Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Skygate 911 [View all]William Seger
(10,923 posts)The way that the 'increase of 15 percent" specification (or 20% when the 767 was designed) is met is by including a factor of safety in the calculated, theoretical forces, as the FAR requires. That is another "limit" case, not an "ultimate," so it makes your claim even weaker than the specifications that I posted, which you persist in ignoring in hopes of befuddling the gullible with fallacious arguments. Let's give you another opportunity to ignore them:
FAR 25.301(a) says, "Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety). Unless otherwise provided, prescribed loads are limit loads."
FAR 25.303 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."
FAR 25.305(e) 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."
You have NO IDEA how fast a 757 or 767 can fly without falling apart, because nobody does until it happens, and even then it would depend on the total situation, not just the speed. UAL175 did not do any radical maneuvering when it was flying over 500 knots.
The reason I call you a fraud is that you persist in using claims that you must know are bullshit to sell your videos. For over two years, when your buddy had a copy of the proprietary FDR decoding software, you claimed it was "impossible" for there to be 4 seconds missing from the AA77 CSV data, when all along you must have known that there were corrupt blocks at the end that the software couldn't decode. We now know much of what's in those blocks, no thanks to you. You persist in ignoring it because it refutes your "too high" claims. You claimed that there couldn't have been any hijacking because the FDR showed the cockpit door closed the whole flight, when you must have known that the door sensor didn't EVER show the door open -- even when the pilots entered for that flight or any of the previous flights! -- because that sensor obviously wasn't enabled. You persist in claiming ridiculous G-loads when AA77 pulled up, even after your math errors have been pointed out to you. You posted a graphic on our old September 11 board with a rotated compass, hoping nobody would notice. And I see you are still using that FAA animation with the misaligned Pentagon graphic to imply "something fishy," when you know that the actual FDR data shows the same heading as the radar track. The list goes on and on, and in every case, your attitude has apparently been "so what" if it helps sell videos to gullible conspiracists.
If you really believed your own claim of no factor of safety beyond Vd, you'd post it on a board where you would expect engineers would affirm it. You haven't, and won't, because you know what the result would be. I haven't posted the question on another engineering forum because I wanted to give you every opportunity to make your own case, since your "poisoning the well" accusation was completely predictable, even though I phrased the question the same way I put it to you. But now that you've forfeited the opportunity, I will find another engineering forum to post it on, so good luck. When it's confirmed, again, that you are wrong, anyone familiar with the sad Cap'n Bob saga will not be surprised when you refuse to retract your claims. As I said many posts ago, I don't see how you are going to get out of this one without gnawing your own paw off, but I was right that it's been fun to watch, and the fun isn't over yet. (Which reminds me, thanks for bumping this thread.)