NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[R.Mackey]

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.

Again, it's already been done. EA 990, China Air 006.

I know all about flutter. It's a concern. But, again, we're only talking about 20 seconds here.

This is a classic hallmark of Irreducible Delusion. You've already made up your mind that you won't believe it no matter what, so you're casting about for new reasons to disbelieve. First it was threat of in-flight breakup. Then it was loss of control. Now it's flutter. You're making excuses rather than arguing in good faith.

It won't work.

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

Makes. No. Difference.

You claimed EA 990 broke up in flight. It did not. It survived higher Mach number and higher speeds than those experienced by UA 175. It proves the 767 can do it.

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.

All of that is included in some simulators.

If you want to get all hard core about it, those flying characteristics could be computed via CFD, and input into the sim. But that's not what you were griping about. You claimed it was their inexperience, and the small size of the Towers that made it impossible. Remember your attempted analogy to a runway? These factors are all quite adequately handled by even a common simulator.

And now, backed into a corner, you try to make a different excuse. Again, it won't work. You have no valid reason to doubt UA 175's speed. All you have is what's called Argument to Incredulity. And given your alleged background, you shouldn't even be incredulous.

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?

Try reading what I write, please. It's not a foreign language. You made a stupid argument that the Towers at that speed would appear smaller than a runway. But they don't have to hit the center of the Towers, as they do a runway. Your whole analogy is completely idiotic.

If you're hanging around with pilots that think the WTC was a difficult target, I hope you don't fly with them.

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???

You're the one who claimed "0.001" (your farsical, made up "probability") was practically the same as zero, not me.

Not very honest, are you?

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

Not if you have buckling over a length of eight stories, no.

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

Again, it matches our predictions.

You still haven't presented anything that a dozen other, utterly unqualified Truthers haven't come up with first. This is why I'm having no trouble at all with you.

 

[danrush]

An engineer with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center for more than 37 years

Oh kay......37 years in flight research...what quals this guy to be a specialist in demolition?

Ok every one....even though I have 25 years as a Non-Destructive Inspection Technician, I am now a bonified expert in bridge building, anyone want to drive over my upcoming creation?

 

[leftysergeant]

Ok every one....even though I have 25 years as a Non-Destructive Inspection Technician, I am now a bonified expert in bridge building, anyone want to drive over my upcoming creation?

Could you at least show us that you have completed a welding course and gotten at least a B in high school geometry?

 

[DGM]

Could you at least show us that you have completed a welding course and gotten at least a B in high school geometry?

As a designer he would not need to know how to weld, that's for us that build them. A (B) in geometry would be reassuring.

 

[leftysergeant]

As a designer he would not need to know how to weld, that's for us that build them.

Well, it helps if the designer has some idea how the welder is going to interpret the design.

I have been witness to some interesting and lively conversations between engineers and welders working in the shipyard of a fishing company in Tacoma.

Nice if the designers and welders have a common language.

 

[DGM]

Well, it helps if the designer has some idea how the welder is going to interpret the design.

I have been witness to some interesting and lively conversations between engineers and welders working in the shipyard of a fishing company in Tacoma.

Nice if the designers and welders have a common language.

Would be nice!

I'm a builder and I can't tell you how many times I've asked an architect or engineer if they were "high". (mostly the architects ).

Bottom line, they think it up we make it happen!

 

[Garb]

Would be nice!

I'm a builder and I can't tell you how many times I've asked an architect or engineer if they were "high". (mostly the architects ).

Bottom line, they think it up we make it happen!

Hey, don't be hating on architects, now.

 

[DGM]

Hey, don't be hating on architects, now.

No "hating" here! Architects convince my clients to build some of the bizarre **** that pays my bills.


ETA: About some of these "cantilevers" and "wide-open" spaces. Try holding them up in the air until the "systems" complete.

 

[Garb]

No "hating" here! Architects convince my clients to build some of the bizarre **** that pays my bills.


ETA: About some of these "cantilevers" and "wide-open" spaces. Try holding them up in the air until the "systems" complete.

I can only imagine at this point.

 

[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.

Mr Deets, you are now aware of 2 flights of commercial aircraft (China Air 006 and EgyptAir flight 990 ) that were subjected to dive over speed conditions and there are, at least, two more:

http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-08.pdf

Of these 4 instances that have been brought to your attention 3 where recoverable and the aircraft in question managed to continue flying and land, albeit with various degrees of damage. Of the one that crashed (EgyptAir flight 990 ), mostly intact with the exception of the left hand engine and according to the NSTB was at points in its dive over speed flight recoverable had it not been for the inputs of the First Officer.

One of these over speed conditions was intentional (the DC-8).

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.

No it didn’t, it shed the left hand engine the rest of the aircraft was mostly intact at time of impact.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2002/aab0201.htm

In light of these facts that, you admit, you were unaware of at the time of your posting are you now prepared to revise you opinion?

(you will note that I have left aside the fact that you haven’t justified, in anyway, the values you attached to your probability sum)

Woof!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Mr Deets, you are now aware of 2 flights of commercial aircraft (China Air 006 and EgyptAir flight 990 ) that were subjected to dive over speed conditions and there are, at least, two more:

http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR81-08.pdf

Of these 4 instances that have been brought to your attention 3 where recoverable and the aircraft in question managed to continue flying and land, albeit with various degrees of damage. Of the one that crashed (EgyptAir flight 990 ), mostly intact with the exception of the left hand engine and according to the NSTB was at points in its dive over speed flight recoverable had it not been for the inputs of the First Officer.

One of these over speed conditions was intentional (the DC-8).



No it didn’t, it shed the left hand engine the rest of the aircraft was mostly intact at time of impact.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2002/aab0201.htm

In light of these facts that, you admit, you were unaware of at the time of your posting are you now prepared to revise you opinion?

(you will note that I have left aside the fact that you haven’t justified, in anyway, the values you attached to your probability sum)

Woof!

PSA 1771 was also intact until impact with the ground despite traveling at 700 miles per hour at the moment of impact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771

 

[R.Mackey]

PSA 1771 was also intact until impact with the ground despite traveling at 700 miles per hour at the moment of impact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1771

Correct. There are a couple of other examples as well.

Bottom line, our "NASA Truther" appears to know almost nothing about commercial aircraft -- or if he did, he conveniently forgot it before he joined the Truth Movement.

I was quite right to decline a televised debate with this guy. What a waste of time that would have been.

 

[LashL]

This thread is a mess and requires some major clean up. It will be closed until that clean up can take place, and will re-open once that process is complete.

Posted By: LashL

 

[Locknar]

While the Mod Team continues to cull this thread, I have re-opened it and placed it in Moderated Status.

Posted By: Locknar

 

[DGM]

I do have a question if Mr Deets ever comes back. I was wondering why if it's so obvious the flight paths were impossible why no word from Boeing? OK, if they were in on it how about MD, Bombardier or Airbus? I would think the Airlines and the pilots association would have noticed. This information is not exactly secret, a lot of people seem to not be interested. In comparison to who I mentioned above the membership numbers of PFT are insignificant.

I would appreciate your input on this.

 

[beachnut]

I do have a question if Mr Deets ever comes back. I was wondering why if it's so obvious the flight paths were impossible why no word from Boeing? OK, if they were in on it how about MD, Bombardier or Airbus? I would think the Airlines and the pilots association would have noticed. This information is not exactly secret, a lot of people seem to not be interested. In comparison to who I mentioned above the membership numbers of PFT are insignificant.

I would appreciate your input on this.

Deets claims of flight 175 not able to make 510 knots is not backed up with any science. With RADAR and video clearly showing 175 going 510 knots, makes the claim false. No one is saying a 757/767 can go these speeds without damage or increased wear on the airframe. The life of an airframe depends on staying inside limits set by the manufacturer.

I would like Deets to explain why and how he can endorse CIT's flyover at the Pentagon.

 

[dadeets]

I do have a question if Mr Deets ever comes back. I was wondering why if it's so obvious the flight paths were impossible why no word from Boeing? OK, if they were in on it how about MD, Bombardier or Airbus? I would think the Airlines and the pilots association would have noticed. This information is not exactly secret, a lot of people seem to not be interested. In comparison to who I mentioned above the membership numbers of PFT are insignificant.

DGM, you ask a good question. I posed a question pertinent to this to the aeronautics community via a post to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) online forum. No one responded in any way. Two weeks went by, but still no one posted anything. Absolute silence. Then, AIAA removed my post from the forum without explanation.

I can only guess why no one responded. My guess is that everyone who read it recognized that posting any response whatsoever would not be helpful to one’s career. For those retired, they probably would be reluctant to put themselves out there “on the record” on something that has become a taboo subject.

It could be some posts were submitted, but as it was a moderated forum, were not posted. I have no way of knowing if the moderated prohibited any posts.

I asked a good friend of mine who is high in the aerospace world to give me his explanation for the silence. He responded, the topic has entered the political realm. Once in the political realm, all becomes subjective.

 

[carlitos]

My guess is ...

"Your guess" is informed by your paranoid world view, and not based on any expertise or "NASA" training.

Could you kindly address the relevant postings regarding at least 4 flights that achieved velocity over specs, in which the planes did NOT break up mid-air (as you erroneously suggested regarding Egypt Air 990)? How will you modify your "probabilities" given this information?

 

[DGM]

DGM, you ask a good question. I posed a question pertinent to this to the aeronautics community via a post to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) online forum. No one responded in any way. Two weeks went by, but still no one posted anything. Absolute silence. Then, AIAA removed my post from the forum without explanation.

I can only guess why no one responded. My guess is that everyone who read it recognized that posting any response whatsoever would not be helpful to one’s career. For those retired, they probably would be reluctant to put themselves out there “on the record” on something that has become a taboo subject.

It could be some posts were submitted, but as it was a moderated forum, were not posted. I have no way of knowing if the moderated prohibited any posts.

I asked a good friend of mine who is high in the aerospace world to give me his explanation for the silence. He responded, the topic has entered the political realm. Once in the political realm, all becomes subjective.

I could also guess why they would not reply.

I'm a little taken back over the lack of faith you seem to have for a large group of people.

Would you mind reposting here exactly what you posted on that forum? Maybe the context of your post could help me understand.


Thanks

 

[tfk]

Mr. Deets,

DGM, you ask a good question. I posed a question pertinent to this to the aeronautics community via a post to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) online forum. No one responded in any way. Two weeks went by, but still no one posted anything. Absolute silence. Then, AIAA removed my post from the forum without explanation.

I can only guess why no one responded. My guess is that everyone who read it recognized that posting any response whatsoever would not be helpful to one’s career. For those retired, they probably would be reluctant to put themselves out there “on the record” on something that has become a taboo subject.

It could be some posts were submitted, but as it was a moderated forum, were not posted. I have no way of knowing if the moderated prohibited any posts.

I asked a good friend of mine who is high in the aerospace world to give me his explanation for the silence. He responded, the topic has entered the political realm. Once in the political realm, all becomes subjective.

Wow. Just … wow.

Your "only guess" is that …

1. working members of AIAA who read your post are such cowards and/or traitors to their country that they would keep silent while knowing about the "smoking gun that blows the lid of the conspiracy … [blah, blah, blah] …"

and/or

2. they are so computer illiterate that they cannot figure out how to put out this history shattering information anonymously (none of them ever heard the words "anonymous proxy" before?)

3. retired American pilots and aeronautical engineers are similarly cowed, intimidated, crushed under the boot of [whatever].

4. perhaps the forum moderators are censoring this crucial information, for who-knows-what reason. While 100s of other forums around this country & the world call the US administration & NIST & the FAA, etc. "murderers & traitors" daily. Clearly (considering their unabated 9 year run of identical behavior) without reprisal.

5. a topic that is freely discussed in all kinds of accusatorial manner on 1000s of different websites is "taboo".

Excuse my being underwhelmed with your guesswork.

Allow me to offer some guesswork of my own.

Perusing the internet, I see numerous postings related to cures for erectile dysfunction, penis enlargement, ginko-biloba cures of cancer, get rich quick schemes and how to make every woman swoon at my mere approach. I reply to none of those postings. Just like those AIAA members didn't respond to yours.

Perhaps the members of the AIAA, for whom you seem to have such a low esteem, feel similar regarding the substance of your post.

Just a thought.
___

You say that you asked a friend in the aerospace world asked for explanations for "the silence" … but you forgot, somehow, to ask for explanations of the original questions.

Such oversights.
___

Now, most senior engineers that I know are far more inclined to form & state their own opinions on matters (informed by appropriate experts in the pertinent fields).

Why is it that you are, at this late date, still searching for support from "the aeronautics community", instead of having investigated the issues in depth BEFORE having come to, & expressed, your own conclusions publicly?


tom