Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post 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.

You can get a pretty good idea with the background in that last flyby..
Doesn't look like mach 1 to me...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Some of the stars in the sky don't exist anymore, but their light is evidence they did exist at one time; something you have yet to provide if you're claiming a plane caused the damage to the C ring.

Originally posted by backinblack
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??

Well, not exactly, but you could show that it was aeronautically either impossible or even difficult. I've already indicated why it wouldn't be and you done or said nothing to show that I'm wrong.

Originally posted by backinblack
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..

You're obviously looking for a utube video (the truther proof vault) and there likely isn't one available. Not surprising in that anyone who did it with someone elses aircraft would likely be looking for another job. That in no way means that a crazy lunatic who was not interested in keeping a job wouldn't or couldn't do it.

I'm still waiting for any credible aerodynamic reason it could not fly at even 5' with not much problem. That lesson on aspect ratios again, what are you waiting for?

Originally posted by backinblack
You can get a pretty good idea with the background in that last flyby..
Doesn't look like mach 1 to me...

It's probably just under mach 1.

Do some research on supersonic shock waves, if you learn to recognize one you might learn something from this thread.

Originally posted by Reheat
It is, obviously, impossible to determine numbers due to the chaotic nature of any crash particularly one through several walls. No one that I know is stupid enough to even attempt it.... But, it was worthwhile just to get you to reveal your now confirmed ignorance.....

You're right that it's impossible to determine numbers by the time the remains reach the C-Wall, but it's not impossible to calculate numbers for the initial impact, this source compared the numbers for the WTC impact with the Empire state building impact, in addition to examining the similarities of the Empire state building impact with Pentagon impact, both of which left holes much smaller than the planes:
B-25 Empire State Building Collision

a number of factors explain why the Empire State Building suffered relatively minor damage while the twin towers were catastrophically destroyed. First, the energy of impact sustained by the buildings differed by orders of magnitude. The B-25 that struck the Empire State Building weighed approximately 21,500 lb (9,760 kg) and was traveling around 200 mph (320 km/h). The kinetic energy it created in the collision was about 30 million ft-lb (40 million Joules).

The twin towers of the World Trade Center, by comparison, were struck by Boeing 767 airliners traveling over twice as fast and weighing nearly 15 times as much as a B-25. The energy of impact for the two planes ranged from 2 billion ft-lb (2.6 billion Joules) to 3 billion ft-lb (4.1 billion Joules), some 60 to 100 times greater than that absorbed by the Empire State Building. This estimate is also conservative since it does not account for the energy released by the exploding jet fuel, which greatly exceeded the energy released by the much smaller B-25 fuel supply as well. The greater kinetic energy allowed the 767 aircraft to penetrate much further into the twin towers than the B-25 was able to do at the Empire State Building.

The 757 has a smaller maximum takeoff weight than the 767 but even after accounting for the lower weight of the 757 at the time of impact the kinetic energy would still be well over a billion joules, if you have exact numbers for the weight at the time of impact and speed just plug the numbers in the kinetic energy formula.

And I'm still waiting for you truthers to explain why the Empire State building had a hole so much smaller than the B-25 that struck it. Did the B-25 have magical wings that just disintegrated when they hit the building? Or was this 1945 event a missile too in your conspiratorial mind? (It did happen just before the Japanese surrendered so some people thought it was a Japanese attack, though I never heard anyone claim they thought it was a missile).

The Empire State Building crash of 1945 also offers insights into the Pentagon attack on September 11. Both buildings are reinforced masonry structures built using similar methods and materials, although the Pentagon has been considerably upgraded to survive impact damage. One topic often used to promote conspiracy theories is the size of the hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon created by the Boeing 757 that struck it. The 757 has a wingspan of almost 125 ft (38 m), yet most conspiracy sites suggest the impact hole is only 15 to 65 ft (4.5 to 20 m) wide. The same can be said of the Empire State Building where a plane with a wingspan greater than 67 ft (20.5 m) created a hole no more than 20 ft (6 m) across.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d3c1a85f279.jpg[/atsimg]

Both aircraft caused damage consistent with the size of the plane and the structural materials used in the facade. Most of the mass of a plane is contained within the fuselage, inner wing structure, and engine nacelles. These portions of the aircraft have the greatest power to penetrate a wall upon impact, and the sizes of the impact holes at both the Empire State Building and the Pentagon are consistent with the dimensions of the fuselage and nacelles of the B-25 and 757, respectively. The outer wings and tail surfaces are much lighter structures consisting mostly of a thin skin enclosing empty space. Upon colliding a thick wall composed of a dense material like stone or concrete, these light aerodynamic structures simply disintegrate. The impact often produces surface gouging and perhaps small, localized holes, but the lighter aircraft structures generally cannot penetrate a reinforced masonry wall. Close examination of both buildings shows gouges extending outward from the central impact hole as would be expected from the collision of wings.

So, was that actually a missile too? What happened to the wings and why didn't they make a hole? Were they magical wings, or just a lot less dense than the fuselage and destroyed on impact as the article explains?

reply to post by Reheat


I get it Reheat..
No one has ever shown it can or can't be done so it must be possible

Youtube is a truther vault ??
Didn't we just discuss a video from Youtube that was posted by one of your guys ??
Odd

BTW, you obviously don't need lessons in aerodynamics..
You twist the laws so well that you must have a reasonable understanding..

reply to post by Arbitrageur

And I'm still waiting for you truthers to explain why the Empire State building had a hole so much smaller than the B-25 that struck it. Did the B-25 have magical wings that just disintegrated when they hit the building? Or was this 1945 event a missile too in your conspiratorial mind? (It did happen just before the Japanese surrendered so some people thought it was a Japanese attack, though I never heard anyone claim they thought it was a missile).

Well judging from the pic you posted I'd say because a fair part of the plane didn't make it into the building..
Seems to be hanging outside as you'd expect..
Unlike 9/11 where 4 planes magically disappeared.
If you also with to compare that crash for some reason then also note that even the floor that took the brunt of the impact sustained little damage..
A later pic shows people standing within feet of the impact hole..

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by backinblack
You can get a pretty good idea with the background in that last flyby..
Doesn't look like mach 1 to me...

It's probably just under mach 1.

Do some research on supersonic shock waves, if you learn to recognize one you might learn something from this thread.

Well I know time and that plane took around 12 secs to pass over that section of harbor..
Do we know what harbor it is?
Then we can check the distance roughly..

Originally posted by backinblack
BTW, you obviously don't need lessons in aerodynamics..
You twist the laws so well that you must have a reasonable understanding..

Come on don't be shy. Show what I've twisted or misrepresented in any way. Go ahead and do it. You've made an accusation and I want to see some evidence.

reply to post by Reheat


I'm just waiting for Weedy to come back from frantically searching for a shred of evidence to prove the C ring lightwell wall wasn't poured in place reinforced concrete. We can have a duel.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by backinblack
BTW, you obviously don't need lessons in aerodynamics..
You twist the laws so well that you must have a reasonable understanding..

Come on don't be shy. Show what I've twisted or misrepresented in any way. Go ahead and do it. You've made an accusation and I want to see some evidence.

Mate, trying to use fighter jets to show what a passenger plane can do is certainly very misleading..
My aerodynamics instructor taught us all we needed to know to pass CPL standard..

At the end he said "Now lets discuss fighter jets..Forget everything you know about aerodynamics because they DON'T follow the rules"......

Do you disagree with his statement...???

Originally posted by backinblack
Well judging from the pic you posted I'd say because a fair part of the plane didn't make it into the building..
Seems to be hanging outside as you'd expect..

Sorry I don't follow you, what specifically is hanging outside and what makes you think a fair amount of the plane didn't make it into the building? Did you read the full article at the link about what happened?

Unlike 9/11 where 4 planes magically disappeared.
If you also with to compare that crash for some reason then also note that even the floor that took the brunt of the impact sustained little damage..
A later pic shows people standing within feet of the impact hole..

Part of the point of that post was the kinetic energy calculations, did you read that part? And doesn't that explain a lot?

And the 4 planes didn't disappear, they crashed and we know where. It's just that some people who don't understand crash dynamics expect planes to not disintegrate when they crash in certain situations when in fact they do disintegrate in certain situations.

Originally posted by backinblack
Well I know time and that plane took around 12 secs to pass over that section of harbor..
Do we know what harbor it is?
Then we can check the distance roughly..

Good idea...but sorry I have no idea what harbor it is.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Sorry I don't follow you, what specifically is hanging outside and what makes you think a fair amount of the plane didn't make it into the building? Did you read the full article at the link about what happened?

There appears to be parts of the plane hanging there..
Do we also know what parts may have fallen to the ground?

And as I stated, it did very little damage to the floor structure..
Not really a good comparison IMO...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by backinblack
BTW, you obviously don't need lessons in aerodynamics..
You twist the laws so well that you must have a reasonable understanding..

Come on don't be shy. Show what I've twisted or misrepresented in any way. Go ahead and do it. You've made an accusation and I want to see some evidence.

Mate, trying to use fighter jets to show what a passenger plane can do is certainly very misleading..
My aerodynamics instructor taught us all we needed to know to pass CPL standard..

At the end he said "Now lets discuss fighter jets..Forget everything you know about aerodynamics because they DON'T follow the rules"......

Do you disagree with his statement...???

You'll have to be more specific than this generalized statement. Fighters and jet trainers are not restricted to the ICAO rule of 250 KIAS below 10,000' MSL as are other aircraft. Fighters and jet trainers are designed to withstand higher G forces than transport aircraft and fighters and jet trainers are infinitely more maneuverable than large aircraft (it has to do with the aspect ratio of the wings that you were going to teach me about, but haven't yet). In some cases the engines are more powerful, particularly those with afterburner. These are some issues that come to mind. Are there more up your sleeve?

I haven't used a fighter to prove anything. If you will go back and check I didn't post any of the videos. I merely stated that the bulk of low level flying in my background was fighters. I did use aerodynamics to show that low level flight in a transport type aircraft was quite readily possible and it is. If you want to try and convince me or anyone else it's impossible or even extremely difficult, have at it. I will state aerodynamic FACTS and if credibly questioned, I'll back up what I post with online sources where possible. I've already posted a very reputable online source to verify what I've said about Ground Effect. If you still have questions about that here it is again and it specifically addresses a B-757 at the Pentagon.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

I have also stated that any Heat generated thermals in that area would have been negligible due to the fact that it was a fall day and early in the morning. The winds were light from the North, so wind turbulence would have been negligible as well.... Be more specific about why jet fighters don't follow standard rules and I'll try to answer.

I do have one request, however. If you fail to show that I've stated something wrong or have been misleading, you will retract your accusation that I have. Have at it until my bedtime.....

reply to post by Reheat

An incorrect statement. It is more correct that flaps simply change the lift vector to allow an aircraft to fly slower without stalling. They don't produce lift.

Flaps increase lift so the plane can fly at lower speed on landing etc..
I don't see how you can say they don't produce lift..

reply to post by Reheat


Seems like all this discussion about aircraft is putting the cart in front of the horse. There's just as much evidence flying monkeys are responsible.

Originally posted by Reheat
An incorrect statement. It is more correct that flaps simply change the lift vector to allow an aircraft to fly slower without stalling. They don't produce lift.

LOL how do you think they do that? Yes they do create lift mate, in fact older slower fighters would use their flaps all the time to climb, or help the a/c stay level during a hard turn (which causes the nose to drop losing altitude).

Well, mr. aeronautics expert, please explain in detail what this has to do with flying at low level. Pssst = zilch But, let's hear what you have to say anyway. Or you'll ignore it and show that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.....

edit on 15-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Huh LIFT, do I have to say it again? Passenger and cargo planes have high lift wings because they are designed for one thing, to carry a lot of weight, not do aerobatics. Fighters are small and light and do not need as much lift from their wings, smaller thinner wings allows them to fly faster, and lower, and do aerobatics.

Notice I managed to do that without a throwing an insult at you.

Einstein.

Oops sry lol.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

An incorrect statement. It is more correct that flaps simply change the lift vector to allow an aircraft to fly slower without stalling. They don't produce lift.

Flaps increase lift so the plane can fly at lower speed on landing etc..
I don't see how you can say they don't produce lift..

No, flaps do not increase the total lift component. The camber of the wing is changed and in some cases the plan-form area of the wing is also changed. This changes the stall speed of the wing. It allows the wing to produce the same amount of total lift at a slower speed, but flaps themselves do not produce lift, they merely help to modify the total lift component. It is a rather complex issue and one easily misunderstood by neophyte pilots. I've noticed that some articles on the Web also confuse the issue, as well.

What does this have to do with fighter versus transport flying at low level?

Originally posted by backinblack
There appears to be parts of the plane hanging there..
Do we also know what parts may have fallen to the ground?

We can see the ground in the photo and I don't see any plane parts there. And what plane parts do you see hanging off the building?

I didn't see any reports of parts of the plane falling to the ground but there are reports of parts of the plane exiting the empire state building and damaging nearby buildings and causing more fires, sort of like happened with the WTC impact.

And as I stated, it did very little damage to the floor structure..
Not really a good comparison IMO...

This photo more clearly shows damage to the floor structure:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/57d66af5ef67.jpg[/atsimg]
www.aerospaceweb.org...
And it's a GREAT comparison, because just like the Pentagon impact, the wings didn't do much, nearly all the damage was from the fuselage. I don't think you could ask for a better comparison unless the plane was a 757 but those didn't exist in 1945 so this is as good as it gets, the hole in the wall is smaller than the plane, not surprising in either the Pentagon case or in this case.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


How's the exit hole look?

Like this?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2918c5ecf577.jpg[/atsimg]