NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[The Big Dog]

This IS his own thread, TAM. The topic is him and his convictions.

And yet when I pointed out that he had lied in this threadabout there being no South of Citgo witnesses, and asked him to address England, Madeline and Frank Probst, you and he refused to do so.

You claimed it belonged in it own thread, and have been dodging the question ever since like a coward.

Hypocrite much CE?

 

[beachnut]

This clearly isn't going to work...

You are right, your delusions about 911 are similar to your MLK conspiracy crap, so you might not be able to present reality based evidence.

Is there an idiotic conspracy theory you don't like? Pentagon Flyover, Thermite, MLK; is JFK on your list?
Why do you co-author an article with lies about MLK in it? You failed to check the evidence presented in the ridiculous conspiracy made up by Pepper; just like you do with 911 truth.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/info/92 How to tie MLK and 911, by Dwain Deets...

What evidence about 911 made you join the prestigious 11.2G Balsamo bad math club, pilot for truth (p4t)?

Why did you endorse what are the dumbest team in history, CIT and their flyover nonsense? How can you ignore RADAR, FDR, and DNA which make the flyover the dumbest nut case idea in history?


AE, Gage, is cool, he is making money presenting lies, hearsay, and idiotic nonsense. Why did you join his club? Is he paying you? Is this like Amway, some pyramid of expert speakers paid by Gage to ramp up donations?

I see you talk at schools! How can you spoon out these lies to students and mislead people? Not what I expect from someone who worked at NASA.

Deets, where is your evidence? Wait, you don't need evidence you can just talk and mislead people with BS.

"It actually kind of makes it exciting that we are living in a time when information is being sought out independent of the mainstream by thousands of people; conclusions are being reached, possibly, that the corporate owners of the mainstream media and the banks and really don't want the public to know," Deets said at the presentation.

On 911 issues, what is it the media, banks don't want us to know? A list?

Deets has been spreading lies on Campuses over a year; lies with no supporting evidence; what is that called? http://media.www.sdcitytimes.com/me....Club.On.Campus.Seeks.911.Truth-3775626.shtml

 

[dadeets]

Explain why you think UA175 couldn't have been going 560 MPH, as NIST estimated from image correlation on videos, and NTSB cross-verified against radar tracks.

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

 

[dadeets]

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

Let me insert the word "equivalent"

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the equivalent airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

 

[DGM]

Now was that so hard?

 

[Dog Town]

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge).

NO! Not the never happened before canard. REALLY?

Thank you for an answer anyway, Mr, Deets.

 

[beachnut]

Let me insert the word "equivalent"

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the equivalent airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

You are wrong, Flight 175 was at 510 knots. How do you explain why you are wrong. RADAR and video prove 175 was going fast, and RADAR proves it was the one and only Flight 175 with real passengers! How can you be wrong? lol, because you offer zero evidence; you only support your claim with talk.

I have flown over Vmo at low altitude and fellow pilots have too in Boeing jets. The worse thing that happen was loss of skin under the leading edge.

Nothing stops a 767/757 from flying 510 knots at sea level. You are wrong, this is only .86 MACH which is a valid speed at altitude, but at low level to have the airframe live a long time, you have to stay below Vmo 350 to 360 KCAS.

So why can we pilots take Boeing jets 100 knots over Vd? Because it works.

A 747 was over MACH 1, it survived and landed safely. What happen with your failed numbers? percent? lol

You support your claim with talk, I support with actual flights above Vmo. You could call it flight tests, with only minor damage.

The WTC towers are 207 feet wide, the same size of a runway; this is not a small target, it is an easy target except for the pilots for truth who claim they can't hit targets the size of runways; kind of scary if they are real pilots.

 

[carlitos]

Mr. Deets,

Pulling three numbers out of thin air is bad.

Multiplying them together is worse.

Are you familiar with error analysis^WP?

 

[Sabretooth]

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

I have a question, Mr. Deets:

What flight characteristics are you basing this theory on? The top speed for a Boeing 757 is well documented to over 600 mph. And, IIRC, the rate of decent was approximately 3,000 fpm...which is also well within the flight envelope. What about those statistics makes the intentional crash of FL77 improbable?

 

[R.Mackey]

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

So, basically, your whole claim is an Appeal to Probability logical fallacy.

That's insufficient.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

Let's not say. Do you have any reason at all to think it's 1 chance in 10? Or did you just make that up?

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

Incorrect. Egypt Air 990 did not break up in flight. It lost its engines only. And it only lost those because of an extreme high-G maneuver in an attempt to arrest an extreme dive brought about by fighting in the cockpit.

So we know this made-up probability is wrong.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

Lack of control is not suspected that far below Mmo. And the target is demonstrably not difficult for even untrained pilots to hit. The terrorists were trained.

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

You're just pulling numbers out of thin air. But even were that not the case, even you would admit a reasonable chance that it is possible.

But you claimed that it is not possible.

Try again.

 

[T.A.M.]

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

Have there been instances of planes of this type flying close to 100 knots over their dive speed, that broke apart to say that it can't be done, or is it just a theoretical improbability, or limitation of the engine/aircraft? How far over the max dive speed can a plane of this type be able to go, and why? What are the inhibiting factors?

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

See Mackey's answer.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

see Mackey's answer.

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

Have there been instances of planes of this type flying close to 100 knots over their dive speed, that broke apart to say that it can't be done, or is it just a theoretical improbability, or limitation of the engine/aircraft? How far over the max dive speed can a plane of this type be able to go, and why? What are the inhibiting factors?

While we're waiting, I'll give you the correct answer. There are no examples of a 767 breaking up in flight due to any reason at all, including overspeed. ETA: There was one early 767 break-up in flight caused by a thrust reverser deploying during cruise. See Lauda Air 004. That's the only one. There are no examples of Boeing 767's failing in any way due to overspeed.

In the first stages of Egypt Air 990's descent, it vastly exceeded its Mmo (or Mach, max operating) yet (a) did not break up, and (b) retained enough control authority that it actually pulled out of that dive. So it was both intact and fully controllable in a flight regime much more challenging than that experienced at any time by UA 175.

The biggest danger of overspeed is loss of control. That's a compressibility issue. UA 175 only got up to 0.74 Mach, well below its Mmo of 0.86 and nowhere near enough for compressibility to cause lack of control. Egypt Air 990 reached 0.99 Mach and remained controllable. We know for a fact the Boeing 767 can do it.

The other danger is airframe stress due to dynamic pressure and turbulence. At low altitude this is a concern and UA 175 was above its normal operating range, but again, Egypt Air 990 exceeded UA 175's speed by an estimated 80 MPH at low altitude and did not break up until impact.

Read the report on Egypt Air 990 here: http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2002/aab0201.htm

I didn't really expect much better from Mr. Deets, but I'll wager the Truthers did.

 

[DGM]

So Red, CE and MM, What do you think about the quality of Mr Deets' response?

Remember be honest, you are "truthers".

 

[funk de fino]

I believe the last thing most people would accuse me of is not responding Al.

MM

You have ignored this twice. Try it.

How were the ATC guys duped into seeing the radar track dissappear at the Pentagon? How did the military do that?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

What, would you say, is the probability of a 747 doing this and surviving?

Quite slim huh? A little bit outside of its design parameters?

Woof!

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

It's simple, It couldn't be north of the Citgo. It goes against all the physical evidence. Next question.


Or are you going to show everyone there was "in on it"?

Exactly my point.

Therefore, any physical evidence supporting a known-to-be-false, south of Citgo flightpath, should not be there.

The only logical explanation is that the contradictory evidence must be planted evidence.

MM

No, it's not, MM. A more logical explanation would be: barring physical evidence that corroborates the testimony (especially of layman witnesses interviewed long after the fact), that the witnesses were wrong.
On your way home today, stop and ask 10 people on the street, at random, which way is North. See how many get it right.

On the one hand you've got scores of witnesses who said a jetliner hit the Pentagon, wreckage from the aircraft including bodies of the passengers and crew retrieved from the site, photographs of clearly identifiable aircraft wreckage taken shortly after the incident, radar records, FDR recordings that all corroborate a plane hitting the Pentagon.

On the other, you've got 10 or so witnesses near the site, who think the plane might have come from a different direction. That's it.

If this was a murder/bank robbery and on the one hand I had dozens of witnesses who reported the criminals to be armed with handguns, wearing ski masks and heading up the street in a brown sedan, backed up with videos from the bank, and spent handgun cartridges found next to the teller's window, followed up with a Coroners report that the slain teller's COD was massive trauma due to gunshot wounds from a handgun, and on the other hand I had six witnesses who defintively stated that the robbers were armed with bazookas, wearing gorilla masks, and headed down the street in a bright green van, I would come to the conclusion that the most likely scenario involved hand guns, ski masks, and a brown sedan heading up the street.
It is the most logical explanation, despite what the six witnesses believed.

And by the way, it's nice to see you've peeked out from under the bed again. Got that theory (with evidence) ready yet?

 

[beachnut]

The reason for questioning the 560 MPH is based on probability.

Probability? Not research?

1. Probability of being able to fly 100 knots over the design dive speed, given no precedent for any plane ever having done that (to my knowledge). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

Not correct; the probability of Deets using reality based facts instead of BS based on ignorance, zero.

2. Probability of being able to fly well beyond the airspeed where the same type aircraft broke up in flight (Egypt Air #990). Let’s say, 1 chance in 10.

Oops, zero again. 990 broke up when it hit the ocean. Ouch, reading the accident report would help break the record of zero.

3. Probability of being able to control the airplane sufficiently at that high speed to strike a relatively small target (again, for that high speed). Again, say, 1 chance in 10.

What speed do Boeing Jets suddenly become uncontrollable? Small target? The tallest buildings in NYC? Small targets?

Joint probability (Flt 175) was actually flying that fast is 0.1 X 0.1 X 0.1 = 0.001

Math, you can help Balsamo with math as one of his CORE member of pilots for truth. You realize Balsamo admits he can't hit buildings but the terrorists hit 3 buildings; you hooked up with failed pilots, who can't fly as good as terrorists; albeit crashing into buildings is not skill sought after by airlines.

 

[dadeets]

So, basically, your whole claim is an Appeal to Probability

Let's not say. Do you have any reason at all to think it's 1 chance in 10? Or did you just make that up?

What number to you propose?

Incorrect. Egypt Air 990 did not break up in flight. It lost its engines only. And it only lost those because of an extreme high-G maneuver in an attempt to arrest an extreme dive brought about by fighting in the cockpit.

So we know this made-up probability is wrong.

We know for sure Egypt Air and Boeing did not agree on this. Part of EA's argument is Boeing was analyzing flight responses outside their published flight data that was only valid inside the flight envelope. EA also maintained there were portions of the flight after it was outside the approved flight envelope where the pitch response of the airplane was consistent with a missing right elevator. Their actual statement was, " (4) the pitch and roll motions recorded during the last 15 seconds of FDR operation were 'much closer to the expected aircraft performance if the right elevator is missing.'"

NTSB gave their overall assessment, finding on the side of Boeing, arguing the two pilots were working at cross purposes on their two respective control yokes. This is as far as NTSB went. I wasn't able to find where they said anything about the possibility that the right elevator may have been missing.

I think a prudent person would take into account this flight data that may support the loss of a control surface during flight beyond the flight envelope.

Lack of control is not suspected that far below Mmo. And the target is demonstrably not difficult for even untrained pilots to hit. The terrorists were trained.

And what demonstration would suggest showing the target would not be difficult to hit? I have tried to think of a demonstration that would put to bed that issue. I haven't thought of any.

I did do a calculation comparing the included angle at the pilot's location encompassing a 210' wide tower when 2 sec out from striking the tower. It turns out to be 7 deg.

Then, I looked at a 150' wide runway where a 767 pilot has a 7 deg included angle when at approach speed. The question, how far out in time from touchdown is the pilot? Answer: 4.8 sec.

This says, the pilot heading to the tower has less than half the time to make corrections (at the same included angle) as a pilot landing on a runway at approach speed.

You're just pulling numbers out of thin air. But even were that not the case, even you would admit a reasonable chance that it is possible.

But you claimed that it is not possible.

Try again.

No, I never said it was not possible. I said it was improbable.

 

[beachnut]

...
We know for sure Egypt Air and Boeing did not agree on this. Part of EA's argument is Boeing was analyzing flight responses outside their published flight data that was only valid inside the flight envelope. EA also maintained there were portions of the flight after it was outside the approved flight envelope where the pitch response of the airplane was consistent with a missing right elevator...

But Egypt Air is wrong because the FDR proves it. Plus, the disagreement has nothing to with the fact 990 exceed speeds you say are impossible without breakup. You bring up BS about an elevator, proved wrong from the FDR; you failed to comprehend why Boeing is correct, it is the FDR which shows the elevator did not fail.

If you understood FDRs, you would not endorse CIT.

But even if an elevator failed, EA says due to manufacturing defect, not in-flight breakup; what is your point?

 

[beachnut]

...

And what demonstration would suggest showing the target would not be difficult to hit? I have tried to think of a demonstration that would put to bed that issue. I haven't thought of any.

I did do a calculation comparing the included angle at the pilot's location encompassing a 210' wide tower when 2 sec out from striking the tower. It turns out to be 7 deg.

Then, i looked at a 150' wide runway where a 767 pilot has a 7 deg included angle when at approach speed. The question, how far out in time from touchdown is the pilot? Answer: 4.8 sec.

This says, the pilot heading to the tower has less than half the time to make corrections (at the same included angle) as a pilot landing on a runway at approach speed....

what?


No wonder you don't think anyone can hit a target, you have no idea how to do it. What is the 7 degree BS; total nonsense, I understand what you think you are doing, but it is BS.

The plane becomes more stable at high speed. Why is it harder to aim? Have you flown?

Flying a clean jet at high speed is easy to line up, 3 first time flights in heavy jets prove it on 911. Hani almost hit the ground, but he hit the "small" largest office building in the world.

The 7 degree BS is nonsense. A pilot lines up with the centerline of the runway, electronically, or visually at distances as far as 6 miles. We maintain center line from 6 miles in at fractions of angles; 7 degrees off course is grounds for being unqualified. There is no probability involved with hitting the runway, it is 100 percent, or you flunk.

Aiming at the WTC has no course to maintain, hitting a target as large as the WTC towers is easier than landing on runway, there is no line up on course required.

If aiming at the WTC you drift, you don't have to correct to a course, you aim again. There is no course to maintain. When landing on a runway, we have to maintain a course to fractions of a degree to be headed down the runway on course at touchdown, on centerline, much harder than hitting a part of a building. This is why idiot terrorists, trained pilots better than p4t, were able to hit the WTC towers, it was 10 times easier than having to land.

NO, not 10 times, it was 360 times easier since you could pick any approach angle to the towers you wanted and could change it constantly as you HOME in on your target.

When you land you have to get on course, hitting the WTC and the Pentagon was too easy. Fewer pilots would wash out of pilot training if they never had to maintain a course and land on centerline, HEADED down the runway centerline.


If you can fly a dirty jet and get near the runway, a clean fast jet is easier to fly on a day like 911, a near perfect weather day. Terrorists beat you this time; why do you apologize for them?