NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[dadeets]

Balsamo misrepresents your position. I agree. What does that say about his credibility?

We are talking about the difference between 1/1,000 vs. zero.

Not a heck of a lot of difference.

 

[Disbelief]

We are talking about the difference between 1/1,000 vs. zero.

Not a heck of a lot of difference.

The 1/1000 is your made up number and has no basis in reality.

 

[T.A.M.]

We are talking about the difference between 1/1,000 vs. zero.

Not a heck of a lot of difference.

Even if we take your flawed approach to "the odds" of the plane hitting the Pentagon at the alleged speed...

if I offered a million dollar prize, and the odds were 1 in 1000, do you think most people would play? however, if I told them their odds were ZERO (ie that no one would win), who would play?

Seriously, man.

Please address our questions about your "pyroclastic flow" comment.

Thanks

TAM

 

[beachnut]

That statement using the "impossibility" word did not include me. When someone was ready to post this to 911blogger, I was asked if I agreed with that statement. I said I didn't. Thus, when it was posted to 911blogger, it was as a sub heading to a major heading, where the major heading used the "improbability" word.

You can't control the propaganda machine of 911blogger! There is strong evidence you failed to do realistic research on 911 issues. What say you? At least this time you listed the correct answer in your claims.

Balsamo makes this non-theory claim at his web site of failed pilots and real bad math.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation. (11.2g, 35g hockeystick balsamo)

I read your statement and you basically imply things but never commit to anything, nor do you use evidence to back your talk, only BS.

Please explain how you can join pilots for truth when they clear lie, as you explained here.

experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 (Deets)

This is a lie, why do you join liars who after tell lies say they offer no theories on 911, but why do they post lies?

One of your options on flight 175 is:

(4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target.

It is possible, but you include the small target nonsense.

And after having the correct answer, you endorse CIT. Explain why you hooked up with the CIT guys who made up the nonsensical flyover of Flight 77? How do you explain the FDR was found inside the Pentagon, a Pentagon damage from an aircraft verified in part by the kinetic energy damage done by 77. The impact damage is exactly what the KE of a 757 would do!. Explain why you support/endorse CIT big lie?

 

[carlitos]

Really, an ex-NASA anything should be smart enough not to:

a - Pull 3 numbers out of thin air.
b - Multiply them together to "prove" something.

Do better, please.

 

[The Big Dog]

We are talking about the difference between 1/1,000 vs. zero.

Not a heck of a lot of difference.

You don't think that there is a alot of difference between 1 chance out of 1000 and Zero?

That is unbelievable.

In fact shocking.

 

[beachnut]

We are talking about the difference between 1/1,000 vs. zero.

Not a heck of a lot of difference.

A number you made up. A moronic number based on nothing.

The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. (Deets)

1. It was a standard 767. The best this can be is a lie.

2. The RADAR was not compromised. The best this can be is a lie. The video verifies the RADAR speed. Best outcome, lie.

3. The NTSB was not wrong, the speed is verified by RADAR and video.

4. The correct answer with nonsense thrown it, the WTC towers are wider than many runways.

How can you be wrong, you got the right answer with a bunch of nonsense which can only be lies when you do the research. This is easier than the SAT.

Houston, we have a problem.

 

[carlitos]

You don't think that there is a alot of difference between 1 chance out of 1000 and Zero?

That is unbelievable.

In fact shocking.

I wonder what NASA's Mr. Deets would have said to the Morton Thiokol guys getting ready for the Challenger launch, if they said "O Ring failure? Meh, I give it one chance in a thousand."

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

A question for Mr. Deets,
As a NASA scientist, in your opinion, how important is the debate over how best to terra-form a planet outside of our solar system when there is no possible means to get there considering our present level of technology?

 

[RedIbis]

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

Mr. Deets,
As commendable as it is to calmly and professionally respond to this barrage, I recommend that you wait for a moderated thread. As you can see the tactic is not just misrepresenting your position but debate by committee. They will ignore and bury any of your pointed questions so the debunkers can create a false sense of victory. It would be much more effective to have you debate Mackey one on one so that he is forced to deal directly with your questions without all the accompanying bluster.
Just a thought,
Red

 

[Disbelief]

Mr. Deets,
As commendable as it is to calmly and professionally respond to this barrage, I recommend that you wait for a moderated thread. As you can see the tactic is not just misrepresenting your position but debate by committee. They will ignore and bury any of your pointed questions so the debunkers can create a false sense of victory. It would be much more effective to have you debate Mackey one on one so that he is forced to deal directly with your questions without all the accompanying bluster.
Just a thought,
Red

So, is it professional and commendable to make up numbers to support your cause as Mr. Deets has done?

I agree though, I would like to see a moderated thread and maybe Mr. Deets can complete a topic before starting with the shotgun approach he is utilizing so far.

 

[twinstead]

Being held to one topic at time is usually death for truthers; it ain't going to happen, Disbelief.

 

[The Big Dog]

Mr. Deets,
As commendable as it is to calmly and professionally respond to this barrage, I recommend that you wait for a moderated thread. As you can see the tactic is not just misrepresenting your position but debate by committee. They will ignore and bury any of your pointed questions so the debunkers can create a false sense of victory. It would be much more effective to have you debate Mackey one on one so that he is forced to deal directly with your questions without all the accompanying bluster.
Just a thought,
Red

Which was your favorite response?

1. Adopting the CIT No Planer theory

2. Misunderstanding what pyroclastic flow is

3. Not understanding the difference between the North facade of the building and the whole building.

4. thinking that there isn't a difference between Zero and 1/1000.

5. making up three numbers and MULTIPLYING them together?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Mr. Deets,
As commendable as it is to calmly and professionally respond to this barrage, I recommend that you wait for a moderated thread. As you can see the tactic is not just misrepresenting your position but debate by committee. They will ignore and bury any of your pointed questions so the debunkers can create a false sense of victory. It would be much more effective to have you debate Mackey one on one so that he is forced to deal directly with your questions without all the accompanying bluster.
Just a thought,
Red

Or, alternatively, refuse to present any line of argument at all. It seems to be the preferred approach of most truthers, although I've yet to see how it's supposed to convince anyone of anything.

Dave

 

[Sabretooth]

Mr. Deets:

How do you discount the flight paths of FL77 and FL175?

The rate of decent was 3,000 fpm and 4,000 fpm, respectively, for these flights...both well within the flight envelope for a 757/767. In addition, speeds of 600 mph+ is easily obtainable for both of these Boeing models.

What flight characteristics are you using to justify your opinion?

 

[R.Mackey]

Cleaning up some nonsense

What number to you propose?

In other words, you refuse to justify your guess that UA 175 had a "1 in 10" chance of surviving the brief overspeed.

Egypt Air 990 did. So did China Air 006 (a 747) as another poster reminded us. Furthermore, since UA 175 would have been nowhere near its thermal or Mach limit, the only real issue with overspeed is a brief period of higher than normal dynamic pressure and possibly vibration. These things eat up airframe life, but it only has to survive for about 20 seconds.

On that basis I'd guess the survival rate was more like 10 in 10.

But it doesn't matter. As long as you admit it could have been UA 175, and all the evidence says that it was UA 175, and there's no credible alternative to UA 175, any rational person willl conclude that it was.

I suggest you update your beliefs accordingly.

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.'" [...]

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.

No, no, this is a dodge. You said that EA 990 "broke up in flight." This is wrong. The debris fields prove this beyond any doubt. You made that up.

Egypt Air does not dispute either (a) a Boeing 767 can hold together well past its max operating speed, or (b) a Boeing 767 is controllable well past its max operating speed. What they dispute is the root cause of this particular accident, blaming it on a hypothetical actuator or similar failure instead of a suicidal pilot. This probably has something to do with the fact that if true, Boeing and not them would be liable. Regardless, everything about Egypt Air 990 supports the fact that Boeing 767's have enough performance to carry out UA 175's mission.

Again, you made up a bogus probability based on an incorrect understanding of history. Fix it, please.

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.

This rather surprises me. You should be aware that at DFRC, where you used to work, there are numerous cockpit simulators. (ETA: See photos here.) I've worked with the F/A-18, X-33, and Shuttle ones at various times in my career.

It would be no difficult thing to put untrained individuals in a suitable simulator and see whether they could hit a World Trade Center.

In fact, this experiment has already been done. Danish Dutch TV did exactly this, except with the much more challenging Pentagon as a target. Their test subject succeeded in 3 out of 3 trials.

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.

Except pilots do a whole lot better than just land somewhere on the runway. Their actual precision is about ten times greater. They rarely miss the center stripe by more than a few feet.

The terrorists just had to hit the WTC anywhere. It's easy.

Hence, your third probability is also completely made up, and based on faulty if not irrelevant reasoning to begin with.

We are talking about the difference between 1/1,000 vs. zero.

Not a heck of a lot of difference.

This is the Appeal to Probability fallacy in a nutshell. Whittle away at reality, then claim it can be totally neglected. Based on reasoning shown above to be total nonsense.

Embarrassing.

NIST crafted their explanation at a time when they maintained the building came down 40% slower than freefall. I won’t go into the explanation other to say it was a natural progression following what they called thermal expansion of a long girder, due to out of control office fires.

NIST changed their position on freefall just before issuing their final report. The final report said the building collapse included a stage having a 2.25 sec. free-fall drop extending 8 stories. However, they didn’t change their explanation to go with this new position on freefall.

You are no better versed in NIST than you are in flight science. The draft report also contained this "freefall" period, they merely didn't identify it because they didn't care. This part of the collapse is not remarkable. The only change they made was to highlight this feature after some reader comments got all excited about it.

Why I disagree with the NIST explanation -- During freefall, there must be simply a conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. There can’t be any energy going elsewhere, such as doing work by bending metal in the structure below. That means, the structure below must get out of the way abruptly. Explosives are the only way to do this in a steel-framed high rise.

I've bolded your error.

The buckling required for this "freefall" portion, which only affects some of the perimeter, takes place in the seconds before the "freefall." As NIST explains in thorough detail, an eight-story section of the lower perimeter, now unbraced and heavily loaded, buckles. This absorbs energy but leads to little vertical displacement. However, once buckled, those columns have almost no remaining strength, so the next phase is the "free fall."

That "free fall" by the way is approximate. Also it was only measured on one face, and rotation can artificially inflate the apparent downward velocity. You cannot say there was no energy dissipation during this period, only that it was relatively little. But that's what we already expected.

Totally ordinary.

The arguments against explosives are legion. Apparently you also believe in soundless, fireproof, undetectable explosives that create no shrapnel, triggered during the collapse -- not before it.

I am utterly unimpressed.

 

[Oystein]

...
It would be no difficult thing to put untrained individuals in a suitable simulator and see whether they could hit a World Trade Center.

In fact, this experiment has already been done. Danish TV did exactly this, except with the much more challenging Pentagon as a target. Their test subject succeeded in 3 out of 3 trials.

Dutch TV, IIRC.
(Just to show R.M. makes mistakes )

Except pilots do a whole lot better than just land somewhere on the runway. Their actual precision is about ten times greater. They rarely miss the center stripe by more than a few feet.
...

My fiddling with Flight Sims has taught me that hitting the runway is the easy part. Aligning with, so I don't skid off it after touchdown, it is the trickier part, requires some practice and is best done at low speeds.
But none of that was of concern to the hijackers. I hit any building I like at any speed and coming from any direction. not just 10 out of 10 times, but 100 out of 100 times. It's dead easy, Mr. Deeds. You should try it one day!

 

[R.Mackey]

Dutch TV, IIRC.
(Just to show R.M. makes mistakes )

Correct, everyone makes mistakes. What's important is what we do after learning of our mistakes.

I could claim that the Dutch are just a fiction made up by the Bilderburgers, or that Danish sometimes means Dutch in the California dialect, or claim that they don't have TV yet and the signal is actually coming from Scandinavia, it's all a big plot to start wars in Flanders, you know, Napoleon isn't really that short he just looks that way on CIA-manipulated videotapes...

... or I could just fix it. Thanks.

 

[tsig]

Or, alternatively, refuse to present any line of argument at all. It seems to be the preferred approach of most truthers, although I've yet to see how it's supposed to convince anyone of anything.

Dave

Preaching isn't supposed to convert the unconverted but to keep the converted happy by giving them plausible half truths and showing the masses that their leaders are the intellectual equal of the opposition.

 

[dadeets]

...the only real issue with overspeed is a brief period of higher than normal dynamic pressure and possibly vibration.

I’m surprised flutter didn’t come to your mind. It came to mine. Maybe we should ask some structural-dynamics engineers specializing in flutter, and ask them what they think the probability is that a 767 could fly 100 knots beyond its dive speed.

Egypt Air does not dispute either (a) a Boeing 767 can hold together well past its max operating speed, or (b) a Boeing 767 is controllable well past its max operating speed.

I’m talking about flying well beyond its DIVE speed. This already is well beyond its MAX OPERATING speed.

This rather surprises me. You should be aware that at DFRC, where you used to work, there are numerous cockpit simulators. (ETA: See photos here.) I've worked with the F/A-18, X-33, and Shuttle ones at various times in my career.

That’s right. I feel cockpit simulators are inadequate to assess this situation. Flying well beyond the validated aerodynamics data base gives me no confidence in a simulator. The vibrations in the cockpit, warning lights going off, etc., means the cockpit simulator would be completely inadequate, particularly for a novice pilot.

Their actual precision is about ten times greater. They rarely miss the center stripe by more than a few feet.

Wow! Is this ever made up. In fact, I can’t even figure out what it is saying. You are saying a novice pilot’s actual precision would be about ten times greater than, what? Or is that, an expert pilot’s precision is about ten times greater than, again, what? What are we comparing it to?

This is the Appeal to Probability fallacy in a nutshell. Whittle away at reality, then claim it can be totally neglected. Based on reasoning shown above to be total nonsense.

What? You must have completely misunderstood what I said. I didn’t claim it could be totally neglected. I said I wouldn’t accept the word “Impossible” in place of “Improbable.” Now you are arguing that I’m saying these two words are the same???

This part of the collapse is not remarkable.

A freefall drop of 8 stories is NOT remarkable??? -- I’m speechless.

I've bolded your error.

...this "freefall" portion, which only affects some of the perimeter,

and

That "free fall" by the way is approximate.

Have you looked at any of the videos? The “free fall” is indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity.