9/11 Video

[fossten]

You want some cheese with that whine?

I love how when *I* hand one of the conservative board members their a55 on a platter

You've never done that.

there's no congratulatory back patting and rabble rousing from my fellow liberal board members,

Liberals aren't collegial. They only know how to hate. But you already knew that, didn't you?

but when a conservative hack makes a good point, not only will I stipulate to it, but then the razzing begins from the poster's conservative cronies...

You ever think your name calling causes this?

 

[raVeneyes]

I'll give you an A for effort,
but your point has not been made. It can't be made.

I know you are familiar with Occam's Razor.

Which is more likely, Muslim guys hijacked planes, crashed them into a building. OR- the government engaged in some insane conspiracy to kill thousands of citizens? Because if the attack on the Pentagon is a conspiracy, then the WTC attack and Flight 93 were also part of it.

More unbelievably that the government could plan it, but that it could actually pull it off AND KEEP IT A SECRET!! That kind of effeciency in government is more unimaginable than anything else you could possibly imagine.

Because a photographer, or a mechanic, or a tradesmen, or a musician, or any other assortment of regular lay people can't fully understand the physics, chemistry, and flight dynamics associated with it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I fully agree with these points, I don't doubt that it is possible for anything to have happened on September 11th because I did not witness any of the events with my own eyes and I have not seen credible evidence of any occurrence. It is this lack of evidence that is most disturbing to me, and I'm sure in decades to come when the country is once again in the hands of those that understand the free-flow of information and ideas that things will be explained in a more satisfactory manner. As it is, this administration holds on to that data as though it were precious, and doesn't release a fart unless it serves them and their agenda.

I'd also like to let you know that my first line of study was aerodynamics and aerospace engineering. I've invented and drawn plans for ground effect vehicles and engines designed to use the aerodynamic theories of ground effects...I in fact won a model racing competition in a national school science competition because my car used ground effects to lift itself from the track a bit (not completely off the guides, but enough to lose traction to the bottoms of the wheels). These are not complex mechanical forces or very mysterious (the exact physics of them is debatable, but engineers let physicists debate that all while continuing to use the reality of it).

Ground effects are a dynamic force in flight, and it's one of the first things they teach you in ground school. However, they are most important at low speed. They are most often used to keep a plane aloft when moving slowly, or when trying to take off. A jumbo jet moving over 300mph will not suddenly be pulled up just because it's low to the ground.

Have you ever seen video of a plane crash? Did the nose pull up before it hit the ground?

Plane crash videos such as the ones of the test crashes in the desert are flown by stunt pilots remotely. Most of the time the video starts in the final few moments (less than half a second) from the ground. I personally have never watched any of them all the way through, but I'm positive that with the flight control inputs shown, you would see a sudden push on the stick, or you would see that the flight path of the plane was done in such a direction that without the ground effect the plane would have crashed before it's intended target. Yes a plane, flying at a shallow 3 degree angle of attack will suddenly be pulled up at half the distance of it's wing tip to the fuselage.

This is not supposition just cold hard fact, ask any first time pilot what happened when they came in for a landing too fast.

Non-military, non-stunt pilots are taught to take advantage of this sudden greater lift and to use the flare to gently place the plane on the ground, but an inexperienced pilot without stunt or military training would have no idea how to predict the flare on a jumbo jet (happens much earlier than a Cessna) or compensate for it while trying to crash (never has a basic pilot's course included how to crash).

 

[Calabrio]

This is not supposition just cold hard fact

O.K. How about this. In the minds of the terrorist, they just lucked out.

The "Sh!t happens" principle. They could have crashed in the yard. They might have hit higher. But, this time, they hit right there. Maybe the ground effect pulled him up and prevented them from crashing into the yard?

A handful of curious events don't mean you dismiss the overwhelming logical evidence and firsthand accounts.

 

[raVeneyes]

O.K. How about this. In the minds of the terrorist, they just lucked out.

The "Sh!t happens" principle. They could have crashed in the yard. They might have hit higher. But, this time, they hit right there. Maybe the ground effect pulled him up and prevented them from crashing into the yard?

A handful of curious events don't mean you dismiss the overwhelming logical evidence and firsthand accounts.

No you're absolutely right, a handful of curious events don't cause a dismissal of the logical evidence and witness accounts, but on the "there are no coincidences" principal the curious events necessarily cause you to question until you have a factual answer for what happened.

You can't just accept what you get at face value.

 

[Calabrio]

No you're absolutely right, a handful of curious events don't cause a dismissal of the logical evidence and witness accounts, but on the "there are no coincidences" principal the curious events necessarily cause you to question until you have a factual answer for what happened.

You can't just accept what you get at face value.

But we have a very plausible explanation of the events.

If you're premise is- "my that's odd, I wonder how that happened-" that's fine. But most of these these "conspiracy" types take half-truths then misrepresent them. So, by ignoring the giant hole, they say that only a small hole existed- thus the Pentagon was struck by a missle??? That's quite an abrupt conclusion to arrive at.

Despite all the so called "odditities" no other plausible explanations exists. Until at least ONE conclusive piece of evidence exists, these conspiracy theories are unhealthy.

 

[MonsterMark]

Lots of sites that take the conspiracy theorists to task.

Here's one of many.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

 

[TheDude]

I love how when *I* hand one of the conservative board members their a55 on a platter there's no congratulatory back patting and rabble rousing from my fellow liberal board members, but when a conservative hack makes a good point, not only will I stipulate to it, but then the razzing begins from the poster's conservative cronies...

Do you really need a back patting when you know you're right?

 

[TheDude]

Liberals aren't collegial. They only know how to hate. But you already knew that, didn't you?

You should look up the meaning of Liberalism before you mouth off and accuse others of hating. Hey, here's a thought, if 'you' hate Liberals for hating, doesn't that make you one? Hmmm...

 

[fossten]

You should look up the meaning of Liberalism before you mouth off and accuse others of hating. Hey, here's a thought, if 'you' hate Liberals for hating, doesn't that make you one? Hmmm...

I know the meaning of liberalism, i.e. progressivism, and it has very little to do with the modern-day, obstructionist, invective-spouting, Bush-hating, reason-shunning, hate-mongering liberal. But that's a topic for another thread.

When have I EVER said that I hate liberals? Actually, I pity them and see them as part of the problem. But I don't hate anyone. Pointing out hate doesn't come from hate, it comes from reason and sanity. We've had this conversation before, though. Ever peruse the Daily Kos? Or Huff-n-Puff? Plenty of hate there. Don't see a lot of hate in the conservative blogs.

Nice job of putting words in my mouth. But that's what liberals do, too, don't they? It's known as "demagogue."

 

[raVeneyes]

Do you really need a back patting when you know you're right?

LOL, no I suppose not...it would be nice if someone would hand me a cookie though.

 

[raVeneyes]

But we have a very plausible explanation of the events.

Very plausible explanations are good, but I don't trust in them until I see evidence that proves the suppositions. I might agree with them, and accept them as a plausible explanation, but I can still question.

Where are the three black boxes found at the WTC? Why won't they release the data from the flight data recorder at the Pentagon (I understand not releasing the voice recording portion)? Where's the data from the Flight Data recorder of the Pennsylvania crash site?

If you're premise is- "my that's odd, I wonder how that happened-" that's fine.

You've nailed my premise on the head. "Gee that's strange, how did that ever happen that way?"

But most of these these "conspiracy" types take half-truths then misrepresent them. So, by ignoring the giant hole, they say that only a small hole existed- thus the Pentagon was struck by a missle??? That's quite an abrupt conclusion to arrive at.

You're correct that is a strange conclusion, and not one I've supported, just that it is plausible something other than a boeing 757 piloted by a crazed fanatical member of Al Quieda hit the Pentagon building.

Despite all the so called "odditities" no other plausible explanations exists. Until at least ONE conclusive piece of evidence exists, these conspiracy theories are unhealthy.

This is where you and I disagree, I think that conspiracy theories are very healthy for the public and for the truth. If someone can come up with plausible oddities about a situation, then there it is a healthy exercise in the free flow of information society in which we are supposed to live, to investigate those oddities and come up with either evidence or rational conclusions from them. Blocking that investigation is tantamount to terrorism in and of itself.

 

[TheDude]

I know the meaning of liberalism, i.e. progressivism, and it has very little to do with the modern-day, obstructionist, invective-spouting, Bush-hating, reason-shunning, hate-mongering liberal. But that's a topic for another thread.

When have I EVER said that I hate liberals? Actually, I pity them and see them as part of the problem. But I don't hate anyone. Pointing out hate doesn't come from hate, it comes from reason and sanity. We've had this conversation before, though. Ever peruse the Daily Kos? Or Huff-n-Puff? Plenty of hate there. Don't see a lot of hate in the conservative blogs.

Nice job of putting words in my mouth. But that's what liberals do, too, don't they? It's known as "demagogue."

I said 'you' not meaning you Fossten, meaning anyone.

 

[TheDude]

LOL, no I suppose not...it would be nice if someone would hand me a cookie though.

Enjoy...

 

[Calabrio]

This is where you and I disagree, I think that conspiracy theories are very healthy for the public and for the truth. If someone can come up with plausible oddities about a situation, then there it is a healthy exercise in the free flow of information society in which we are supposed to live, to investigate those oddities and come up with either evidence or rational conclusions from them. Blocking that investigation is tantamount to terrorism in and of itself.

Let's distinguish from "conspiracy theories" and seeking answers.

A conspiracy theory is "I don't understand, therefore there are powers higher than the government operating in a caldenstine way to control our lives."

Problems solving is "that's curious. I wonder how that could have happened. I do not presume that there are powers operating above the government controling our lives, deceiving the public, or manipulating our lives unless there were very powerful conclusive evidence to support such a notion."

Consipiracy theories (not asking questions) are unhealthy and it makes people feel helpless and unresponsible for the events of the world.

 

[raVeneyes]

A conspiracy theory is "I don't understand, therefore there are powers higher than the government operating in a caldenstine way to control our lives."

Ok, yes that kind of conspiracy theory is useless (and kinda silly...really)

 

[Dominus]

I don't know what you call fast but i think that is fast, be it 350 MPH or 500 MPH anything over 300 MPH is fast if you read my statement it said what ever the speed was it was fast.

Who cares if it was fast? What was your point again?

Then how would you explain that there was only the front landing gear found at the site and not the rest if it was not lowered. OHH that's right it was burned up with the rest of the plane

Who ever said that they only found the front landing gear?

No it doesn’t just bounce off but it would break off and at that height were it tore down the light poles of HWY and it was still descending where your so call 600 people were the dividers on the HWY would have gave some kind of damage since the plane was that low thus no damage to the dividers so the landing gear was not down so why didn't the landing gear that was found burn up with the rest of it

What the hell are you talking about? The landing gear is made of of tough materias, and the plane was not flying low enough to hit the dividers.

I agree but not as many layers as the Pentagon has.

Um, yeah. The experts seem to disagree with you.

Yes they can but at that speed and on what.... 15 to 20 feet off the ground and since the Pentagon is on sort of a hill and an incline the ground should have added some kind of resistance which would mean NO SPOOLS where they were. and if you give me the crap about it not being so low then I say the light poles would not have been knocked down the way they were

Hill? incline? Where? There's no hill or incline there. Have youe ver actually been to the Pentagon? No spools where they were? What did you expect to happen to them? They got knocked around.

What I’m asking is plain and simple do you believe everything the government says?

No, and I don't believe everything that some jackass with no qualifications says.

Yes they have better shots/cams then some of the banks and federal buildings I have been in

Show us these better recorded camera shots.

Yes the HWY with an excellent view of the side the pentagon got hit on, it nice and high and if you don't believe me take a look at any of the news archives to see it for yourself.

SHow us the better recorded camera footage and shots.

If there were other people on the line how did you get the call sorry I might be a little slow on that one

My friend was one of the first to call. He was one of the people on the line. DUH!

 

[Dominus]

Odd....the fact that a high speed ground effect vehicle (which by the way you were the first to make note of in this thread) exists disagrees with the idea that at higher air speed there is no ground effect. I'd love for you to quote the passage of the FAA flight manual that covers high speed approach to the ground though...I think that has a comedic value all it's own.

Here ya go:

"ground effect is most significant when the airplane
(especially a low-wing airplane) is maintaining a
constant attitude at low airspeed at low altitude (for
example, during takeoff when the airplane lifts off
and accelerates to climb speed, and during the landing
flare before touchdown)."

"As a result of the reduced wingtip vortices,
induced drag is reduced. When the wing is at a height
equal to one-fourth the span, the reduction in induced
drag is about 25 percent, and when the wing is at a
height equal to one-tenth the span, the reduction in
induced drag is about 50 percent. At high speeds where
parasite drag dominates, induced drag is a small part of
the total drag. Consequently, the effects of ground effect
are of greater concern during takeoff and landing."

Yeah, ground effect my ass.

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

"The KM, as one model was known in the top secret Soviet military development program, was over 100 m long, weighed 540 tonnes fully loaded, and could travel over 400 km/h, mere meters above the surface of the water."

400 KPH == 248.56 MPH - gee...that's pretty fast there Dominus

Are you comparing a plane designed to CREATE ground effect to a plane that needs the use of leading and trailing flaps in order to take off and land?

A 747 needs 180 mph just to lift itself off of the ground AT ALL. 250 mph is not even high speed, if one should even be dumb enough to consider an ekranoplan to be a conventional fixed wing aircraft.

Without the use of it's flaps, the 757 would be encountering little to no ground effect at the speed it hit the Pentagon.

 

[Dominus]

I love how when *I* hand one of the conservative board members their a55 on a platter there's no congratulatory back patting and rabble rousing from my fellow liberal board members, but when a conservative hack makes a good point, not only will I stipulate to it, but then the razzing begins from the poster's conservative cronies...

1. I'm not conservative.

2. You can't hand anybody their ass, when you are dead wrong.

 

[raVeneyes]

Here ya go:

"ground effect is most significant when the airplane
(especially a low-wing airplane) is maintaining a
constant attitude at low airspeed at low altitude (for
example, during takeoff when the airplane lifts off
and accelerates to climb speed, and during the landing
flare before touchdown)."

"As a result of the reduced wingtip vortices,
induced drag is reduced. When the wing is at a height
equal to one-fourth the span, the reduction in induced
drag is about 25 percent, and when the wing is at a
height equal to one-tenth the span, the reduction in
induced drag is about 50 percent. At high speeds where
parasite drag dominates, induced drag is a small part of
the total drag. Consequently, the effects of ground effect
are of greater concern during takeoff and landing."

Yeah, ground effect my ass.

Are you comparing a plane designed to CREATE ground effect to a plane that needs the use of leading and trailing flaps in order to take off and land?

Ground effect begins at 50% of one wingtip to the body of the plane (much more accurate than saying 25% of the span) and not only affects the drag felt by the plane (hence the amount of throttle needed to go a particular speed) but also affects the lifting force and efficiency of the airfoil.

The upswept wing tips on most current jet airliners are an evolution of this theoretical efficiency gain used in practice (and I might add the invention of a peer of mine, who had conversations with me about the theory when I was studying it). The gain in efficiency is constant, at any speed, and sudden in that the vortices are interrupted at a specific height to the ground.

The only differences between ground effect planes and standard air planes is that the ground effect planes are capable of supporting much more weight per square inch of airfoil, and therefore require much smaller wings...in all other respects regarding the shapes and designs of the airfoils they are the same. The profile of a ground effect airfoil is exactly the same as that of a 757.

Further the angle of attack of this plane coming towards the ground on it's fateful crash with the building is even more shallow than that of a landing air plane, thus the ground effect would have been even more difficult to overcome. It was in fact a "constant attitude at low airspeed at low altitude" and the only thing I'd possibly disagree with the passage you quoted (from what book I have no idea) is the "low airspeed" portion because ground effect happens regardless of airspeed. The thrust effect (the condition where suddenly the plane needs much less throttle than it did a few seconds before because of the loss of incidental drag) will only happen at low air speeds, the lift effect will happen at any air speed.

A 747 needs 180 mph just to lift itself off of the ground AT ALL. 250 mph is not even high speed, if one should even be dumb enough to consider an ekranoplan to be a conventional fixed wing aircraft.

Without the use of it's flaps, the 757 would be encountering little to no ground effect at the speed it hit the Pentagon.

Use of flaps only correlates to ground effect in that the magnification of lift is a multiplication, not an addition. Use of flaps *would* have increased the force of the ground effect, but regardless of amount of force, because the shallow angle at which the plane was flying, any amount of force would have been enough to change the plane's vertical direction. The ground effect needn't have been great because the plane was only coming towards the ground at a few miles an hour, hence the inertia of the plane towards the ground was low and only a small force would have been required to change it's direction up.

By the way, a Boeing 757's nominal takeoff speed is between 118-122 kt == 136-140 MPH, and on short runways can take off even slower with a larger flap angle... 250 MPH is a little under halfway to the 757's cruise speed of 540 MPH (in other words really F*cking fast), and the plane was reported as going 345 MPH according to the cockpit data recorder. (and I'm sorry, I just found that data, so my figure of 500+ MPH was incorrect before)

One thing that I *have* found during all this research is that the Boeing has an automated throttle control system (SPD and EPR) both of which the pilot would have had to disengage in order to preform maneuvers (the SPD can not operate at low altitude, in ground effect, or during a flight level change; and the EPR mode is for climb out and simply locks the throttles to a maximum, but will allow any minimum). Further, contrary to what some debunk sites have stated, the roll mode computers, which typically compensate for turbulence and sudden pitch and yaw changes during flight, could not be engaged (or would automatically disengage) as the pilot aimed the plane at the pentagon.

No, this was one of the luckiest hits in all of history...with a completely untrained pilot lucking out and happening to fly in to a 14 ft high corridor of space with a 15 ft tall plane...

 

[JoeyGood]

What the hell are you talking about? The landing gear is made of of tough materias, and the plane was not flying low enough to hit the dividers.

Since the one part of landing gear they did show is what would seem to be the front part but ok i'll go with your argument it wasn't flying that low but it was low enough to knock down the light poles which i don't think you can argue since thay have show pics of those unless i mistaken that too.

Hill? incline? Where? There's no hill or incline there. Have youe ver actually been to the Pentagon? No spools where they were? What did you expect to happen to them? They got knocked around.

Look at the pics and tell me it's not on some kind of incline from the HWY unless these pics are wrong also. And yes I would think they (SPOOLS) would be moved or even gone towards the building or something but no they stayed in the same spot.

No, and I don't believe everything that some jackass with no qualifications says.!

Granted I’m not qualified to as what some investigators and or government people to really state what I am questioning is true or not. But if I am jackass because I simply point things out that some wouldn't notice or want to notice is just plain uncalled for. We listen to what you have to say and I for one only point out things in between the lines of what your statements are and since you can't bring yourself to say maybe just one maybe since you don't believe everything the government says you resort to name calling like a child

 

[raVeneyes]

No, this was one of the luckiest hits in all of history...with a completely untrained pilot lucking out and happening to fly in to a 14 ft high corridor of space with a 15 ft tall plane...

For all of those that are about to ask "What are you talking about?" let me show you some things from my research:

image courtesy of Boeing.com

The image has been adjusted from 1 in / 40 ft to 3 in / 40 feet.

The Boeing 757-200 has a height of 15 feet in it's passenger tube. Not only that, but a height of 15.75 ft if you add in the belly pan of the luggage area. Further the reports all indicate that there was NO damage to the lawn prior to the building, so barring the engines being torn off (it is a possibility) before they would have come in to play, the total height of the aircraft without landing gear down from ground to top is 19 feet with the Rolls Royce engines having a height of 8' 1" according to the original documentation.

The floor slab of level two of the pentagon is 14 ft from the floor slab of level one.

Now, even assuming the top portion of the plane just sheared off on impact leaving only the heavy bottom portion, which itself is about 10.75 ft high (7.5 ft high without clearance for the engines), to impact in a space only 14 ft high. If you want to equate that to something, it's kind of like sinking a golf ball in the hole from the tee with a driver on a par 5.

:shifty:

Just weird.

That's one really really hard bit of flying.

 

[Dominus]

Ground effect begins at 50% of one wingtip to the body of the plane (much more accurate than saying 25% of the span) and not only affects the drag felt by the plane (hence the amount of throttle needed to go a particular speed) but also affects the lifting force and efficiency of the airfoil.

The upswept wing tips on most current jet airliners are an evolution of this theoretical efficiency gain used in practice (and I might add the invention of a peer of mine, who had conversations with me about the theory when I was studying it). The gain in efficiency is constant, at any speed, and sudden in that the vortices are interrupted at a specific height to the ground.

The only differences between ground effect planes and standard air planes is that the ground effect planes are capable of supporting much more weight per square inch of airfoil, and therefore require much smaller wings...in all other respects regarding the shapes and designs of the airfoils they are the same. The profile of a ground effect airfoil is exactly the same as that of a 757.

I'll take the FAA's word over yours. As a matter of fact, everyone does, which is why the FAA runs the skies, and not you.

Further the angle of attack of this plane coming towards the ground on it's fateful crash with the building is even more shallow than that of a landing air plane, thus the ground effect would have been even more difficult to overcome.

WTF? Since when does a landing plane come in with it's nose down at that altitude? What a lie.

It was in fact a "constant attitude at low airspeed at low altitude" and the only thing I'd possibly disagree with the passage you quoted (from what book I have no idea) is the "low airspeed" portion because ground effect happens regardless of airspeed.

Again, the FAA knows more than you. End of story.

The thrust effect (the condition where suddenly the plane needs much less throttle than it did a few seconds before because of the loss of incidental drag) will only happen at low air speeds, the lift effect will happen at any air speed.

FAA>you

Use of flaps only correlates to ground effect in that the magnification of lift is a multiplication, not an addition. Use of flaps *would* have increased the force of the ground effect, but regardless of amount of force, because the shallow angle at which the plane was flying, any amount of force would have been enough to change the plane's vertical direction.

According to your THEORY, the plane was already flying in ground effect well before it came near the Pentagon (hence the knocked down light poles), so obviously even if we go by your crackpot theory, any adjustments that needed to be made, had already been done, and any effects had already happened; once again, if we go by your crackpot theory and ignore the finding of the FAA and all of the experts that work for them and have far more knowledge int heir little pinky than you will ever imagine in your life.

The ground effect needn't have been great because the plane was only coming towards the ground at a few miles an hour, hence the inertia of the plane towards the ground was low and only a small force would have been required to change it's direction up.

See above.

By the way, a Boeing 757's nominal takeoff speed is between 118-122 kt == 136-140 MPH, and on short runways can take off even slower with a larger flap angle... 250 MPH is a little under halfway to the 757's cruise speed of 540 MPH (in other words really F*cking fast), and the plane was reported as going 345 MPH according to the cockpit data recorder. (and I'm sorry, I just found that data, so my figure of 500+ MPH was incorrect before)

Yeah, but it's not an Ekronoplan. Don't be ignorant and pretend that airplane doesn't doesn't directlt affect when a plane simply falls out of the sky. AN Ekranoplan can do things that will cause a 757 to stall and crash, regardless of ground effect. Ground effect doesn't break the laws of physics, even in its operational area.

One thing that I *have* found during all this research is that the Boeing has an automated throttle control system (SPD and EPR) both of which the pilot would have had to disengage in order to preform maneuvers (the SPD can not operate at low altitude, in ground effect, or during a flight level change; and the EPR mode is for climb out and simply locks the throttles to a maximum, but will allow any minimum).

Yeah, when they were threatening to kill the pilots, this information was probably revealed to them if they didn't know it already.

Further, contrary to what some debunk sites have stated, the roll mode computers, which typically compensate for turbulence and sudden pitch and yaw changes during flight, could not be engaged (or would automatically disengage) as the pilot aimed the plane at the pentagon.



No, this was one of the luckiest hits in all of history...with a completely untrained pilot lucking out and happening to fly in to a 14 ft high corridor of space with a 15 ft tall plane...

They landed a plane. No amazing feat. There just happened to be a building there.

 

[Dominus]

Since the one part of landing gear they did show is what would seem to be the front part but ok i'll go with your argument it wasn't flying that low but it was low enough to knock down the light poles which i don't think you can argue since thay have show pics of those unless i mistaken that too.

Of course it knocked down the light poles. Light poles are pretty high you know. These weren't lamp posts on a country main street. These things are REALLY high.

Look at the pics and tell me it's not on some kind of incline from the HWY unless these pics are wrong also.

Small incline, yes, hill, no.

And yes I would think they (SPOOLS) would be moved or even gone towards the building or something but no they stayed in the same spot.

The spools did move. They moved toward the wall. Nothing is allowed near or kept near the wall. They got knocked just the same as the generator I showed a picture of. They also found engine prints (engine strikes) on a building just before the egenrator.

The engine print left on the building, ground, and generator match EXACTLY to the distance between the 757's engines.

Granted I’m not qualified to as what some investigators and or government people to really state what I am questioning is true or not. But if I am jackass because I simply point things out that some wouldn't notice or want to notice is just plain uncalled for.

I never called you a jackass. The jackasses are all of these "9/11 truth" websites and video makers who spread all these lies that all of you conspiracy nuts believe in.

We listen to what you have to say and I for one only point out things in between the lines of what your statements are and since you can't bring yourself to say maybe just one maybe since you don't believe everything the government says you resort to name calling like a child

I already said that I don't believe everything that the government says, but I'm certainly not going to take the word of some unqualifies film makers or web designers over the word of the greatest team of experts ever assembled, especially when their arguments are all based on lies, half-truths, miscalculations, exaggerations, and emotion.

 

[fossten]

I never called you a jackass. The jackasses are all of these "9/11 truth" websites and video makers who spread all these lies that all of you conspiracy nuts believe in.

:bowrofl: Thanks for the clarity!

 

[raVeneyes]

I'll take the FAA's word over yours. As a matter of fact, everyone does, which is why the FAA runs the skies, and not you.

Ok, when you have the FAA's word on this subject let me know, because as of yet you haven't quoted where you're getting your data from, even though I have at every turn.

The quote you presented and the quote I presented say the same exact thing, only the quote you presented includes the useless section of the wingspan that is made up of the body of the plane. This portion of the wingspan can not be factored in to the height for ground effect, but since it's relatively small, it rarely comes in to question. Whether it's 25% of the wing span or 50% of one wing's length they're almost the same number.

WTF? Since when does a landing plane come in with it's nose down at that altitude? What a lie.

When was the last time you landed a plane??? Every one I've ever landed was a nose down attitude (not altitude) of at least 5-10 degrees until moments before contact with the runway at which point the throttle is adjusted back and the nose is tipped up (flare).

Again, the FAA knows more than you. End of story.

FAA>you

Sure...the FAA knows more than me, and get one FAA scientist to respond to these questions with logical and direct answers and I'd be happy.

According to your THEORY, the plane was already flying in ground effect well before it came near the Pentagon (hence the knocked down light poles)

No, read again, the plane came in to ground effect at approximately 27.75 feet height from the ground...a mere 3/4 of a second before impact based on triangulation and speed.

so obviously even if we go by your crackpot theory,

Nice name calling thrown in

any adjustments that needed to be made, had already been done, and any effects had already happened

at 3/4 of a second before impact my assertion is that the pilot, being inexperienced, wouldn't have had time to adjust for ground effect and would have hit the building higher. That's not to discount coincidence, it is after all possible that he did in fact come in to ground effect before the highway because he had aimed his plane at the intersection of the highway and the lawn, but that would be the only way he would have had time to adjust, and is an illogical mistake to have been made by such an inexperienced pilot.

once again, if we go by your crackpot theory

again nice name calling

and ignore the finding of the FAA and all of the experts that work for them

The FAA to this date has never officially published an account of what happened to the four planes that were reported as hijacked on 9/11 or a set of findings for what they found at the crash sites of 9/11

and have far more knowledge int heir little pinky than you will ever imagine in your life.

Wow, not only rude and name calling, but obviously wrong as I have over and over and over again proved that you haven't even the slightest clue as to what's going on (Take off speed of a 757, existence of ground effect at high speed, speed of plane during crash, what is considered high and low speed for the 757, the effects of ground effect, the typical angle of attack of a landing plane, etc... etc... etc...) and I do, and have provided hard fact and documents you can read for yourself to back up my points.

Yeah, but it's not an Ekronoplan.

You are correct, this however makes zero bit of difference on how ground effect affects the plane.

Don't be ignorant and pretend that airplane doesn't doesn't directlt affect when a plane simply falls out of the sky.

What is this sentence supposed to say?

AN Ekranoplan can do things that will cause a 757 to stall and crash, regardless of ground effect. Ground effect doesn't break the laws of physics, even in its operational area.

An Ekranoplan can't do anything that would cause a 757 to stall and crash... in fact, the stall angle on an Ekranoplan is even shallower than a 757 because of its stubby wings. AN Ekranoplan relies on ground effect to maintain it's lift capabilities, a 757 is designed to fly out of ground effect. Though the two designs are different in the air out of ground effect, they operate exactly the same in ground effect. Ground effect doesn't change based on what it's affecting, it works just the same for a car, a plane, a boat, or an Ekranoplan.

Yeah, when they were threatening to kill the pilots, this information was probably revealed to them if they didn't know it already.

That wasn't my point, but as you've demonstrated a deep inability to read and comprehend I'll clarify:

Many debunk sites say that ground effect would have had no affect on a Boeing 757 for only ONE reason. The Boeing 757 is a fly-by-wire plane. This means all control inputs are translated through computers and on to a servo mechanism which moves the flight control surfaces. These computers during normal flight operations use the algorithms I provided the acronyms for to maintain a constant level flight, in the exact direction of the control inputs, regardless of turbulence or sudden air effects. These flight control systems during flight change the angle and deflection rate of control surfaces and the amount of throttle provided to each engine to compensate for any air changes, and it is very good at quickly recovering normal flight when hitting a change in air density or movement.

Unfortunately all these systems must be disengaged in order to fly the plane in to a building like it was...and any maneuvers made like the ones documented by the radar control centers will automatically disengage any of these systems which may have been accidentally left on.

They landed a plane. No amazing feat. There just happened to be a building there.

It actually is an amazing feat. Landing a Boeing 757 without the aid of a radio flight path is almost impossible... the plane handles like a cruise liner, not like a Cesna. Control inputs don't directly translate to immediate movements, in fact, the pilots are told to take an extra long time when trimming out the plane for cross country flight because any changes in trim will take several seconds to play out in the flight characteristics of the 757.

With a target effectively as wide as 5 runways it is a miracle he hit it at all, but the most amazing and fantastical part of the impact is the fact that a completely novice pilot, flying a plane he'd never flown on, managed to guide a jumbo jet in to a corridor of space that was smaller than the jet itself....that...that is amazing...