luck among many.

This also brings up another point, where's the damage?...



What about the my other points? You just pick the one you think you can laugh at and ignore the rest, typical. What was the point in you even replying?


edit on 1/11/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Good try. Image #3 was a concrete light pole. Other images may have had more involved than light poles or those that were not breakaways. In any case, an aircraft moving at ten times the speed of a car and that is orders of magnitude more massive, wouldn't notice said light poles unless an engine ingested one. Even at that, it wouldn't matter over the last few hundred yards.
The light poles are not barrage balloons.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by trebor451
 


Well laugh on buddy. Look what happens when a car hits a light pole.

Enough force to cause damage to a car would be enough force to cause a plane to become uncontrollable to a novice pilot, who would not have the experience to handle such an event. Not saying it did, but it's just one piece of massive luck among many.

This also brings up another point, where's the damage?...

What about the my other points? You just pick the one you think you can laugh at and ignore the rest, typical. What was the point in you even replying?


edit on 1/11/2012 by ANOK because: typo


Oh...believe me...I'm laughing! Comparing *any* car to a 90 ton airliner is the absolute apex of absurdity to start with, and thinking that a jet like a 757 would even hiccup when it hit those poles doubles-down on the ignorance of physics and aerodynamics.

Tell us....you think Hanjour was "controlling" the aircraft at that point? Really? He was "flying " the aircraft? "Controlling" it? Applying a little of the ol' stick-and-rudder action? He was a kamikaze. It was the extreme terminal phase of a 90-ton cruise missile at 450 knots. You really think a handful of street lights are going to deflect an aircraft traveling at....how fast? 750 feet per second? You people get funnier every day!

"...to become uncontrollable to a novice pilot". Hilarious...!
edit on 11-1-2012 by trebor451 because: take big honking picture out



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


ANOK has a habitual consistency of being wrong on most everything he posts about. He has repeatedly shown that he has no clue regarding physics at all.....NONE. However, you know what it's like trying to convince a "truther" that he's wrong...

Simply examining the FDR shows that Hanjour was just hanging on. He got into a PIO at one point and almost lost it, but he plowed on... That he actually hit where he wanted is a perfect "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". It's pretty difficult to miss a building as wide as the Pentagon... Doesn't take much skill at all to hit a a proverbial gigantic barn door.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I didn't notice where:


He got into a PIO at one point and almost lost it...


Pretty hard to do that in the 757, unless he was briefly confused by the lag in control response, just due to inertia.

He may have just been swapping ailerons left/right on the control wheel, over doing it there, but with little airplane response..... just damn sloppy and a rough ride in back...... if you saw it, know the time reference, I'll watch again?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Reheat
 


I didn't notice where:


He got into a PIO at one point and almost lost it...


Pretty hard to do that in the 757, unless he was briefly confused by the lag in control response, just due to inertia.

He may have just been swapping ailerons left/right on the control wheel, over doing it there, but with little airplane response..... just damn sloppy and a rough ride in back...... if you saw it, know the time reference, I'll watch again?


PIO was in pitch, not roll. It was somewhere on the run in after roll out of the large turn... I think it was around abeam the beginning of the Navy Annex. Sorry, I don't have a link to the time.... It appeared he just let go of the controls and it was resolved.... Start backward from impact and you'll find it...

ETA: If you're looking at the animation I don't think it shows up. It does show up in the control inputs in the raw file.
edit on 11-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
You guys are complete idiots if you think a plane can hit a 'breakaway' light pole and not receive damage, or even be moved off course enough for a novice pilot to not be able to handle it.

Find a pic of an object that hit a breakaway light pole that did not receive damage itself. Remember Newtons 3rd law, it applies here. Breakaway or not, there will be damage.

For example, the caption on this pic says, 'Twised 3 lumbar Vertebraes at 65 MPH hitting a breakaway light pole. I can still hear the glass shattering.' Please notice the car is damaged, and it hit sideways not straight on. Now imagine the force of a plane at 500mph, and don't forget Newtons 3rd law.

www.flickr.com...

edit on 1/11/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



ETA: If you're looking at the animation I don't think it shows up. It does show up in the control inputs in the raw file.


Ah, oh OK.....that will be interesting to hunt for, thanks.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


"Newton's Third Law"??

Tell us.....if you mounted a broom stick handle in a hole drilled for it, so that it was vertical.....and then swung a baseball bat at it.......do you expect the baseball bat (remember, IT is what's in motion and has inertia and momentum) to be severely deflected from its trajectory?

And, that example? We have nearly identical materials....just more mass (slightly more is all) with the bat versus the broom handle.


Spouting "Newton's Third Law" is silly, in these situation. As if someone doesn't understand the concept. The concept of "equal and opposite forces" is valid, but simplistic by itself. All the other Laws of motion have to be considered, as they work together.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Indeed. Equal and opposite forces does not mean equal or identical damage.

A concept surprisingly alien to many self-styled conspiracy juggling pseudo-physicists.

Nevertheless, there is a reason why Penny Elgas picked up that wing piece.
edit on 12-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
20
<< 57  58  59    61 >>

log in

join