The PentaCon

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by darkbluesky
John and Anok, Specifically John, What the heck are you thinking? Any airliner exceeds 1.5 G during rotation at take off. Why would the 757 computers prevent this?

I'm sorry, but I'm begining to believe the ATS John Lear isn't the real John Lear, or the real John Lear isn't the pilot he claims to be.

As I stated in my original post an airliner rarely exceeds 1.5 g's. I believe that you are misinformed.

John, Ive never flown a 757 either, hell, I've never flown anything with more than 2 seats. But I've studied up a little bit on aeronautics.

www.rdoman.com...

This was easier than photcopying, scanning, converting to PDF etc.



fixed link.


[edit on 2/27/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by johnlear

None of the rebuttals made by darkbluesky in this post are valid.

a. false
b. only John Lears opinion.

In several of his responses he is not addressing the issue. Rather than waste my time answering each one of darkblueskys responses if anybody has a question in particular I would be happy to respond.

I believe that darkbluesky is trying his best to address a difficult and complex issue and I would not call him disingenuous.

Charming to the last John.

ATS members, If you haven't already, please read the whole thread. Whoever is posting as John Lear in this thread is an imposter, or an intentional deciever. All of my rebuttals are backed by readily available public and/or aviation data, The fact that "Mr. Lear" has announced that he will no longer respond to my questions or rebuttles, tells me he's befuttled.

I will continue to respond to all questions/challenges regarding the aeronautical aspects of this discussion.

LeftBehind how is the plane hitting light poles beside a highway the same as the plane hitting the light poles at the Pentagon ?
Jack how do you explain the witness who saw the plane knock over the light poles ?
Unless it can be proved that the person is lying your whole case seem bunk.

Or were the light poles that were knocked over in the wrong section of the Pentagon compared with the official flight path ?
There is also the other questions I have asked in this thread.
I'm willing to keep an open mind but so far I'm just not buying it .

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by ANOK
From what I've read the on board computers keep a 757 from exceeding 1.5G's, and cannot be overridden by the pilot. Mostly for passenger comfort of course.

John do you know if this is true?

That may be true I was never qualified in the Boeing 757,

John, How about saying "I dont know, I was never qualified in the 757." ?

or...

"this may, or may not be true, I was never......."?

why tacitly support the unsubstantiated supposition?

Can someone really prove (provide link if already done so) with irrefutable evidence that the poles could have been "toppled over" because of such force from the turbulence that the great speed of the 757 blew out?

Maybe the turbulence from the 757 was only high enough above the ground to topple the lightpoles (explaining their positioning), but barely misses moving the cars? I don't know, just throwing out a thought.

Lloyd's cab must've been only struck by a toppled down light pole? Like, it just fell off its base and gradually fell down with the force of gravity, maybe thats why the seat wasn't messed up. The undamaged hood was probably a fluke.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by BigMoser]

and maybe that same turbulence was blowing that dirt/dust off the lawn as it was inches off the ground... (causing people to claim it was skidding the ground?)

Originally posted by darkbluesky

ATS members, If you haven't already, please read the whole thread. Whoever is posting as John Lear in this thread is an imposter, or an intentional deciever. All of my rebuttals are backed by readily available public and/or aviation data, The fact that "Mr. Lear" has announced that he will no longer respond to my questions or rebuttles, tells me he's befuttled.

OK. You got me darkbluesky. I can’t answer your questions. I am the fake John Lear.

The REAL John Lear stands tall, a man among men. Handsome, close cropped white hair, a lady killer he is, slim and trim even at 64. Well read, well spoken. A diplomats diplomat. World traveler, comfortable sipping tea in a caravanserai in Kandahar as sipping coffee (masbut, sukran) downtown Sana'a. Only if you look carefully in the left lapel of his dinner jacket can you see the International Order of the Knights Grand Cross of the Star of Asia. His tanned face would blush if you brought it to his attention.

He can expound on the trials and tribulations of Omega navigation, simplify the mechanics of celestial navigation and detail GPS to the unwashed. An inveterate storyteller he will have you rolling in the aisles with his irreverent stories of flying for the CIA in Laos, his cattle run flying cows from Khartoum to feed the army in South Yemen. Running guns from Greece to South Africa and his part in the 'October Surprise'.

He would have you believe that he is the only pilot to have flown as captain, on the same day, in the same Boeing 707, a revenue flight for both El Al (Israel’s national airline) and Air Sinai (One of Egypts passenger airlines). Lear holds more Federal Aviation Administration issued airman certificates than any other airman. He is type rated in 23 aircraft and has flown over 100 different aircraft in over 50 different countries.

Retired for 6 years now I am sure the REAL John Lear would not be posting on ATS or talking about the Pentagon 757. I would doubt he even had a computer. I would imagine John Lear sipping an expensive Sauvignon Blanc in the afternoon sun while waiting for his 5 year old grandson to finish kindergarten and come to his grampa to read "McElligots's Pool" (by Dr. Seuss) for the thousandth time.

I would imagine John Lear to be susceptible to bribes of Cohiba Esplendidos and Courvoisier XO if only he would reveal the secrets of the universe.

No darkbluesky, I am not John Lear. I am a cheap fraud who wishes he could shine John Lear's shoes. If ever I could find him.

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by darkbluesky

ATS members, If you haven't already, please read the whole thread. Whoever is posting as John Lear in this thread is an imposter, or an intentional deciever. All of my rebuttals are backed by readily available public and/or aviation data, The fact that "Mr. Lear" has announced that he will no longer respond to my questions or rebuttles, tells me he's befuttled.

OK. You got me darkbluesky. I can’t answer your questions. I am the fake John Lear.

The REAL John Lear stands tall, a man among men. Handsome, close cropped white hair, a lady killer he is, slim and trim even at 64. Well read, well spoken. A diplomats diplomat. World traveler, comfortable sipping tea in a caravanserai in Kandahar as sipping coffee (masbut, sukran) downtown Sana'a. Only if you look carefully in the left lapel of his dinner jacket can you see the International Order of the Knights Grand Cross of the Star of Asia. His tanned face would blush if you brought it to his attention.

He can expound on the trials and tribulations of Omega navigation, simplify the mechanics of celestial navigation and detail GPS to the unwashed. An inveterate storyteller he will have you rolling in the aisles with his irreverent stories of flying for the CIA in Laos, his cattle run flying cows from Khartoum to feed the army in South Yemen. Running guns from Greece to South Africa and his part in the 'October Surprise'.

He would have you believe that he is the only pilot to have flown as captain, on the same day, in the same Boeing 707, a revenue flight for both El Al (Israel’s national airline) and Air Sinai (One of Egypts passenger airlines). Lear holds more Federal Aviation Administration issued airman certificates than any other airman. He is type rated in 23 aircraft and has flown over 100 different aircraft in over 50 different countries.

Retired for 6 years now I am sure the REAL John Lear would not be posting on ATS or talking about the Pentagon 757. I would doubt he even had a computer. I would imagine John Lear sipping an expensive Sauvignon Blanc in the afternoon sun while waiting for his 5 year old grandson to finish kindergarten and come to his grampa to read "McElligots's Pool" (by Dr. Seuss) for the thousandth time.

I would imagine John Lear to be susceptible to bribes of Cohiba Esplendidos and Courvoisier XO if only he would reveal the secrets of the universe.

No darkbluesky, I am not John Lear. I am a cheap fraud who wishes he could shine John Lear's shoes. If ever I could find him.

FIRST AND FOREMOST.... HEED JOHNS SIGNATURE!

That's all very nice "John" but it doesn't respond to my factual statements. Care to spend as many keystokes as you just spent on yourself, to put the record straight regarding acceptable G forces on airframes and humans?



[edit on 2/27/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 2/27/2007 by darkbluesky]

darkbluesky, johnlear (real or not) can we please get back on topic? this thread is about Jacks video, not whatever you two have been arguing about for pages now.

Sorry John, Just one more question...and let me apologize in advance for the departure from decorum. I'm sure a gentleman such as yourself will tolerate my poor judgement here.

Why post a picture of yourself in a "tweet" when you've been in so many "more capable" aircraft?

edit:

If it's an A-6, I apologize again....this time for my bad memory, but the question still stands.



[edit on 2/27/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by lizziex3
darkbluesky, johnlear (real or not) can we please get back on topic? this thread is about Jacks video, not whatever you two have been arguing about for pages now.

Fine....

Jack's Video sucks.
Foremost....Poor production quality!
Full of contradictions.
His conclusions dismiss the testimony of two of his witnesses.

If I were being paid to make that thing, and that piece of crap is what I gave to my boss.... I'd expect to get fired.

How's that for my opinion on the topic of Jack's little movie?




[edit on 2/27/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by lizziex3
darkbluesky, johnlear (real or not) can we please get back on topic? this thread is about Jacks video, not whatever you two have been arguing about for pages now.

Fine....

Jack's Video sucks.
Foremost....Poor production quality!
Full of contradictions.
His conclusions dismiss the testimony of two of his witnesses.

If I were being paid to make that thing, and that piece of crap is what I gave to my boss.... I'd expect to get fired.

How's that for my opinion on the topic of Jack's little movie?




[edit on 2/27/2007 by darkbluesky]

I agree 100%

Source : eric.bart.free.fr...

Renzi Rick

Rick Renzi a law student - ''The plane came in at an incredibly steep angle with incredibly high speed,''... was driving by the Pentagon at the time of the crash about 9:40 a.m. The impact created a huge yellow and orange fireball, he added. Renzi, who was interviewed at the scene by FBI agents, said he stopped his car to watch and saw another plane following and turn off after the first craft's impact.
www.pittsburgh.com...

Robbins James S

James S Robbins a national-security analyst & 'nationalreviewonline' contributor: "I was standing, looking out my large office window, which faces west and from six stories up has a commanding view of the Potomac and the Virginia heights." "The Pentagon is about a mile and half distant in the center of the tableau. I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck. The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory, but at the time. " I did not immediately comprehend what I was witnessing. There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building. I froze, gaping for a second until the sound of the detonation, a sharp pop at that distance, shook me out of it. "
www.nationalreview.com...

There are more witnesses who saw the plane come in at a steep angle, how does that fit the official and new flightpath?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Sorry John, Just one more question...and let me apologize in advance for the departure from decorum. I'm sure a gentleman such as yourself will tolerate my poor judgement here.

Why post a picture of yourself in a "tweet" when you've been in so many "more capable" aircraft?
edit:

If it's an A-6, I apologize again....this time for my bad memory, but the question still stands.

Its a CF-104D Lockheed Starfighter Americas first Mach 2 fighter.

Very impressive LaBTop!

Rick Renzi's account is a joke and we cover him in the Researcher's Edition.

He is a well known corrupt congressman and just so happened to be an eyewitness to the plane. In 2006 he was named one of the 20 most corrupt members of congress in a report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. We'll present footage showing him describe the plane as "dive bombing" into the building. He even jestures his hand.

This contradicts the official story/security video 100%.

Its like the security video shows half of a plane.. i'll get a picture up with some modifications of brightness and contrast.

Here ya go, this is what I visualize.




Red = Wing ?

Yellow = Fuselage ?

Green = Body ?

Blue = Tail ?

Of course, if it came straight down, then this is fake.

*REPOST*
Can someone really prove (provide link if already done so) with irrefutable evidence that the poles could have been "toppled over" because of such force from the turbulence that the great speed of the 757 blew out?

Maybe the turbulence from the 757 was only high enough above the ground to topple the lightpoles (explaining their positioning), but barely misses moving the cars? I don't know, just throwing out a thought.

Lloyd's cab must've been only struck by a toppled down light pole? Like, it just fell off its base and gradually fell down with the force of gravity, maybe thats why the seat wasn't messed up. The undamaged hood was probably a fluke.

And maybe that same turbulence kicked up some dirt/dust just inches off the ground causing people to think it skidded on the ground before hitting the Pentagon?

*End Repost*
[edit on 28-2-2007 by BigMoser]

[edit on 28-2-2007 by BigMoser]

this difference pictures might help you:



Already posted them in the past once somewhere on taht forum. Like I see the 4 points you set are indeed there in the difference picture. But I self can't make anything out of thsi except that there is somethign very strange in that area. Differences everywhere were they shouldnt be. Wouldn't wonder if the videos were edited.
(the parts that are different shows strongly rectangle borders if you zoom into the difference part's of the pic)

1.5 g Commercial airliner during takeoff run.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

During take off run the main part of the acceleration is in forward path.
If there is a g limitation on an airplane I guess it is done with one sensor that can only handle 1 direction and would most like observe the up down direction of the aircraft and with this the G's in banking by constant absolut velocity.


[edit on 28-2-2007 by g210b]

Originally posted by g210b

1.5 g Commercial airliner during takeoff run.

During take off run the main part of the acceleration is in forward path.
If there is a g limitation on an airplane I guess it is done with one sensor that can only handle 1 direction and would most like observe the up down direction of the aircraft and with this the G's in banking by constant absolut velocity.

GB, If you go down to the next item on the list below, you'll see that during take off rotatation the average airliner experiences 2 Gs. Take off run means the acceleration down the runway with the wheels still on the ground. Rotation is when the yoke is pulled back and the nose wheel comes off the ground....the pilot is "rotating" the aircraft around its pitch axis - an imaginary straight line that passes through the aircraft from wing tip to wing tip. At this time the aircraft undergoes vertical G loading (straight down).

Most fly by wire airliners have sensors and software that prevent the pilot from inputing controls that would over stress the airframe. But the limiting Gs are much higher than 1.5.

Inputs to the yoke snd pedals are measures by the computer and the computer sends signals to the control surfaces to complete the desired maneuver. The computer will limit the control surface movement based on allowable G loading. Again, much higher than 1.5 Gs.

Just consider the entire list below and tell me if you think it makes sense that airliners would be designed and built for 2 Gs if roller coasters are designed for 3.5.

Some Typical g-Forces

1 g Standing

1.2 g Normal elevator acceleration (up).

1.5-2g Walking down stairs.

2-3 g Hopping down stairs.

1.5 g Commercial airliner during takeoff run.

2 g Commercial airliner at rotation

3.5 g Maximum acceleration in amusement park rides (design guidelines).

4 g Indy cars in the second turn at Disney World (side and down force).

4+ g Carrier based aircraft launch.

10 g Threshold for blackout during violent maneuvers in high performance aircraft. Vertical bank in F-16 for example.

10 g The NASA g-force simulator is limited to 10 g for astronaut training.

11 g Alan Shepard in his historic sub orbital Mercury flight experience a maximum force of 11 g. During this time he was unable to speak because he could not move his jaw.

20 g The Colonel Stapp experiments on acceleration in rocket sleds indicated that in the 10 to 20 g range there was the possibility of injury because of organs moving inside the body. Beyond 20 g they concluded that there was the potential for death due to internal injuries. Their experiments were limited to 20 g.

30 g The design maximum for sleds used to test dummies with commercial restraint and air bag systems is 30 g.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
GB, If you go down to the next item on the list below, you'll see that during take off rotatation the average airliner experiences 2 Gs. Take off run means the acceleration down the runway with the wheels still on the ground. Rotation is when the yoke is pulled back and the nose wheel comes off the ground....the pilot is "rotating" the aircraft around its pitch axis - an imaginary straight line that passes through the aircraft from wing tip to wing tip. At this time the aircraft undergoes vertical G loading (straight down).

The most aircraft are still accelerating forward when rotating. You have a vector combination of both acceleration then. But the main part of it I asume will be downward at that point thought this very depends on how strong the pilot pulls up the plane. In a very smooth pull you will hardly notice any difference downward than to the standing plane and that means 1G downward. (there is no jump in G's)
Don't know but the strongest acceleration I felt in comercial jets pax 100+ are mostly right at the start (forward) and on touchdown(downward). Don't remember to have feelt a higher G-peak at rotation but I guess I will check how it feels on my next flight in a commercial aircraft.

Just consider the entire list below and tell me if you think it makes sense that airliners would be designed and built for 2 Gs if roller coasters are designed for 3.5.

I know that some commercial aircrafts like airbuses are electronical limited in their movements ability for staying in always safe fllightparameters and for passangers comfort. (no rollercaster flights) About how much stress they are designed to take I can't say anthing. But I guess that will be a safe factor more.

I didn't read all your talking with John. Just wanted to explain that 1.5G in that list.


Edit to ADD:
Just figured there is a rotation point and a take off point and thats not the same point and might explain why I did not notice an increasement in G's at all. On rotation the pilot brings the the nose up but the aircraft still rolls on the ground with the main gears. (no additional G if you sit over the rotation point). On take off it just does that..leave the ground (no additional G). After the pilot pulls a little more (a little additional G) to go to about ca 15 degree. So I don't see how the list comes to a higher G on the second entry for a noraml commercial jet. (it might look a little different for a verysmall jet)


[edit on 28-2-2007 by g210b]

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Just consider the entire list below and tell me if you think it makes sense that airliners would be designed and built for 2 Gs if roller coasters are designed for 3.5.

1.5 g Commercial airliner during takeoff run.

2 g Commercial airliner at rotation

Below is a copy of the original limitations page to the Lockheed L-1011 FAA Approved Flight Manual. As you can see the limitations are for 2.5 g's flaps retracted (I stand corrected) and 2.0 flaps extended.

The Lockheed L-1011 Tristar was certificated under Federal Air Regulations Part 25 and like all airliners is designed, built and certificated to those standards. All airliners are designed, built and certificated to 2.5 g flaps retracted and 2.0 flaps extended.



I have no explanation why Bozo's the Clowns List of G Forces would say that an airliner experiences 2 g's at rotation. That would mean that an airliner weighing normally 450,000 pounds on takeoff roll would weigh 900,000 pounds at rotation. Do you see how ridiculous that is?