IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Keith "beachnut" Beachy Relentlessly Attacks Pilots New Video Presentation

Paul
post Jan 15 2011, 08:13 AM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Hi there all i feel as though i should bring to your attention the relentless attacks on pilotsfor911truth by the the govt loyalist site site,
on of the things they have done lately is attack and make fun of the new Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility
video over in this thread: P4T to Spread Some Woo with Ventura http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=197538 there is even beachnut
in the thread opening his big fat trap he says this Make a copy, this may disappear if Aimer and Balsamo figure out how stupid they are.
he also goes on to claim that Rusty Aimer is a liar Rusty Aimer lies about airspeed and can't hit the Pentagon in the safety of a simulator. I put my kids in a simulator with zero flight training, they hit buildings, they crashed into what they aimed at. Aimer must be a bad pilot if he can't do what terrorists and untrained kids can do. Yet again beachnut opens his big fat flab trap and says forther on in his second post and labels Rusty aimer
a fraud for having the simulator going over 400 knots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNMak...layer_embedded

In the video they play a portion of the animation of Flight 77 which covers 3 minutes and 7 seconds, they play it in 8 seconds. The animation goes in real time from 13:34:32 at 4:32 in the video, to 13:37:39 at 4:40 in the video. Fraudulent or lies? Gee Whiz... is that like 7,000 knots? They show the animation at 7,000 knots and say it is hard to fly 7,000 knots? They play the animation at OVER 7,000 knots and ... morons ...

In the video Rusty Aimer has the simulator going over 400 knots in the turn and they are pulling gs. Fraud. The average speed in the turn before lining up with the Pentagon was 285 knots. OOPS! Rusty Aimer has no clue what Hani did on 911, and he proves it on truTV. Why do they fail to do the hard work and see how moronic their lies are on 911? The last 199 seconds average 302 knots, this includes the 483.5 knots at impact. I have flown over Vmo by mistake and did not damage the KC-135, and it did not handle as good as the 757.

BTW, it is easy to fly a 757 than a 172. I have flown both, it is easier to fly jets; Balsamo has no clue, Rusty Aimer should know better.


And even included at the very bottom of beachnuts idiotic rant he goes on to accuse Rob Balsamo of quoting hitler

Poor Balsamo ends up quoting Hitler, the biggest looser of all time when he tries to make points - wonder if they had to cut his Hitler quotes, rants of shooting and hanging traitors who disagree with his claims?

And another one of the govt loyalist site clowns goes on to say this not to mention

Sabertooth The problem is, the avergae Joe isn't going to know that. The vast majority of people aren't going to know the difference between a DC-10, 707, 757, 767, 777, 747, F-14, F-18, F-86, AV-8, AE-6B, etc., etc...

Most of the toofers count on targetting the uneducated...but in PffT's case, they can really take advantage of that.

"Look everyone! I can't fly this B-36 at 500 knots into a building! 9/11 is an inside job!!!"

I think it's absolutely retarded that Ventura has the balls to be a ex-member of the government and is using his "fame and knowledge" to push CT


angry.gif angry.gif angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 15 2011, 10:22 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Wow... Keith 'beachnut' Beachy is still going? Good for him! Rumor has it (and as you can see from his incoherent rants) he suffered a stroke a while back. Poor old timer.

Paul, those people have been attacking us (and anyone else who openly questions the govt story) since we started our organization in 2006. Every one of them refuses to come here for debate. This is nothing new. Please try to leave their bullshit at their cesspool. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 15 2011, 03:47 PM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Paul!

QUOTE
there is even beachnut in the thread opening his big fat trap he says


I like your style! That's about the same way I feel when I read Beechnut. A couple of his statements have more than a faint whiff of shit about them.

1.
QUOTE
I put my kids in a simulator with zero flight training, they hit buildings,


How in the hell would he get his kids into a simulator? I thought they were for serious business only.

But assuming its true, how many times did they have to try before they finally succeeded to make his statement "They hit buildings" literally true?

2.
QUOTE
BTW, it is easy to fly a 757 than a 172. I have flown both, it is easier to fly jets;


This might be true but only after a pilot received extensive training in a 757. I can conceive of this jet being far more advanced than a 172. For example, a 757 would be easier to fly if you can put it on autopilot while the 172 does not have autopilot at all, or if the autopilot in the former is more advanced than the latter. Perhaps the avionics are more advanced in the 757. Once again his statement would be literally true, but would have no relevance to 757-untrained Hani.

Maybe the Pilots can weigh in on this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jan 15 2011, 07:23 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 841
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (Paul @ Jan 16 2011, 01:13 AM) *
Hi there all i feel as though i should bring to your attention the relentless attacks on pilotsfor911truth by the the govt loyalist site site,

As Rob says, it is relentless but it isn't new. What is more recent is how some "truthers" have become indistiguishable from them (think the pigs in Animal Farm) and are even using the same debunking methods. 2 sides of the same coin ......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 15 2011, 07:32 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (KP50 @ Jan 15 2011, 06:23 PM) *
As Rob says, it is relentless but it isn't new. What is more recent is how some "truthers" have become indistiguishable from them (think the pigs in Animal Farm) and are even using the same debunking methods. 2 sides of the same coin ......


Someone might want to inform the stroke victim Keith "Beachnut" Beachy of this link as well.

http://myaviationexpert.com/about.html

Although, i'm glad to see poor ol' "Beachnut" still kicking, even if he gets everything wrong. I kinda have a soft spot for the old timer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TomPaine
post Jan 15 2011, 08:41 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 17-December 10
Member No.: 5,522



Yeah, it's the 9/11 Truthers who exploit the uneducated to further their agenda. It's not the government, which has convinced 60% of the populous that scattered office fires caused a 47 story steel-framed skyscraper to collapse into itself at free fall speed. But there were diesel tanks in the basement. That one column caused everything else to crumble.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jan 15 2011, 09:31 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (TomPaine @ Jan 15 2011, 02:41 PM) *
Yeah, it's the 9/11 Truthers who exploit the uneducated to further their agenda. It's not the government, which has convinced 60% of the populous that scattered office fires caused a 47 story steel-framed skyscraper to collapse into itself at free fall speed. But there were diesel tanks in the basement. That one column caused everything else to crumble.

Tom…you have to say “tongue in cheek” when you say this…

Or people may not get the joke…
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 19 2011, 08:36 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 15 2011, 09:22 AM) *
Wow... Keith 'beachnut' Beachy is still going? Good for him! Rumor has it (and as you can see from his incoherent rants) he suffered a stroke a while back. Poor old timer.


So... im taking a break from working on our next presentation... i decide to take a look-see over at the Cess-pit.

What do i find? More comedy gold.


From Keith "Beachnut" Beachy....



Pssssst, Beachy, the "bigger" plane above is an Airbus A320, not a 757.



Poor ol' timer...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jan 19 2011, 10:26 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 841
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Hey Rob,

I fly Air New Zealand, I'm seriously worried that they allow their planes to fly so close together!

KP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 19 2011, 10:36 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (KP50 @ Jan 19 2011, 09:26 PM) *
Hey Rob,

I fly Air New Zealand, I'm seriously worried that they allow their planes to fly so close together!

KP



lol.. thank you KP... I admit i didnt recognize the livery.. i just figured it was a generic paint job from Beachnut's Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Here is the New Zealand A320 that Beachnut thinks is a Boeing 757.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 22 2011, 07:33 AM
Post #11





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



I guess Beachnut would know what is retarded.
I mean even a mentally handicapped person would prolly
check to see what kind of plane he was posting, especially if he were
accusing others of being "fraudulent liars".

I have more time wrenching on planes than most people have at
working period. I am not uneducated, poor or in need of attention.
I have more training than most graduate students, and i can tell the
difference between a "kid hitting a building in a simulator" which is
not difficult, and a "terrorist" flying a highly sophisticated aircraft at well
over controllable flight speed in a real world "sirens and bells are going off
and people are dying with no defense network in sight" situation. That scenario
would flat rattle anyone i know, but super Hani ( and Beachnut obviously)
could pull it off with no problem. Beachnut should fly for NORAD. Only then
would we all be safe from harm. "Dont worry America, i have flown an A320,
i mean a 757, i mean a Beach 18, Ummmm well i dont know what i flew in the
simulator, but you are all safe under my watch ! "

laughing1.gif



If he could explain how Hani got the wings to fold back on impact at 500 mph,
it would really help us doubters and deniers. Oh and theres that little problem with the
light poles and the eyewitnesses and the video and the missing 50+ videos and
NORAD and Mineta's testimony and Rumsfelds slip-up and the lack of evidence and the
lack of investigation and the flight data and .................

( Psssssst, PC flight simulator isnt real world training, 757's dont have joysticks. LOL )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 29 2012, 02:11 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Another juicy quote for the archives... .


Keith "Beachnut" Beachy asks -

"Balsamo bans/suspends people for not answering questions. What if mods here [at JREF] did the same?"


My answer -

I suppose JREF would look less like a romper room with less trolls... ya think?

....as a side note, we don't ban people who refuse to answer questions, but we have suspended them so they can perhaps gather their thoughts and return with answers instead of trolling. A great example is Warren Stutt who still has access here to answer our questions and has logged on today (as of this post, Aug 29, 2012), but still refuses to answer.

Forum users who refuse to answer questions and go onto other topics as did Warren Stutt, are the very definition of a troll. Clearly the mods on JREF allow such behavior. That is why JREF looks like a romper room.. and this forum does not.

Imagine if you will.. a court room.

Keith "Beachnut" Beachy is called to the stand.

Prosecutor asks -

"Sir, how do feel about the data reported?"

Beachy responds - "Troofers are liars. They are terrorist apolof-i-gists! They lie, They do not understand 911 Troof! All pilots and Pilots for 911 Troof are failed pilots!@!!"

Prosecutor asks - "Sir, can you answer my question?"

Beachy replies - "Only Balsamo forces answers. The James Randi mods would never force an answer from me! I am a Skygod! I flew a HEAVY JET!, are you a Balsamo apologist?"

Judge responds - "Get this idiot out of my court before I find him in contempt".

Beachy, pass this on to your fellow cyber stalkers...

venit, vidit, nos obsidere et exsultáte
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 9 2014, 01:47 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Have to add this to the "Beachy" archives....

The following sentence sums up perhaps all of the "duhbunker rebuttals" to our speed analysis, from a person who they claim is their 'foremost expert' on the topic....

"But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast" - Keith "Beachnut/Sunzi" Beachy


laughing1.gif

Whaaaa?!?!?!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 16 2014, 11:36 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



More for the Beachy archives....





Apparently Keith Beachy thinks the definition for Vd is different for "light aircraft" as opposed to "Heavy Aircraft".

Of course, he makes no attempt to actually source any of his claims.

Here is the VG diagram with which he feels only applies to "light aircraft".



Note, Vd is the end of the Flight Envelope.

Here is the VG Diagram posted at Wiki....



Note, Vd is the end of the Flight Envelope.



Here is the VG Diagram published by the FAA under FAR 25.333



Note, FAR 25 is not for "light aircraft", and Vd is the end of the Flight Envelope based on Structural limitations.


Here is the VG diagram in which Beachy claims support his argument....



I have enlarged his VG by 125%, and highlighted the portion in which Beachy ignores time and time again.... in a red rectangle.

Since it is clear Beachy refuses to acknowledge (or perhaps is unable to read such print), allow me to transcribe it here.... with enlarged print... emphasizing the pertinent text in bold, with the most important text in red.


NOTE:

The limiting structural airspeed is
382 knots IAS OR .70 indicated
Mach No, whichever occurs first.



As a reminder, Keith Beachy does have access to this forum and is in fact able to post here. It is clear why he chooses not to....

It is also clear why "weedwhacker" is his sole cheerleader.... and the rest have abandoned Beachy's rhetoric.



"But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast" - Keith "Beachnut/Sunzi" Beachy


laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Apr 17 2014, 06:04 AM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Apr 16 2014, 04:36 PM) *

Do I read the diagram in the IAS right that at near sea level the IAS≈TAS, so the dashed line indicates the safe upper limit of the airspeed 382 kts and beyond it already begins the realm of the structural failure even without any maneuvering and this speed limit goes even down above the +4Gs? So the descending aircraqft would start to fall apart at ~468 kts TAS @ 15000ft? and if not slowing down it will never make it safe to the near sea level altitude?

So if I read the above well a descending B767 plane with Vd=420 kts IAS - according to this diagram:

will start to fall apart at >480 kts TAS @10000ft, >448 kts @5000ft and >431 kts @2000ft - as should have happened with the "UA175" according to this groundspeed (<TAS in the descent and against counterwind)/altitude diagram derived from the military radars (and confirmed by the civilian radars and for the last quarter of minute also by multiple video analyses):

...and the aircraft flying last whole minutes way beyond the Vd never should have made it to the WTC2, not speaking steer it exactly to hit the target just bit wider than its wingspan if being a civilian B767.
QUOTE
It is also clear why "weedwhacker" is his sole cheerleader....
"But the plane does no fall apart a lot altitude going very fast" - Keith "Beachnut/Sunzi" Beachy

laughing1.gif

Looks to me the weedwhacker whacks him with the weed alot
rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Apr 17 2014, 10:55 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Apr 17 2014, 06:04 AM) *
...and the aircraft flying last whole minutes way beyond the Vd never should have made it to the WTC2, not speaking steer it exactly to hit the target just bit wider than its wingspan if being a civilian B767.



Agreed....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 22 2014, 10:22 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I've had some time tonight to bat around the 'duhbunkers' at DU.... good fun.

But the best part was when I reminded Beachy he could not visually identify the difference between a 757 and an Airbus.... his reply was so good it needs to be archived here -

"Who can identify an Airbus, it is crap. It falls apart at Vd, Boeing can go past Vd and keep going. " - Keith 'Beachnut' Beachy


lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yost
post Aug 15 2014, 05:28 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 65
Joined: 5-February 14
Member No.: 7,699



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 22 2014, 09:22 PM) *
I've had some time tonight to bat around the 'duhbunkers' at DU.... good fun.

But the best part was when I reminded Beachy he could not visually identify the difference between a 757 and an Airbus.... his reply was so good it needs to be archived here -

"Who can identify an Airbus, it is crap. It falls apart at Vd, Boeing can go past Vd and keep going. " - Keith 'Beachnut' Beachy


lol


That was entertaining to read.

I found this thread http://upload.democraticunderground.com/11357968 where Seger emails the FAA to try and confirm his beliefs about limit loads.

You responded to it with this



Seger responds



I did not see a response to it yet (Which I can understand, one can only deal with these "duhbunkers" for so long)

I did however see glaring problems with it myself.

For one, Seger claims that "A "case" is a condition or situation that the designer must analyze, such as those cases specified in FAR 25.305 about withstanding vibration and buffeting at Vd/Md"

Actually, FAR 25.305 says the aircraft must be designed to withstand any vibration and buffeting that might occur in any likely operating condition UP TO Vd/Md

Big difference there, it means that it is only required to withstand such conditions until it reaches the VD speed.

"I have never claimed that Vd is a "limit load." That is another misconception based on your own confusion about the subject matter. I have claimed that the conditions in FAR 25.305 are limit cases, so an engineer is required by FAR 25 to take the loads imposed by those conditions as limit loads, and therefore they are required to multiply those loads by 1.5 and then design a structure that should withstand those ultimate loads."

He claims that Vd is increased by 1.5 due to a regulation that is meant to apply to Load Factors, otherwise known as G-Loads, and by claiming that, he is in effect saying that Vd is a limit load which is covered by the 1.5 FoS.

"I have claimed that the conditions in FAR 25.305 are limit cases"

Such "limit cases" where a "1.5 FoS" is present, only applies in situations where the aircraft is experiencing a G-load upset, and not a speed one.

To clarify for the readers, what this "Seger" fails to understand is that the 1.5 FoS added to the limit load, only applies to the Load Factor, which is expressed in G's.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_factor_(aeronautics)

"In aeronautics, the load factor is defined as the ratio of the lift of an aircraft to its weight"

"Since the load factor is the ratio of two forces, it is dimensionless. However, its units are traditionally referred to as g, because of the relation between load factor and apparent acceleration of gravity felt on board the aircraft."

Do you have anything to add Rob? I understand that this "William Seger" is another one of your stalkers.

This post has been edited by Yost: Aug 15 2014, 05:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 15 2014, 05:53 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Yost @ Aug 15 2014, 05:28 PM) *
Do you have anything to add Rob?


You pretty much nailed it. Which is why people like "William Seger" and "Keith Beachy" refuse to confront us directly.. .and spend their days and nights for over a decade having nothing better to do than be obsessed with people they think are nuts...

But don't misunderstand... people like "William Seger" and "Keith Beachy" do serve a purpose. And as expected, they serve that purpose everyday.....

In short, they keep the argument alive... so that people like you can actually determine how wrong they are....

Case in point... the phrase "up to.." - which you have so diligently pointed out.... (and I have pointed out to "Seger"/"Beachy" many times.. .but they continue to ignore)

Truth always prevails....

smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th October 2014 - 02:03 PM