Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How tall is this "man of steel nerves"? You be the judge:

I love that video, I posted it a couple of pages ago as part of the "top ten low pass flybys of all time", that was #3 which is really my favorite.

I like the way at 29 seconds he checks the top of his head to make sure it's still there? (or maybe he's just trying to keep his headgear from blowing off in the jetwash). In either case he's apparently almost as tall as the distance from the bottom of that fuel tank to the ground, and he's either braver or dumber than I am to stand there without even flinching during that low pass.

But it is a pretty good demonstration that the ground effect apparently doesn't impede a pilot's efforts to nearly shave the top of a soldier's head with a fuel tank.

Originally posted by backinblack
I think you know enough about aerodynamics to know a fighter jet acts very different to a passenger jet..

Go back and read my post regarding high versus low wing loading and then tell me what I know or don't know about the difference between fighters and large transport aircraft at low level.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

**ENOUGH**

Stop discussing each other and begin discussing the topic. Any further off topic remarks or attacks towards members, will result in warnings and possible loss of posting privileges.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

reply to post by Reheat

Go back and read my post regarding high versus low wing loading and then tell me what I know or don't know about the difference between fighters and large transport aircraft at low level.

Well then you'd know ground effect and lift are created mainly by wings and the wings of a fighter jet are very different to a passenger jet..
Simply no comparison really...

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But it is a pretty good demonstration that the ground effect apparently doesn't impede a pilot's efforts to nearly shave the top of a soldier's head with a fuel tank.

It's a fighter jet and there's also no way to know the speed..
Well you could email them like I did with the NZ air force 757 video..
That military 757 was doing 350knts according to them..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

Go back and read my post regarding high versus low wing loading and then tell me what I know or don't know about the difference between fighters and large transport aircraft at low level.

Well then you'd know ground effect and lift are created mainly by wings and the wings of a fighter jet are very different to a passenger jet..
Simply no comparison really...

Thanks for the lesson in aerodynamics, I had no clue until you told me about this. Thanks, for the short lesson, but I really already knew one was smaller in comparison and one was BIG because someone already told me...

reply to post by Reheat


No mate..You guys keep saying low level, high speed flights are easy..
Then go on to show jet fighters doing it..

It's like me saying a Toyota Corolla must be able to take a bend at 160kms/h because I have a video here of an F1 race car doing just that....

Originally posted by Yankee451
First denial issues, and now you're a mind reader? Or are you a close friend of Silverstein?

I didn't hear him say "Pull THEM, and then we pulled them and watched them leave".

'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

sites.google.com...

That's a deep river you're swimming in.

Was he talking to a demolition expert or a fire commander? For some inexplicable reason you don't seem to think that's important but I do. Now, to understand the proper context of silverstein's quote, let's expand on what he said a little further, directly from the horse's mouth:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander" .-larry silverstein

So it's established that he was talking to someone from the fire department when he made the "pull it" comment, yet strangely you think that was some demolition terminology and silverstein slipped up. Now that's a deep creek filled with # and no paddle if I ever seen one.

reply to post by nwobro

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander" .-larry silverstein

From what I've read,correct me if I'm wrong, there were no firemen left in the building when the comment was made..
So what was he referring to.??

Originally posted by backinblack
It's a fighter jet and there's also no way to know the speed..

But we have a pretty good idea of the speed of the #1 low pass flyby in the video I posted here (the last one in the video):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's approaching the speed of sound, you can see the shock wave forming.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

No mate..You guys keep saying low level, high speed flights are easy..
Then go on to show jet fighters doing it..

It's like me saying a Toyota Corolla must be able to take a bend at 160kms/h because I have a video here of an F1 race car doing just that....

Could the reason possibly be that large transport aircraft DON"T fly low level. I already said that a couple of pages back. That's doesn't mean they can't as some videos already show that they can.

Well, you can state your opinion all day long if you wish, you do need to support it with AERODYNAMIC FACTS if you expect it to be more than hot air. BTW, you mentioned something about teaching me about the aspect ratio of wings. What are you waiting for?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by backinblack
It's a fighter jet and there's also no way to know the speed..

But we have a pretty good idea of the speed of the #1 low pass flyby in the video I posted here (the last one in the video):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's approaching the speed of sound, you can see the shock wave forming.

Your joking right ??
I see no such thing and that does not look anywhere near that speed..
it would just be a passing blur if it was going that fast..
Top gun as evidence,,,

reply to post by nwobro

Since this topic (the L. Silverstein interview with a reporter) is UNRELATED to the purpose of this thread, can we agree to all just divert comments about it to a 9/11 NYC thread. This is not a cop-out or saying I'm wrong or right, we are in a thread about the Pentagon - this doesn't belong here.

reply to post by nwobro


I guess we'll need to know what the definition of "it" is?

Good grief, there was no evidence the building was a towering inferno, no evidence a steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire (still), indeed no evidence they even had an intention to fight any fires, so how the hell do you know there were any fire fighters in the building at the time, and how the #@#$ would Silverstein or the the yahoo on the phone know to "pull" the fire fighters in time for the building to collapse anyway?

And what does any of this have to do with the Pentagon photos?

reply to post by Reheat

Well, you can state your opinion all day long if you wish, you do need to support it with AERODYNAMIC FACTS if you expect it to be more than hot air.

You want ME to prove something can't be done??

Nowhere has ANYONE shown proof of a large passenger jet at 500mph, within 20' of the ground..
No one has shown it's possible to keep it in control..

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by backinblack
It's a fighter jet and there's also no way to know the speed..

But we have a pretty good idea of the speed of the #1 low pass flyby in the video I posted here (the last one in the video):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's approaching the speed of sound, you can see the shock wave forming.

Yes, he's just short of Mach 1 on his Mach Indicator. What you see is that some parts of the aircraft are past critical Mach or (Mach Crit). In fact, some parts are past Mach 1, but not the entire aircraft.

reply to post by Reheat



Sorry, different video...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But we have a pretty good idea of the speed of the #1 low pass flyby in the video I posted here (the last one in the video):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's approaching the speed of sound, you can see the shock wave forming.

Your joking right ??
I see no such thing and that does not look anywhere near that speed..
it would just be a passing blur if it was going that fast..
Top gun as evidence,,,

Are you saying you don't see that big white thing around the plane? Or you see it but you just don't know what the heck it is?

shock wave

This effect is frequently observed on low-flying aircraft, which are breaking the sound barrier.

Some of the stars in the sky are moving at millions of miles an hour, but they don't look like a passing blur because of the distance from the observer. So the apparent motion of an object on a video is not simply a function of its absolute speed, but of other contributing factors as well such as the focal length (magnification) of the camera lens, or zoom setting, distance to the object, etc. And if you don't recognize that conical shape of condensation forming around the aircraft as a shock wave, then you apparently haven't studied supersonic travel through an atmosphere, it's pretty obvious. Do you see it in the picture? (How can you miss it in the video? It looks similar.)