Skygate 911

[William Seger]

31. LOL, so you didn't IGNORE the point

Last edited Tue Jun 3, 2014, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)

... you didn't even understand it in the first place.

> Your point would be valid if Beachnut was comparing a 757 to an Airbus. But in his case, he was comparing an Airbus to a 737, and claiming the Airbus was a 757!

He was comparing an Airbus to a 737 and saying it looked closer than the 737 because it's bigger than a 737. If a 757 is even bigger than an A320, then it would look closer still. If A > B and B > C, then A > C.

But logic just isn't your thing, is it.

And immediately, another example:

> Nor have you been able to find the relevant FAR under Part 25 for 1.15Vd when you initially claimed a 50% FoS. You are nothing but a huge waste of time.

FAR 25 says, "The airplane must be designed to withstand any vibration and buffeting that might occur in any likely operating condition up to VD/MD, including stall and probable inadvertent excursions beyond the boundaries of the buffet onset envelope." On the other hand, Boeing says that they design their planes to be flutter-free at 1.15 Vd (the link is still there). Neither of those things has anything whatsoever to do with load FoS. For structural load FoS, FAR 25 says, "Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure." Sorry, but in view of your recently discovered confusion over what "load" means in this context, your ability to recognize plane models does not qualify you to even discuss the issue.

But no, this has not been a total waste of time. We have discovered that the "argument from incredulity" you use to claim the 9/11 plane speeds were impossible is firmly protected by willful ignorance.

Anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention.