I took a stroll into Randiland before calling it a night. Found that "tfk/tom" still doesnt realize he can post here. We have told him many times he is not banned and can still sign on to post in this debate forum (he has been restricted to this section due to his many immature personal attacks you see here and elsewhere), but he can still post here. Pinch/Will Paisley/Sweetpea/10 other socks... also have this problem of claiming they are banned, when they are not. They just are unable to debate civilly. Shit, I gave Paisley my phone number for debate since he was harassing/spamming my email inbox. He refuses to be recorded. Too funny.

With that said, Tom wanted Warren to pass on these questions to me regarding my post above....

"1. What gas do they use to check for leaks in the capsule welds?
2. What gas do they use to test for the burst pressure of the capsule?
3. What is the typical burst pressure of a capsule?"

My reply...

1. Irrelevant
2. Irrelevant
3. Somewhat relevant. Perhaps you may want to inform crapathiod that its not exactly at 10 inHg differential?

We know "tom" (who also refuses to give his real name which can perhaps be verified to name quite a few skeletons), likes to also throw crap at the wall to see if it sticks.

Now Tom, if you have the gonads to log on here (and yes you can post here), please tell us:

1. What type of damage is done to the "Pitot-Static System" as referred to in the documents provided by crapathiod, if differential pressure between Pt and Ps is too great?

2. What indications would you expect to see with in-flight differential pressures 2 inHg above the Bench test limits?

3. What do you think crapathoid saw when he busted the ADC due to over-pressure at Pt?

Sign on anytime to answer as i rarely check your cesspool.

Robbie,



You're such a fibbing little boy, Rob. And a coward, to boot.

Your history betrays you, Rob.

You ban everyone that disagrees with you. You know it. I know it. EVERYONE knows it.

You just reactivated my account because of the challenge that I posted on the govt loyalist site. You know it. I know it.

I also know that you'll not stand for the fact that I disagree with your nonsense. And you'll ban me again. PDQ.

I don't even need to pull up the posts that detailed your "suspension for lying" (great euphemism for "someone who disagrees with you") within about 3 days of joining, because I brought up the fact that an Aussie pilot put someone into a 757 simulator & was able to perform the maneuvers at the WTC & Pentagon that you claimed were "impossible".

And then your acknowledged tracking of my movements around your board. Paranoid much?

And finally, your fevered banning of my account when we disagreed previously about aneroids & procedures that need to be followed for meeting 91.312.

You admitted that you were wrong about the aneroids. Shocking. But what are you gonna do when you've been proven utterly wrong, eh?

When I PROVED that you were wrong on all your nonsense regarding 91.312 (http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread512723/pg46 my post @ 12:08 pm), you simply slunk away. Typical, Rob.



Yeah, didn't think you knew any of that. Didn't stop you blowing smoke about aneroid failures tho.

1. Helium. Just like they do with all vacuum systems. Know why they use helium, Rob?

2. Hydrogen hydroxide. At room temp. Do you know why they use this deadly compound (tens of thousands of people die from it every year!!) instead of just air pressure to do this test, Rob?

3. The burst pressure is 10 - 50 times greater than the pressure it takes to cause the capsule to fail. That's because you don't know the failure mode of these capsules, Rob.

Care to take another guess?



Sure thing, Robbie. You're a real "respectable" kinda guy.

One that speculates on "quite a few skeletons" in the closet of someone you don't know from Adam. The ONLY thing that you know about me is that I disagree with you about 9/11. And that I'm an engineer, and laugh at your attempts to do math.



Oh, I might have the gonads...



This IS the failure mode of a traditional aneroid capsules from overpressure: you'll irreversibly deform one of the convolutions. Put enough pressure on it & you can invert one or more of the convolutions. Just like when you freeze a plastic bottle of milk. They have the circular indents on the side so that when the mild expands, it pushes out the indent, and doesn't burst the container.

Too much pressure & you'll also likely damage some of the diaphragm follower mechanisms, too. In fact, the aneroids are pretty rugged. This damage to the follower mechanism may well happen before you damage the aneroids themselves.



Nothing will change on any of the static port systems, because this pressure isn't anywhere near high enough to burst a good diaphragm. The airspeed will end up with a permanent offset, reading way too high, tho.



I haven't seen his description of what he did before it broke.

What do YOU think that he saw?



Sure thing.

Unfortunately, you history proves that you won't be able to tolerate your sycophants seeing anyone disagree with you. And that you'll undoubtably ban me again.

You've become way too predictable, Robby.

You've become the farcical caricature of the snake-oil salesman, constantly afraid of exposure.

Always nice chatting with you.

Toodles,

Tom

Continue with the Ad Homs here and I will be the one deactivating your account here Tommy.

It is too bad that you are unable to present a counterarguement without them, but I guess that is to be expected from the JERF clowns.

OK, my bad.

I'll repost it. I'll get rid of the ad homs & leave just the facts.

Here ya go.

I've highlighted the changes.

___
___

Robbie,



You're such a fibbing little boy, Rob. And a coward, to boot.

Your history betrays you, Rob.

You ban everyone that disagrees with you. You know it. I know it. EVERYONE knows it.

You just reactivated my account because of the challenge that I posted on the govt loyalist site at *J*R*E*F*. You know it. I know it. [Not nice to change someone's wording like that. Or to hurl baseless insults a bunch of folks just because they disagree with you.]

I also know that you'll not stand for the fact that I disagree with your nonsense. And you'll most likely ban me again. PDQ.

I don't even need to pull up the posts that detailed your "suspension for lying" (great euphemism for "someone who disagrees with you") within about 3 days of joining, because I brought up the fact that an Aussie pilot put someone into a 757 simulator & was able to perform the maneuvers at the WTC & Pentagon that you claimed were "impossible".

And then your acknowledged tracking of my movements around your board. Paranoid much?

And finally, your fevered banning of my account when we disagreed previously about aneroids & procedures that need to be followed for meeting 91.312.

You admitted that you were wrong about the aneroids. Shocking. But what are you gonna do when you've been proven utterly wrong, eh?

When I PROVED that you were wrong on all your nonsense regarding 91.312 (http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread512723/pg46 my post @ 12:08 pm), you simply slunk away retired from the discussion. Typical I've noticed that you've done that before, Rob. Would you care to explain the reason?



[Careful there, Rob. The mods are watching. Calling someone name like that might get you banned.!!]

Yeah, didn't think you knew any of that. Didn't stop you blowing smoke orating profusely about aneroid failures tho.

1. Helium. Just like they do with all vacuum systems. Know why they use helium, Rob?

2. Hydrogen hydroxide. At room temp. Do you know why they use this deadly compound (tens of thousands of people die from it every year!!) instead of just air pressure to do this test, Rob?

3. The burst pressure is 10 - 50 times greater than the pressure it takes to cause the capsule to fail. That's because you don't know the failure mode of these capsules, Rob.

Care to take another guess?



[Better cut out the ad homs, Robby.]

Sure thing, Robbie. You're a real "respectable" kinda guy.

One that speculates on "quite a few skeletons" in the closet of someone you don't know from Adam. The ONLY thing that you know about me is that I disagree with you about 9/11. And that I'm an engineer, and laugh at your attempts to do math.



[Geeez, Rob. Suggesting someone's a coward might be considered an ad hom. You're on thin ice here.]

Oh, I might have the gonads accept your challenge...



This IS the failure mode of a traditional aneroid capsules from overpressure: you'll irreversibly deform one of the convolutions. Put enough pressure on it & you can invert one or more of the convolutions. Just like when you freeze a plastic bottle of milk. They have the circular indents on the side so that when the mild expands, it pushes out the indent, and doesn't burst the container.

Too much pressure & you'll also likely damage some of the diaphragm follower mechanisms, too. In fact, the aneroids are pretty rugged. This damage to the follower mechanism may well happen before you damage the aneroids themselves.



Nothing will change on any of the static port systems, because this pressure isn't anywhere near high enough to burst a good diaphragm. The airspeed will end up with a permanent offset, reading way too high, tho.



[You're cruising for a banning, Rob.]

I haven't seen his description of what he did before it broke.

What do YOU think that he saw?



[I guess I really can't call that one an ad hom. Just "rather tasteless".]

Sure thing.

Unfortunately, your history proves that you won't be able to tolerate your sycophants subscribers seeing anyone disagree with you. And that you'll undoubtably likely ban me again.

You've become way too predictable, Robby.

You've become the farcical caricature architype of the snake-oil salesman truther with a web-site and DVDs for sale, constantly afraid of exposure suppressing dissenting viewpoints.

Always nice chatting with you.

Toodles,

Tom
___

There. Much better.

And you're right, JF. I feel better taking the high road like this.

Better warn that Balsamo character, tho. If he keeps up the snark & the ad homs, he's likely to get banned.

Now, wouldn't that be a shame...!!



PS. Or, perhaps your official board policy is "Ad hominems are forbidden. Except if Rob Balsamo is hurling them"...?

Thank you Tom. The above is perhaps the only information of substance you have had to offer in both of your condescending and ad hom filled posts. Now please go tell apathoid that nothing will happen to the other static port systems (which include the altimeter) when exceeding bench test pressure differential limits by 2 inHg. Be sure to be specific in that such differential pressure will not cause an altimeter to read 120' too high.

And since you like to assume, here are the details of my 5 last changes in the Admin logs.

rob balsamo Forum Access Permissions Edited for Set: 'Pilots/Valued Member' Dec 31 2009, 07:22 PM
rob balsamo Edited Member 'AirmanDave' account Dec 29 2009, 11:24 PM
rob balsamo 1 Member Registrations Approved: sophie Dec 29 2009, 10:44 PM
rob balsamo 1 Member Registrations Approved: excontroller Dec 29 2009, 01:10 AM
rob balsamo 7 Member Registrations Approved: SJ33, UKTichard, Xross, irenespapaw, felixkrull, Fox68, rlm3333 Dec 28 2009, 05:55 PM

And the last time i accessed your account after your suspension expired, to restrict you to the Debate forum.

rob balsamo Edited Member 'tomk' account Dec 1 2009, 11:11 AM

I told you this on ATS and in your harassing emails. Senility must be setting in Tom, you may want to see someone about that.

You're welcome, Rob.



Well, it IS information of substance, Rob. Because it is correct information. Thanks for agreeing with me.

And the incontrovertible consequence of this correct information is that all of your previous prattling about the impact of over-pressuring was pure bunk.

And that your bragging about the depth of your knowledge about the details of how these systems operate, interact & fail is also bunk.

So, Robby, you are very welcome. As are the other readers.



100% wrong, Rob.

None of the things that YOU said would happen will happen. Allow me to elaborate.



Perhaps if you got the 757 up to Mach 15 or so...



Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. & Nope.



Nope.



Nope.



And THIS is the sentence I wanted to get down to...

This is the single most ludicrous, most clueless statement that anyone who claimed to know anything about instrumentation could possibly make. It is literally not possible for you to have said anything more absurd about ANY measurement instrument.

Let me allow Dr. Walter Lewin, Professor of Physics at MIT explain it to you. This is a freshman engineering class. This statement is fundamental. It is measurements 101. It is what is drilled into engineers from the first day, first semester. And reinforced every lab, every experiment, every analysis from that day onward.

Listen very carefully. It is the very HEART of what you do not understand. Listen to the emphasis that he puts on this statement. There is not one other statement in this whole lecture that he says with as nearly much emphasis. That is how important this concept is.

As you listen to this, be cognizant of the fact that all aviation instruments "take measurements". Whether they are on the test bench or 5 miles in the air.

Now, listen carefully:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJV8CHIqFc#t=4m36s



THIS is the reason why EVERY measurement taken in operation or in calibration have "margins of error". Also known as "uncertainty". It's got precisely zero to do with "engineers know(ing) that techs who are sloppy in their work can and will damage the instruments".

This statement is hilarious.

Once again, this is instrumentation 101. Freshman engineering.

Your understanding of instrumentation & measurements is less than zero. Because you think that you are knowledgeable, when you are clueless.

Now THAT, Rob, is a posting that is full of content, full of fact, and completely lacking in ad homs.

Hope you enjoyed it. And perhaps learned a bit.

I'll get to your other comments tomorrow. Got some work to do...

Always fun correcting your engineering & aviation misconceptions, Rob.


Tom

lol.. its about time you tear yourself away from your obsession with this forum and me personally. Every time i logged on today you were here. Great way to spend your Sunday Tom...

Hopefully your next post will bring some facts and source for your claims instead of "elaborating" with only the words "Nope, nope, nope and nope".

Tom, read these words very closely, it appears you missed them the first time. Here, i'll bold them for you.

"we know, based on the data, the Pitot-Static system was operating normally"


Now, before you go on a long rant of how the airspeed indicator was "damaged", which you claim such damage will cause the airspeed to "... end up with a permanent offset, reading way too high..." (without proof of course) and this caused the ADC to output an artificially high altitude reading (again without proof), you might want to check groundspeed in the data. Or... i guess you'll say the FMS was also damaged by a high differential pressure between Pitot and Static? Do you even know that the "Total Pressure" data in Warrens decode is pressure taken from the Pitot lines? Our pressure probes are on the inside of the engine nacelle in front of the High Bypass Fan. These measurements are used for FADEC. Do you know what FADEC is Tom? Perhaps not since you only have a few hours in a 172. Ask Apathoid.

(by the way, if you want static pressure data, just look up the METAR at DCA and interpolate. Here, i'll help you. Click)

Remember Tom, first you need to prove the data came from N644AA if you want to claim 480+ knots was above Vmo. Then you need to prove the airspeed indicator was "damaged" by the differential pressure. Then you need to prove such damage caused the altimeter to read 120+ feet too high.

You guys really need to stop throwing crap at the wall, it just comes back in your face. It must really suck you have to make all these empty excuses for data...lol

As for your irrelevant lecture on "uncertainty" in measurements. Vmo/Mmo are established with margins of error. Limits are set on aircraft with Margins of error. Bench test limits are set with margins of error. This is not a margin set for "uncertainty", its called a margin of safety. But i wouldnt expect a person like you who claims to have a few hours in a 172 to understand.

When you come back, try to make some real claims with some type of substance as all your "instruction" is empty rhetoric. Please stop trolling. Your condescending tone and personal attacks ("clueless") also wont last very long here. But i assume that's what you want, suicide by mod, so you dont have to produce any proof for your claims, get banned, and then go cry in your J.REF cesspool, "Robby banned me cause i disagreed with him! Woe is me!".


Enjoy your night Tom.

Rob,



LMAO, Rob.

You need to learn to distinguish "Tom was logged on here" from "Tom's computer was logged on here".

I spent my Sunday watching football with friends. With a couple of short forays to various places, including here.

I DON'T notice when you are logged on here, Rob. I DON'T track your movements about your website. I DON'T CARE about you or your blogging activities.

Now, Rob, you can't say the same.

By YOUR OWN ADMISSION (before & again right here), you follow me.
You track me.
You seem positively obsessed with me.
"Every time you logged on today..."

While flattering, Robby, I do suggest you find a better way to spend your Sundays.

In addition to having just one too many Y chromosomes, I only date attractive & really smart people. I've seen your picture. I've read your writing. 0 for two doesn't make the cut.

LMAO.



I AM the source of this info, Rob. I don't need to "source" 2 + 2 = 4.

The failure mode for aneroid capsules is NOT "burst capsules". It is plasticly deformed capsules. A plasticly deformed capsule will never, ever give proper calibrated readings. It will have to be replaced. And they ALWAYS plasticly deform before they burst. They HAVE to. Because elastic materials yield before they fail. (Except in fatigue. And 1, or 10, or 100 or 1000 pressure cycles is - BY DEFINITION - not a fatigue failure.) Ergo, all of the pressure limitations that are set by operational or calibration documents are based on the yielding of the capsules (or follower mechanisms). Not on the burst limitations.

The instant that one realizes this fact, all that nonsense you posted automatically turns into "Nope".

Your ignorance of all of the above notwithstanding...



Your assertion that the system was operating normally is baseless.

The excessive speed (over the last several seconds only) could have easily damaged several components of the pitot/static system.

It is likely that even a competent comparison of the FDR data and the radar data would not have the resolution (once a competent person had performed a competent error analysis) to determine whether or not the instruments were damaged or not. Until you provide a competent analysis, WITH attached error analysis, your assertions are meaningless.
The funny thing is that you don't even know what an Error Analysis is. Much less, how to perform one.

And the numberless, analysis free assertions of a math incompetent (who calculated 2200 Gs, when the correct answer was 1.2 Gs) carries zero weight.

it could well have been operating normally. And STILL giving erroneous PA readings.

Because, as I explained in detail but you seem incapable of understanding, a "normally operating" pitot-static system on a 757, flying at that speed & that altitude, is flying well outside of the TWO dimensional envelope of airspeed & altitude. And is therefore - again, by definition - applying UN-CALIBRATED corrections to the PA reading.

Your ONE dimensional envelope of airspeed alone is simply you intentionally misleading your uninformed, uh, "subscribers".

At sea level, that plane was about 140 kts (IIRC) over Vmo. You either know that to be true, or else you are an incompetent pilot as well.




You appear to be suffering another bout of illiteracy, Rob.

Please show me any place that I've posted that I believe that AA77 airspeed indicator was damaged.

I have not posted that. I do not believe that.

I posted a very clear explanation for the erroneous readings that would occur with an undamaged pitot/static system & airspeed indicator. Sorry that you seem incapable of understanding that.






Yeah, Rob, I know what "total pressure" is.



No, Rob. You're bloviating again.

Why do you spew such misleading, irrelevant garbage? Do you think that it impresses me? Do you think that it impresses ANYONE, when you have once again been shown to be spewing misleading, irrelevant garbage?

There ARE pressure probes inside turbofan engine nacelles. They are NOT the static & pitot ports on any airplane that I know. And they certainly are not on the 757, whose pitot ports are in on the chin of the nose, forward of the pilot & copilot's windshields. Or the static ports, which are on the fuselage, under the 2nd & 5th passenger windows, in line with (not underneath) the wing roots.

I'm sure that SOMEBODY was way impressed with your "do you even know..." nonsense, Rob.



Oh, Christ on a bicycle. Do you want to go down this path again, Rob?

You got spanked on aneroids.
You got spanked on the location of the static ports.
You got spanked on the requirements for 91.312.
You got spanked on data acquisition systems.
You got spanked on the Flight Deck Door.
(After I said that, for perversely contrarian people, the FDD issue would only be solved with the maintenance records of N644AA, it ONLY took you five weeks to concede that I was right. LoL.)

And now you're starting this again...

Yeah, Rob. I know what a FADEC is. Look back at my posts. I've mentioned it at least twice to you.

I was in charge of building fuel metering valves for large turbine engines (e.g., GE LM2500) for a division of Allied Bendix. This was, in essence, an analog FAAEC for turbine engines used to generate electrical power.

You're (allegedly) an ex-pilot, Rob. You have delusions of being an engineer. You're not.

Do you really want to go down this path, and get your ass handed to you again? Especially since it has precisely zero relevance to any issue under discussion?

[End Part 1]

[Part 2]



How many hours do I have, Rob?
How many hours do I have in an F/A-18, Rob? If your guess is "zero", you're wrong.



Don't need to ask Ap, Rob. I've established the loop gains, stability margins, fuel schedules for large turbine engines, Rob.

I've written the specs for the fuel metering systems.
I've designed the test & calibration systems.
I've built the systems.
I've calibrated the systems.
I've installed the systems.
I've taught the theory of these systems to other engineers.
I've taught other engineers how to tear down the systems, rebuild them, calibrate them & install them.

You're (allegedly) an ex-pilot, Rob. You ain't an engineer.



No, I do not. That has already been established by (unlike you & the CIT kiddies) competent investigators.
If you wish to try to prove to some credulous dullards that it was not from AA77, YOU need to get off your butt & do something meaningful. Unlike the stuff that you've done thusfar.



No I do not, Rob. It is not necessary that there be any damage to any system to prove that the PA system was "out of calibration". This is a fundamental principle of instrumentation, Rob.

Read it carefully: If you have not proven that the system is "in calibration", then it DEFAULTS to "out of calibration".

Since AA77's pitot/static system was operating in a regime in which it was never tested and never parameterized, then - again, by definition - it was "out of calibration".



No damage necessary. Still out of calibration.

[End Part 2]

[Part 3]



No excuses. Just engineering 101.

Sorry that it's over your head.



YOU were not talking about "margins of safety" when YOU made the gut-busting, hilarious statement that:



That one's gonna be making the rounds for quite some time, Rob...




Yeah, Rob. Me, out of Cornell's engineering program, and that Engineering Professor from MIT. What would we have to offer to a discussion about engineering issues? We're just a couple of trolls...



... is completely appropriate for the determinedly, stubbornly, willfully ignorant, Rob.



clueless: adj, "incognizant of the core principles".

It's not a personal attack, Rob. It is a precisely accurate statement of fact.
"Ignorant", "uninformed", "unknowledgeable". "Clueless".




You "assume" a lot, Rob. It's almost always self-serving and wrong.

I will.

Tom,

I didnt bother reading your THREE (count em, three..) part reply thoroughly as most of it, as usual, is a blowhard rant loaded with ad homs.

No amount of your chest thumping, blowhard rants or off topic ad homs and personal attacks are going to change the fact that the pitot-static system has been proven to be working flawlessly based on the data and that the PA was showing too high to hit the Pentagon. All you have to support your theory is innuendo, speculation and excuses which all fell flat on their face.

The fact that you constantly have to personally attack others (and now we're getting into personal appearance based on pictures you sought out on the net? Who is obsessed?) shows your level of maturity and desperation. As predicted, you are attempting suicide by mod because you do not bring any facts to the table. Dont worry Tom, i'll still let you post here. You only discredit yourself. But another mod or admin might get fed up with your BS. I see JFK already had to step in before I even got a chance for my initial reply. Tom, do you make it a habit of shitting on the floors of the house in which you have been invited or welcomed?

Here's a hint for your next rant, less is more.

Try not to be offended if I dont take the time to reply to your continued rants. If you bring something to the table in terms of proof and verified source for your claims of "damage", or proof that the PA is reading 120+ feet too high, or perhaps proof the data is from N644AA, perhaps we'll discuss it. Until then, you're really not worth the time.

Enjoy your day...

My guess is no.

I think he uses the living room table.

Agreed JFK... lol.

Get this gem.



Tom in reply to apathoid over at the cesspool regarding the finding of high pressure differential.

"You have discovered source for error in the calibrated air speed[sic] measuremet[sic]. And possible damage to its aneroid.

And therein lies - indirectly - the source of the error in the PA reading: What we've been saying all along. It appears that the ADC takes the measured static pressure & makes empirical (flight test derived) corrections to that measurement in order to calcuate the recorded PA reading. The corrections are based upon airspeed & AoA."

Bold emphasis added.

Tom, why would you claim "possible damage" to the aneroid and "...therein lies - indirectly - the source of the error in the PA reading", if you dont "believe" it?

Tom, why do you lie so much? Must be that senility thing we talked about.

Tom, the airspeed indicator and therefore the pitot-static system, was operating flawlessly. Its been proven.

Tom keeps repeating this as if somehow it will discredit me. Too funny.

"You're (allegedly) an ex-pilot, Rob. You ain't an engineer."

Tom, first of all, there is no such thing as an "ex-pilot". A pilot certificate is good for life, unless revoked by the FAA. You'd know this if you had more than a few hours in a 172 and actually put in the time to get your certificate.

Next, read claim 1 here. You really should spend less time gazing at my pics on the net and perhaps more time researching the credentials of those you attempt to debate and their "uninformed subscribers", before you look more foolish.

The amount of lies this guy spews is staggering.

http://www.signswithanattitude.com/monkey_feces_signs.html

http://www.signswithanattitude.com/images_...onkey_feces.jpg

Contratulations tomk/thomk/tfk- your very own thread all about you! Don't you feel like an extra special engineer now? Maybe they will give you a new slide rule or something.

I saw a few of your posts over at ATS, but they don't seem to stick around for some reason- any wild guesses why that might be there, TommyGunn?



I haven't looked in the administrative panel, but if you haven't already earned it, I think I'll give you a big ol' steaming 4-week cup of STFU for you to pour down your gullet for your repeated verbally-abusive posts.

While you've got some time away from posting at this forum, you might want to do a little research on some of these topics and see if it reminds you of anyone:

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

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

http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Abuser/signs.htm

The Verbally Abusive Man
http://www.mental-health-matters.com/index...icle&id=185

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...rbal%20diarrhea

EDIT: P.S. Tom-

Boy, for a bunch of guys who toss around abuse with reckless abandon (such as, oh, "enema-receptacle"), you guys sure are a bunch of thin-skinned sissies...

Grow a spine, willya?

BTW, Rob, I left a note about your abysmal math & piloting skills here. You may want to check it out. And correct the absurd numbers that you have posted on your main "AA77 (Pentagon)" page.

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php...721#post5496721

Since I know EXACTLY how willing your are to admit your mistakes, I'll look to see your explanation for blowing this trivial "dead reconning" problem. Along with your corrected numbers, of course.

___

I also explained what the AoA numbers should have been (and really were on take off roll & climb out) here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php...540#post5496540

You may want to fix some of your misinformation.

Always happy to point out your mistakes, Rob.

LoL

Tom

Tom, lol, you're such an idiot.

Note the date on the article you analyzed and the bolded title. Here' i'll help you.

07/20/06

Analysis of 9/11 Commission Report prior to release of Flight Data Recorder

I bolded it just for you Tom. Now, read it slowly, twice.

Yes, thats right Tom, the "math" in that article is based on the numbers given in the 9/11 Commission Report PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE FDR DATA. Ya big dummy. lol

And you are right, the numbers in the 9/11 Report dont match the FDR, yet the 9/11 Report sources the NTSB Flight Path Study which is based on the FDR data, for their numbers. Hmmm.... perhaps you should inform the 9/11 Commission to stop distributing misinformation.

Tom, this is about as juicy as when you put your foot in your mouth on rotation data, MEL's, AOA data that could "never show -15.6 deg" (yet that is exactly what it shows in the data and it seems you still dont even know why...lol), the list goes on. Dont you ever tire of eating your shoe?

Tom, we will NEVER ban you (although you may be given a "time-out" from time to time as all immature children and grumpy old senile men need). You are perhaps the greatest example of ignorance demonstrated routinely by those who blindly support the govt story.

As for your new AOA analysis, It also wrong, idiot. Look up what Deck angle means. ACTUAL AOA and Pitch will be positive in normal cruise. But you wouldnt know this as you never get above perhaps 5000 feet with all of your what, 3 hours in a 172? Nor have you even reviewed the data which also proves you wrong. Furthermore, the decrease in AOA on climbout is due to increase in speed, not due to retraction of flaps/slats. If you maintain the same speed and retract the slats/flaps, you'll need an increase in AOA to maintain your altitude (or equivalent rate of climb if you're not behind the power curve). Flaps/slats increase wing aspect ratio thereby increasing lift for a given airspeed. Retract the flaps/slats and you'll need a higher AOA to maintain altitude at the same speed... Extend flaps/slats and you dont need as much AOA for a given speed. This is demonstrated in a typical slow flight lesson taught on perhaps a students second or third lesson. This is basic stuff ya moron. Tom, your CFI's must really love you. Can you even find one that will fly with you? lol

Also, stop posting off topic junk in the Warren thread. It will only get split to here.

As for my ad homs above directed at you, i dont want to hear any crying or i'll just edit your post. Dont dish it out if you cant take it. This is our house, expect the same level of courtesy and respect you show for us above and at your cesspool.

Tom, crawl back into your hole. lol.. too funny.

Oh boy...!

This one is gonna be another of your masterpieces, Robby. One completely wrong statement after another...

Damn, boy, it's fun to be a 400 hour C172 pilot that points out one piece of BS after another after another that an alleged ATP & instructor pilot. Especially one as baseless arrogant & GLORIOUSLY clueless as you are...

Well, let's get started.



We'll see shortly exactly who is The Idiot, Fyodor.

Let's start out with YOUR gloriously biggest analytic screw-up: You chose to attempt to do an aeronautical analysis based on a NARRATIVE by a bunch of lawyers & politicians. Exactly how idiotic was that, Fyodor?

If I were to do an engineering analysis based on a bunch of lawyers & politicians' statements, the fault would NOT be with the lawyers & politicians, Rob. I would be ME acting like an incompetent moron.

Since YOU choose to make this brain-dead mistake, I'll give YOU one guess who substitutes for "me" at the end of that last sentence.

But, you still got lucky taking this silly, silly action (i.e., trusting lawyers & politicians). Because it turns out that the only thing that they got wrong in the section that you quoted was to remove several instances of the word "approximately" from the NTSB report.



Yup, that's right. It came out in 06.

And every single statement that you quoted was right in 2001. Was right in 2006. And is right today.



Every single statement is true. Perhaps you'd care to point out the one(s) that you claim are in error?



All of the math is yours & yours alone.

And it's ALL wrong. GLORIOUSLY wrong. Because you have not the SLIGHTEST clue how to turn English sentences into math equations.

Let's look at your incompetence, one step at a time:

These are YOUR statements, Rob. NOT the 911 Commission's. And nobody else's.

a. AA77 travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes just before starting the 330° turn.
b. Average speed over this interval was 396 kts.
c. AA77 entered the 330° turn at 396 kts.
d. travelled 5 miles in the turn
e. took 3 minutes to do so.
f. average speed thru the turn was 430 kts.

And EVERY ONE of them is wrong. Not because of anything that the 911 Commission said. But because of baseless, idiotic and wrong conditions that you attached to the situation. Conditions that nobody else, except you, asserted.

For example, the stupid statement that the plane could start out 5 miles west of the Pentagon, fly about 3 miles towards the building, make a giant (ahem, 19 mile long) sweeping 330° turn while descending over a mile, and then a 4 mile straight run into the building, and do all of that while traveling a grand total of ... wait for the stupid answer ... FIVE miles...!!!

LoL.

And here is my favorite. You, not the 911 Commission, YOU say that the plane, doing an average of 430 knots, travels only 5 miles in 3 minutes...??!!

Cripes, Rob. I'm only a C172 pilot. But I know that if I'm doing about 105 kts, I'm covering 2 miles a minute. Your failed attempt at a math has a 757, that is exceeding its Vmo by about 140 knots, covering 20% less distance than a C172 at 80% cruise power would in the same amount of time?!!

What does it say about an alleged instructor pilot who can not do simple speed-time-distance calculations?



OK, I guess that I can play this game too, Rob.

You are right, Rob, when you say that everything that you've said is complete garbage & everything that I've said is right on the mark. I appreciate it when you concede utter, unconditional defeat like this.

Psst, Robby, I never said that these numbers from the 911 Commission are wrong. They are not. I say that it is YOU, Rob who is utterly incompetent at doing trivial calculations. And I've proved that point over & over & over again.



Except for the teensy little point that that data was NOT AoA... And the additional little annoyance that none of these planes ever flew at all, much less level, at a -15° AoA. for your brain-dead assertion



Munch away, Robby. Filet of sole a la Balsamo...



Wrong, Robby, And it's all there in the data.

It is NOT air speed, Rob. The speed is held a constant 155 -160 kts throughout this entire portion of the climb out. I guess I shouldn't expect failed ATP pilots to be able to look at the chart and notice that the airspeed is sitting there, & show to be constant.

This change in behavior HAD to be due to some change in configuration of the plane. I thought it would be slats. It wasn't. What is was was changing the configuration of the plane, not the wings.

It was the gear being raised.

So much for your "increased airspeed" crappola...

How's that shoe tasting, Rob...??



You're right, Rob. It HILARIOUS when an alleged ATP pilot can't do simple speed-time-distance calculations.
When he asserts that a overspeed 757 covers significantly less distance than an 80% power Cessna 172.
When he asserts that a plane doing giant loops in the sky covers the same distance as it would if it flew in a straight line.

And it is achingly hilarious when an alleged professional decides to do his lame excuse for an analysis based on a bunch of aviation amateurs known as lawyers & politicians.

Too funny for words...

Thanks for the laugh, Rob.


Tom

From the 9/11 Commission Report quoted and sourced in the article you claimed to have read.

"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 ....

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60...

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed."

Do the math Tommy.

You claim the aircraft covered a "19 mile long sweeping 330° turn while descending over a mile, and then a 4 mile straight run into the building" in 3 mins 46 seconds (referencing the 9/11 Commission report above).

Tommy, thats 23 miles.

23/3.7 = 6.2 miles per minute.

6.2*60 = 372 knots

Who exactly doesnt know how to do speed/time/distance calcs? Tommy, i do them in my head while flying. lol... although, not so much any more as we have whats called a "banana". You wouldnt know this as you arent a professional and by the looks of your posts, will never be one.... (Envy is a sin Tommy, i'll pray for you... lol). I can see it now. "Oh geeeze, here comes Mr Know-It-All Tommy", says the Flight School dispatcher you're about to rent from. CFI standing next to the counter says, "Yeah, thats an accident waiting to happen...". I see it all the time Tommy. I know many who are dead now because of it.

I followed up in the article by saying...

"Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The footnote "59, 60, 61" refers to The Flight Path Study of American 77 provided by the NTSB, which no one can find. One person claims to have called the NTSB and the NTSB says they havent done any reports/analysis for any of the aircraft of Sept 11. NTSB phone in DC (202)-314-6000. I tried, but i hit brick walls. Update: 8/11/06 NTSB Flight Path Study released."

I also updated the article with several footnotes after the release of the NTSB Flight Path Study and FDR data stating that the 9/11 Commission Report numbers are inaccurate according to the newly released FDR data.

Tommy, all you are doing here is showing your tunnel vision, your extreme bias for the govt story, and your lack of discipline in research.... and it is blowing up in your face. Keep up the good work!

The rest of your post is your typical "open mouth, insert foot" ignorance of the basic fundamentals of flight you are accustomed to so I wont bother wasting my time (unless you want to pay me 100/hr for instruction, my usual rate is about 30, but that is for people willing to learn..lol). Although, some other pilots/CFI's here might want to expose your ignorance step by step, but i wont hold my breath if i were you. lol.

Tommy, its clear why you remain anonymous. Because if i find out who you are, I will certainly report your posts/aero-knowledge to whoever you rent from (or if you own, your insurance company) and the FAA (not a threat, but a promise). Its my duty and will be my pleasure. You're an accident waiting to happen. I just hope you dont take anyone with you.

Now, if you feel im insane/kook/dont deserve/havent earned my ratings/feel my passengers safety is in jeopardy... etc.., feel free to report it to the FAA. Be sure to give them your name when filling out the report. "Reheat" claimed he was going to report me and supposedly had "friends" who will be "interested" once i renew my medical, but as usual, fell short when he realized he had to give his name. This was over a year ago and my medical has since been renewed without a snag (matter of fact, the AME invited me to a QB meeting, you know what QB is Tommy? didnt think so...). Hence one of the reasons why we call him "Retreat". You people are all smoke and mirrors... and cowards.

You think you're playing with a kid here? No my friend. you're playing with fire.

As far as your "failed ATP" claims. Be ready to put some jelly on your shoe once again moron.

I think you meant to write 372 m.p.h. there Rob.

Depends on Statute vs Nautical.

The NTSB specifies Knots in their Flight Path Study. The FDR data is based on knots. Tom didnt specify.

Either way, the average speed for the final leg and turn based on distance/time in the 9/11 Commission Report is WELL above the the speed/time in the FDR data later released.

In other words, the 9/11 Commission Report data/numbers conflicts with their own sources. Tom accuses me of the misinformation due to his lack of discipline in research. I find that hilarious. but i do thank him for bringing it up..

Rob,



And I've asked you to point out EXACTLY which of these numbers are wrong. And what the right number should be.

Your frantic tap dancing, pulling "bananas" and "step angles" out of your butt & waving them around while you evade that question, is obvious to the discerning reader.



Your attempt to divert the topic from YOUR failed math and speed-time-distance calculations are obvious to the discerning reader.

And thank you for demonstrating, once again, how sloppy you are when attempting to manipulate numbers.

Now you are mashing together MY numbers, derived using my assumptions and incorporating my round-off errors, with numbers produced by lawyers & politicians, derived using their assumptions and incorporating their round-off errors. And all the while, you possess absolutely zero clue about either of our assumptions or either of our round-off errors.

Is it any wonder that you constantly get ludicrously wrong numbers?

2200 Gs anyone?? LMAO...!!

Tell ya what, Robby. I'll give you my numbers (cross checked and consistent to 4 decimal places) in my next post. And you'll have every opportunity to dissect them. (THAT should be entertaining...!)

But we're not talking about MY numbers, Rob. We're talking about YOUR numbers.

Now, until you tell me which of those numbers in the 9-11 Commission Report are wrong, then YOUR malodorous analysis is lying smack dab at YOUR feet.

And THAT analysis is the topic at hand.

The following quote is your words from your AA77 FRONT PAGE, which is still up today. Complete with erroneous numbers.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html



"So, lets go on what we have."

YOUR words, stating that you are presenting YOUR analysis. When YOU are presenting an analysis, Rob, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure that YOU understand the numbers that YOU are using, that YOU understand the meaning that YOUR sources attached to them, and that YOU are not mucking up the whole shebang.

These are YOUR claims, Robby.


a. AA77 travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes just before starting the 330° turn.
b. Average speed over this interval was 396 kts.
c. AA77 entered the 330° turn at 396 kts.
d. travelled 5 miles in the turn
e. took 3 minutes to do so.
f. average speed thru the turn was 430 kts.

Those numbers are YOUR responsibility, Rob.

And here are your errors, Rob.

a. Your first number required no calculating at all. It was given to you by the 9-11 Commission. Who got it from the NTSB. And guess what. It's right. The FDR shows it to be 33.1 miles.

b. Since the 9-11 Commission was talking about ground locations, it's appropriate to use ground speed. The FDR's answer is 345.0 kts. Your mistake is that you put in nautical miles instead of statute miles. Which makes your calculation 15% too high.

c. Here, you begin talking about aircraft performance, so the right number to use is "true airspeed". The FDR's answer is 328 kts. Your silly mistake is that you concluded that your instantaneous speed at the end of your interval is equal to your average speed over some extended interval. If you take a 50 mile trip, and average 60 miles per hour, is it correct to assume that you enter your driveway at 60 mph, Rob?

d. Now, the juicy one... Your calculations are based on YOUR statement that the plane "covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes".

For some inexplicable (except to you) reason, YOU CONCLUDE that, since he started the turn (as the 911C CORRECTLY says) "5 miles from the Pentagon", that in making his descending 330° turn & run in, he traveled a total of 5 miles. The FDR says that the plane covered 19.1 statute miles in the turn and 4.4 statute miles during the run-in, for a total of about 23.5 statute miles.

The ground track during this maneuver was 18.9 + 4.3 = 23.2 statute miles.

e. The 9-11 Commission says that it took "about 3 minutes". Again, they are correct. The FDR says that it took 193 seconds (in the turn) plus 34 seconds (during the run-in), for a total of 227 seconds = 3 minutes, 47 seconds. Which, in politicians' & lawyers' minds is "about 3 minutes".

YOU mistakenly concluded that the 911C meant "3 minutes, 0 seconds". Silly boy...!

d. And this one is another juicy one. You took YOUR MISTAKEN starting speed (396 kts), and the final speed (NOT in the turn, but) at impact of 530 mph (= 461 kts), and averaged those two instantaneous speeds...?!! And concluded, based on one mistaken speed and a second speed that was not even in the turn, that the average speed in the turn was (396 + 461)/2 = 428.5 which is approximately 430.

Amazingly incompetent.

The FDR's data, based on 1 second integrations, shows that the true airspeed in the turn was 309.8 kts. The true airspeed during the run-in was 407 kts. The average airspeed over this whole interval was 325 kts.



Sure you can, Robby.

You just can't get the right answers.

Answers are a dime-a-dozen, Rob. Right answers are a little more difficult.


Tom

lol.. Tom, you're such a windbag. I have never seen such a pathetic display of backpeddling (although i've seen close). Now we have to be mind readers? lol

Lets dispense with the BS and just get down to brass tacks, shall we?

You claim the following are all my claims and that every one is wrong.

a. AA77 travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes just before starting the 330° turn.
b. Average speed over this interval was 396 kts.
c. AA77 entered the 330° turn at 396 kts.
d. travelled 5 miles in the turn
e. took 3 minutes to do so.
f. average speed thru the turn was 430 kts.

First, when you made your post at the cesspool regarding the above, you didnt even realize it was an article written prior to the release of FDR Data and based on 9/11 Commission numbers. Now that i have pointed that out and quoted the 9/11 Commission Report, you are in full spin/damage control mode.

Again, you claim these are my claims and that they are all wrong. First we will determine if in fact they are my claims, then figure out if they are wrong as you claim. I will include 9/11 Commssion Report numbers which my first calculations were based, then the NTSB Flight Path Study numbers which was later released and conflicts with the 9/11 Commission Report, although the Commission Report sources the NTSB Flight Path Study, and then your numbers.

I will put your claims in bold and the conclusions to each claim in red.

a. AA77 travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes just before starting the 330° turn.

The above is my claim.

9/11 Commission Report
38 - 5 = 33

NTSB Flight Path Study
35 - 3.5 = 31.5

Tommy's numbers
28.6 (he doesnt specify nautical or statute)

The above claim is correct. 9/11 Commsion Report conflicts with their own source. Tommy is wrong.
b. Average speed over this interval was 396 kts.

The above is my claim.

9/11 Commission Report
09:29am - 38 miles out
09:34am - 5 miles out

33 miles over 5 mins = 6.6 miles per minute
6.6*60 = 396 knots/455 mph, 396 mph/344 knots. (edit to add: clarify knots/mph)


NTSB Flight Path Study
09:29 - 35 miles out
09:34 - 3.5 miles out

31.5 miles over 5 mins = 6.3 miles per minute
6.3*60 = 378 knots/435 mph, 378 mph/328.5 knots. (edit to add: clarify knots/mph)

Tommy's number:
298.1 (again, he doesnt specify knots or mph, but since he referenced mine as knots, its safe to say he is displaying knots)

Considering the 9/11 Commission Report sources the NTSB Flight Path Study for the above numbers and uses the same language (such as "approximately", except for the numbers), it is safe to say they didn't convert nautical to statute. And even if they did, they still conflict. For example, 35 nautical miles is "approximately" 40 statute, not "approximately" 38.

The above claim is correct, Tommy is wrong.

d. travelled 5 miles in the turn

The above is NOT my claim. It is a strawman. The correct quote is:

"He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes."

Notice the word "covered", not "travelled". Please stop lying Tommy. The 5 mile reference is a straight line distance due to the 9/11 Commission Report stating, "At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn."

Tommy's above claim is a strawman.

e. took 3 minutes to do so.

This claim is an extension of the above claim. And is also a strawman by default. However, the correct quote is:

"...and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes."

Notice the word "about". Tommy seems to place great weight on the 9/11 Commission Report "approximately", but completely ignores my word noting "about".

Tommy's above claim is intellectually dishonest, complete spin and a strawman.

f. average speed thru the turn was 430 kts.

The above claim is mine and is based on the avg speed entering the turn as calculated above, and the final speed reported by the 9/11 Commission based on what they claim is from the NTSB Flight Path Study. The disclaimer, "Since we dont know bank angles or speed." was written in the article, Tommy ignored it and takes the above as literal.

The above claim made by Tommy is another strawman.


Now Tommy, since it's clear you are in extreme damage control mode because you once again put your foot in your mouth, have an inability to concede anything, and are spamming our forum with nonsensical BS and backpeddling, take some time off to study. A week should do it. Be sure to read the NTSB Flight Path Study this time and compare it to the 9/11 Commission Report. Specficially the "impact time" as compared to the 9/11 Commission Report and Warrens new decode.

Have a great week!

Ahem...


"31.5 miles over 5 mins = 6.3 miles per minute
6.3*60 = 378 knots (or 435 mph)"


6.3 miles per minute = 378 miles per hour = 320 knots.

[quote name='Skeptik' date='Jan 11 2010, 01:44 PM' post='10781472']


"33 miles over 5 mins = 6.6 miles per minute
6.6*60 = 396 knots (or if mph, 344 knots)"

"or if mph, 344 knots"

The above is referenced in the NTSB Flight Path Study and they reference their speeds in Knots and (MPH in parentheses).

Either way, again, the 9/11 Commission Report conflicts with the NTSB Flight Path Study. For example...

9/11 Commission Report
09:29am - 38 miles out
09:34am - 5 miles out

NTSB Flight Path Study
09:29 - 35 miles out
09:34 - 3.5 miles out

9/11 Commission Report "Impact Time"
09:37:46

NTSB Flight Path Study
09:37:45

Warren
09:37:50-51

Keep in mind the language in the NTSB Flight Path Study is almost exactly the same as the 9/11 Commission Report, except for the numbers. Why would "lawyers & politicians" use almost identical language of their source, but change the values?

Hmmm....

I can understand if they were told the NTSB Flight Path Study is in nautical and made an attempt to change their numbers to statute (as they did with speed), but still, they're not even close. "Approximately 35 miles" becomes "Approximately 38 miles"? Please...

Again, Tommy expects us to be mind readers and have blind faith using profession as an excuse? Really? These people want answers. The list grows.

lol.. thanks... force of habit i guess....

fixed...

Too funny!

I just took a gander in the cesspool. Little Cessna Boy thinks the Gear was retracted after the flaps which is what caused the AOA to re-stablize in the climb.

What a freakin moron and further shows this amateur Tommy will NEVER be a professional.

Tommy, familiarize yourself with Takeoff callouts that are standardized on almost every aircraft that requires a flight crew....

The gear was pulled 3 seconds after they broke ground according to the data. The flap handle didnt move till they got to 1000' AGL (This is SOP on almost every aircraft i've flown with a crew required). The flaps were fully retracted by 2200 MSL and 189 knots. The AOA fluctuated between positive 10-15 deg all during this time (0 to -5 "Indicated AOA"). The AOA then started to decrease as speed increased with aircraft clean. The AOA didnt stabilize till roughly 4000 feet and 250 knots with about a positive 3 degree AOA (roughly -11/12 "Indicated AOA") until they got above 10k and were able to increase speed in the climb, which then the AOA returned to "Level/0 deg AOA" in the -15 deg "Indicated AOA" range. This is a standard take-off profile i've done 1000's of times of which Tommy will never be fortunate enough to experience other than from a cabin. Again Tommy, envy is a sin.

Tommy, you may want to add peanut butter to that jelly on your shoe as you must now be getting tired of eating your shoe with just jelly.

LOL, he thinks the gear came up after the flaps. What a freakin idiot. Everyone now ignores him over there as well. Clearly they now realize the guy needs to put down the crack pipe. His posts dont even make sense, he is wrong on almost everything, and he claims to be posting numbers and charts which arent even there. Wow.