What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

reply to post by ATH911


OH, please, DO go on, elaborate with sources and such.

Or, just spout off, don't bother to look at anyone's links if you've already made up your mind based on innuendo and claims from the internet conspiracy sitres? Yes, that's a better way to handle it.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by Lillydale
The typical liar will employee two well known and well worn techniques.

"typical liar"???

Them's fightin' words!!!!!!

You should apologize to me, for the implication that I HAVE LIED AT ANY TIME!!!!

Frankly, it is beneath you, as I thought you were fairly well-educated....seems I was mistaken.

NOTHING I have written was anything but from my own personal knowledge and opinion to the best of my ability from my experience.

Alleging that I have to "compensate" is insulting. My only mistake was in thinking that people would appreciate more background and a more thorough understanding...too bad some are going to act childish instead.

weedwacker, we're on different sides of this debate, but I agree that Lillydale sees things that simply aren't true. You may have seen her recent attacks on me. You may also have noticed that others attacked me as well. I contend that both sides of this discussion at times attack each other based on false preconceptions.

This may sound a bit out of left field, but just in case anyone else here has seen it, it reminds me somewhat of episode 19 in Rah Xephon (It's an anime; I just finished seeing that episode for the first time).

[edit on 29-9-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by weedwhacker

You calling me a liar?

reply to post by ATH911

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You calling me a liar?

Before he answers, I'd like to say that I didn't interpret his remarks as such. It seemed to me like he simply asked you to cite your sources. Honestly, I think it would be better if we stopped being so pessimistic in regards to what our opponents are trying to say and do. Out of curiosity, would you mind telling me what ATH stands for in your nickname?

[edit on 29-9-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by Lillydale


Thanks Lillydale for once again seeing through Weed's "spin". If anyone
was to page back in this discussion, you will see that I agree and understand
that KCAS and KTAS are equal at sea level because the formula accounts
for air density which is the same....therefore KCAS and KTAS are equal.

As you climb in altitude, air density changes and this is when you begin to
see differences in KTAS and KCAS.

I"ll take a few moments to find quotes in my replies which acknowledge this fact and see if Weedwacker offers an apology.

reply to post by turbofan

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Thanks Lillydale for once again seeing through Weed's "spin". If anyone
was to page back in this discussion, you will see that I agree and understand
that KCAS and KTAS are equal at sea level because the formula accounts
for air density which is the same....therefore KCAS and KTAS are equal.

As you climb in altitude, air density changes and this is when you begin to
see differences in KTAS and KCAS.

I"ll take a few moments to find quotes in my replies which acknowledge this fact and see if Weedwacker offers an apology.

Maybe he just didn't realize that you were agreeing with him on this point? I just wish we could give people we disagree with more of the benefit of the doubt.

I doubt it Scott because he's still not getting it after I clarified the question (abuot six different times).

After reading through some of the history here, I found these two quotes
by WeedWacker:

(the bolding is my emphasis)

Like instrumentation error, the compressibility error can also be accounted for using an airspeed correction chart. The result of this correction is the equivalent airspeed (EAS). The faster and higher an aircraft flies, the larger the correction becomes and the greater the difference between CAS and EAS. Equivalent airspeed is defined as the speed at sea level that would produce the same dynamic pressure as the true airspeed at the altitude the vehicle is flying at.

True Airspeed ----- 462
Calibrated Airspeed ----- 462
Equivalent Airspeed ----- 462
Airspeed Compressibility Correction ----- 0
Mach Number -------- 0.6984
Equivalent Mach Number ------ 0.6984

Now see above in his little numbers chart - Compressibilty Correction?

It is set to ZERO!

When I ask for EAS at 35,000 feet...WeedWacker continues to show me
that KCAS and KTAS and KEAS are all the same....USING A CORRECTION OF ZERO!



It's like stating, "I measured the length of my table with a ruler, and a tape measure and the result is the same".

What Weedwacker is failing to realize is...the table I want him to measure is not the same table.

Know what I mean?

reply to post by turbofan


That post, right there is a FLAT OUT LIE!!!! AND, I can prove it.

Still...even your lies get stars??? Wow.

Show us the EXACT posts you snipped those from. Come on, don't make me do it......AND show ALL of the comments in context.

BECAUSE, otherwise it will be necessary to show everyone for the fraud you are.....

reply to post by weedwhacker



Well, go ahead and prove it then. Everyone is on the same page with
me...except for you it seems!

So, go ahead and prove that you understand what I have been asking for
5+ pages.

Show me that you understand that a plane moving 462 knots at sea level
must travel over mach 1 at 35,000 feet to experience the same dynamic
pressure due to the difference in air density.

Waiting...

reply to post by turbofan

So, go ahead and prove that you understand what I have been asking for 5+ pages.

Your skill at hyperbole is unmatched. We are now on page 17, you lifted and cherry-picked (and totally ignored/misunderstood) from my post on page 15.


In this post part of what you ALL of what you lifted and "quoted" from me was taken directly, and properly tagged and attributed by me, from an external source.

Your attempt at disparaging me is obvious --- and borderline T&C violation (though, if an honest mistake, forgiveable).

fwiw, the calculator used, provided by the link to aerospaceweb.org I provided, WHEN the altitude of 0 (that's sea level) is input, the compressability correction factor given is calculated as ZERO! That wasn't me, it was the program.

The fact that YOU and your sycophants can't understand that pains me greatly. It also PROVES you don't have the intellectual curiosity to at least LOOK at what I researched, and posted for you. I look at your crap.


Just for "fun", I input 100 feet, instead of zero feet....NOW the correction factor is -0.0888 knots. WOW!!!! Less than one whole knot!!! Somebody call the media!!!

Show me that you understand that a plane moving 462 knots at sea level must travel over mach 1 at 35,000 feet to experience the same dynamic pressure due to the difference in air density.

THAT'S your problem....you get it half correct, THEN leap into illogic by thinking that BECAUSE the jet is in denser air at that speed it will either exceed Mach (wrong) or will suddenly fall apart (it won't).

I guess another problem is you, like many, many others, also don't understand the concept of True Airspeed.

The jet at sea level, and 462 KCAS is flying also at 462 KTAS. If you wish, we can also calculate its Mach there...that is .70

Take the jet up to 35000 feet, and fly at 462 KTAS. There, it is about 273 KCAS and Mach .80

The EAS is bogus information, and unimportant to this examination.

LOOK at the dynamic pressure, and the forces from that...ALSO in that calculator. They ARE higher, at sea level....so is the parasitic drag. THAT is why AA 77 was descending, to accelerate well above VMO, because they wanted to do maximum damage.

(I was thinking, perhaps a phycisist can tell us...would 100 knots slower have made much less damage? I doubt it...but these guys were hate-filled zealots. They WANTED to go as fast as possible, because in their minds it would be worse.)


I keep getting accused of talking too much. Well, with a recalcitrant student, sometimes you have to pound it in....from different directions, before he "gets it".
__________________________________________________
tried to fix post tag - failed to '404' for some reason...
It's top of page 15, this thread...



[edit on 29 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by turbofan
When I ask for EAS at 35,000 feet...WeedWacker continues to show me
that KCAS and KTAS and KEAS are all the same....USING A CORRECTION OF ZERO!

...What Weedwacker is failing to realize is...the table I want him to measure is not the same table.

Know what I mean?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Your attempt at disparaging me is obvious --- and borderline T&C violation (though, if an honest mistake, forgiveable)...

...LOOK at the dynamic pressure, and the forces from that...ALSO in that calculator. They ARE higher, at sea level....so is the parasitic drag. THAT is why AA 77 was descending, to accelerate well above VMO, because they wanted to do maximum damage.

Thanks weedwacker, for considering that turbofan simply made an honest mistake; this is, in essence, what I asked turbofan to consider in your case. I ask you both to consider the possibility that you guys are both missing things from each other's comments. Honestly, it's like 2 programmers arguing over whether a piece of code is right or not; I know what I believe happened at the pentagon, but when it comes to technical things like this, all I can say is it'll be a while before I can understand this stuff :-p

reply to post by scott3x


Thanks, scott.

JUST FOR clarity, HERE is the actual bit from my post, with the part I bolded that TURBO omitted....

For your viewing pleasure, I inputed 462 KCAS at sea level:

True Airspeed ----- 462
Calibrated Airspeed ----- 462
Equivalent Airspeed ----- 462
Airspeed Compressibility Correction ----- 0
Mach Number -------- 0.6984
Equivalent Mach Number ------ 0.6984

Accident??????

Y'all can judge.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Thanks, scott.

You're welcome :-)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
JUST FOR clarity, HERE is the actual bit from my post, with the part I bolded that TURBO omitted....

For your viewing pleasure, I inputed 462 KCAS at sea level:

True Airspeed ----- 462
Calibrated Airspeed ----- 462
Equivalent Airspeed ----- 462
Airspeed Compressibility Correction ----- 0
Mach Number -------- 0.6984
Equivalent Mach Number ------ 0.6984

Accident??????

Y'all can judge.

As you may have noticed, I generally like to think good of people, so I would go for accident over intentional. However, I think I should also say that I don't really understand all of this stuff. I really wish I could. I'm sure that both you and turbofan are trying to expain things to people like me, but I really still don't understand. If I could, I could render a judgement instead of just thinking that you guys must be misunderstanding each other; the one thing that's clear anyway, is that I don't understand either of your arguments ;-). Maybe you guys could try a bit more to explain it to me? If there's a post or posts that you think explains things, perhaps you could link it...

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"You already know that no one needs that video as evidence to demonstrate that AA77 hit the Pentagon."

Obviously, no one needs "that video" or any of the other videos confiscated by the FBI to demonstrate that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I guess withholding evidence is how the Government goes about proving their case. Yep, sure makes a lot of sense.

The "government" has no case it has to "prove." That's where you all fall flat on your faces.

James Randi and every other skeptic on the planet likes to quote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The government has to "prove" its case because this is the same government that stood before the UN lying their patooties off that Iraq definitively, no question or doubt about it, had WMDs then admitted later that it was poor intelligence and not true at all. This means that they are capable of lying to advance an agenda, and their extraordinary claims must be backed up with extraordinary evidence.

Liars must prove themselves.

They must prove why they took so long that morning to send planes from Langley AFB in Virginia Beach to "intercept" when it looked like a plane was going to hit the Nation's Capital.

They must prove why they didn't use ground defenses on a plane that is heading towards the Nation's Capital.

They must prove why a plane filled with military and ex-military, with no locks on the cockpit door, with luggage themselves and the ability to make makeshift weapons, would submit to the terrorists with boxcutters telling them they were going to die and call their loved ones from the BACK OF THE PLANE, and not even attempt to retake the plane. There were children on the plane. They were told supposedly that they were all going to die. Why not use those military skills and try to retake the plane from the terrorists?? This makes no sense. I'm not military and I would make the attempt--especially if told to call my loved ones and tell them I am about to die. What's there left to lose?

They must prove this and much more because they have no credibility nor liking for truth, regardless of the administration.

Gulf of Tonkin. Operation Northwoods. Yellow Cake. I could go on with all of their BS.

Why should "we" have to prove anything when "we" are merely asking questions? If "we" had the answers there is no point in asking questions. "We" are entitled to ask as many questions as we possibly can because we are dealing with consummate liars.

reply to post by scott3x


Nope, it's not a mistake Scott. HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT!

This is what WEEDWACKER thinks:

Take the jet up to 35000 feet, and fly at 462 KTAS. There, it is about 273 KCAS and Mach .80

Just plain incredible!

The air is thinner up there... SURE YOU CAN FLY AT 462 KNOTS AT 35,000
feet!

The freakin' cruising speed for a 757/767 is 500+ knots at 35,000 FEET!

OH MY GOD. YOU ARE NOT A PILOT! YOU CANNOT BE A PILOT!

WEEDWACKER, if you fly 462 knots at sea level and 462 knots at 35,000
feet, WILL THE PLANE EXPERIENCE THE SAME DYNAMIC PRESSURE.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

IT WONT

IT CAN"T BECAUSE THE AIR IS LESS DENSE!


SOOOOOOOOOOOOO, for the millionth FREAKIN' TIME:

WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVE SPEED I NEED TO FLY AT 35,000 FEET TO DUPLICATE
the DYNAMIC PRESSURE THE PLANE FEELS AT SEA LEVEL WHEN I FLY AT 462 KNOTS?!



[edit on 30-9-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, since you brought up intellectual dishonesty, "Lilly", it is time to point out all of your ghastly mistakes in the earlier challenge I made -- to address the evidence of American Airlines 77 at the crash site. Your "answers" were pathetic.

Would be funny if there weren't so many deaths involved.....

Really? Which answers were pathetic exactly? I could say the same thing to you but then again, I actually took the time to demonstrate it.

Do not pretend you are shocked that I called you a liar. I have been calling you a liar all along, you just did not get that. I am confused though as to why calling you a liar makes me less educated than I am? Are you saying that anyone who notices lies must be uneducated or that educated people just let lies go? I am really confused about all that.

If you are so offended by the word then put me on ignore. If you are going to say that my ""answers"" are so pathetic, why are you not clearing them all up?

It is ironic that I thought you were slightly more informed but to just simply call me pathetic and the just run away does not really give me much hope.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hmmmm.....who wrote that last night in one of his overly-long posts??? AND, I just read this today, to confim what I already knew....so.....

I am getting so sick of repeating myself. Am I typing too quietly for you people????????????????????????

Why do I have to re state the most basic sentences that do not somehow revolve around the memorized talking points?????

Did I complain that your posts are overly long? Did I complain that you were too informative?

Pay attention, I do not want to have to say this again.

That post I was referring to was a response to something specific. After the initial response, you then added this other paragraph that answered no questions being asked and gave info about nothing relevant to any of the posts. It read much like - "response, and by the way - I really really am a pilot because if I wasn't would I know this fact that no one was asking about?"

I get it now though. Basic English and logic is hard to find these days. I am going to have to try to dumb down my posts so that I do not have to say the same thing twice because you responded to something I did not actually say.

waiting on pins and needles for wackers wacky answers to these last questions:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

oh and his answer for this post by ath911 will probably be even more amusing if he even answers it at all... but then of course answering this will only make the hole he's digging for himself deeper (no pun intended)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gawd I wish the Ignore feature would filter out and work with reply quotes... but then I've never seen wacker dig this deep a hole for himself
and make me laugh this hard. Just when you think the hole can't get any deeper...

Now I know why he clings to the fairy tale about that hole in shanksville swallowing up a commercial jet.



[edit on 30-9-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"What Hit The Pentagon On 9/11/01?"

American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757

Here is the link to the Flight Recorder "Factual Report of Investigation".

Now, the challenge is to PROVE it to be a complete fabrication...made up...created by the incredible powers that must exist in the hands of the NTSB and the FBI.

OK, we have NO plane, NO passengers, even according to the OS, NO ARAB DNA! but we do have the 'recovered FDR.' Sure, that would stand up in court.

Oh...and ANYONE, feel free to look over the 'DATA PORT' input notations, and then don't be shy about asking ME about any terms you don't understand....I imagine I will tend to explain with too much knowledge and authority. But, I'll try to remember to dumb it down....

Wow, someone really took that to heart. Maybe I am the one who needs to be 'dumbing' things down. I did not say your post was too smart or clever or informative or intelligent. I said it was odd that you would just add some random paragraph about your knowledge of flight that no one asked about while you are defending something else. I guess you do not understand the difference between "intelligent' and "extemporaneous."

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Lillydale]

reply to post by turbofan

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by scott3x

 

Nope, it's not a mistake Scott. HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT!

This is what WEEDWACKER thinks:

Take the jet up to 35000 feet, and fly at 462 KTAS. There, it is about 273 KCAS and Mach .80

Just plain incredible!

The air is thinner up there... SURE YOU CAN FLY AT 462 KNOTS AT 35,000
feet!

The freakin' cruising speed for a 757/767 is 500+ knots at 35,000 FEET!

OH MY GOD. YOU ARE NOT A PILOT! YOU CANNOT BE A PILOT!

WEEDWACKER, if you fly 462 knots at sea level and 462 knots at 35,000
feet, WILL THE PLANE EXPERIENCE THE SAME DYNAMIC PRESSURE.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

IT WONT

IT CAN"T BECAUSE THE AIR IS LESS DENSE!


SOOOOOOOOOOOOO, for the millionth FREAKIN' TIME:

WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVE SPEED I NEED TO FLY AT 35,000 FEET TO DUPLICATE
the DYNAMIC PRESSURE THE PLANE FEELS AT SEA LEVEL WHEN I FLY AT 462 KNOTS?!

Thanks turbofan. I can finally say I understood part of this thread branch :-). Perhaps if weedwacker responds to this post of yours, I will finally understand his response as well :-)

[edit on 30-9-2009 by scott3x]