Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

reply to post by geobro


My sincere apologies. I wasn't aware of that.

Cheers

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


how do you know you are not wrong spent a week asking people ?.

if you do not want to believe it dont 9-11 was a false flag my 2 cents

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by geobro

 

My sincere apologies. I wasn't aware of that.

Cheers

ok bud you get used to it here

reply to post by geobro


I know i am not wrong because i can quite clearly remember that day and I can remember it being after lunch that we heard the news.

I also know i am not wrong based on the historically accepted chronology of that day sides with me.

Like i said, you would be better keeping some dignity by acknowledging you are mistaken

By doing so you can still hold a belief that 9/11 was a false flag, admiring that you got the times it was reported in the UK does not negate this belief.

I really dont know why you are sticking with this ridiculous belief that the attacks of 9/11 were reported before the actually happened in the UK.

So a simple question for you.

Are you prepared to admit that you were mistaken in claiming that the attacks of 9/11 were reported before the attacks actually took place?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase

 

You know, you're right. Pilots (including one who made a pass that ended at 30 feet, at 400 knots that you conveniently ignored), aerospace engineers, people with real world experience are all wrong. You're right, they can't fly at half their wingspan because of ground effect. You need to go teach them that they're wrong, and completely rewrite the rules of aviation, and aerospace science.

In your videos i havent seen a SINGLE horizontal fly by at 400+ knots below half wingspan altitude. The pilots who had tried doing that are probably all dead by now.
The commercial airliners did a normal landing approach at 130 knots in those videos, actually USING GROUND EFFECT. Once they increased speed, they immediately lifted above half wingspan due to ground effect.
Some of the planes in those fly by shows went faster but they were well above wingspan.
Tell me why? I tell you: simply because they could not fly below half wingspan at that speed.

I read that 9/11 "expert" script that was posted here as a link regarding ground effect
They clearly state (the experts!) that you cannot fly horizontally below wingspan at 400+ knots. Read it!
They consider a steady nose up/nose down approach as a possibility, something an expert pilot could probably do. That is an approach as if the plane would glide above waves like a ship in a storm.
I had originally thought this to be a possibility and i was in awe for that expert pilot.
However, that possibility was debunked by the CCTV images showing a straight horizontal approach below wingspan altitude at 400+ knots.
And then i thought: WTF! Who could ever believe that sh*t, now that we had seen those CCTV images?
For certain, no pilot and no flight expert would believe those CCTV images ever. They strongly violate the laws of physics.

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase

In your videos i havent seen a SINGLE horizontal fly by at 400+ knots below half wingspan altitude. The pilots who had tried doing that are probably all dead by now.

Uh, maybe because of the fact that it was an airshow and they had the safety of the crowd in mind? Because at that altitude if you make a single mistake, you die, and you have a chance of taking a crowd with you. But no, it can't be that can it? You have to be right, it has to do with ground effect.

Now do me a favor and go tell the Air Zimbabwe pilot that made a pass well under 100 feet, at 400 knots that he's a liar, and teach him how wrong he is.

Let me guess, you're hypersensitive eyes can tell he's not doing 400 knots, right?

Oh wait, there's a different rule for military aircraft and ground effect right?

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Let me guess, you're hypersensitive eyes can tell he's not doing 400 knots, right?

Oh wait, there's a different rule for military aircraft and ground effect right?

edit on 8/4/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

I havent seen any air zimbabwe video where the plane is faster than 150 knots or lower than wingspan.

The military airplane:
First of all it depends where the wings actually are. Those wings are higher than the body of the airplane.
Secondly: how long does the plane remain below wingspan? It is immediately lifted by ground effect.
That is exactly what i am trying to explain you.

Ground effect doesnt allow a commercial airplane to fly horizontally below half wingspan at 400+ knots. Not that it cannot fly there, but ground effect would immediately lift it at wingspan altitude if that airplane would even try to fly horizontally at a speed of 400+ knots.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Ok how do YOU know his speed? Vid desc only says the plane can do 440 knots at 23k ft.

This a huge differncein what you are showing vs trying to get us to believe.
n
Eta in that video that plane is still flying at above half wingspan even if its fuselage is only one meter above ground level

reply to post by pinkbirdatabase


And as it has been explained to you, repeatedly, you can fly in ground effect, including at half your wingspan. You can even fly nose level in it. All you have to do is trim the aircraft nose down. It's entirely possible to do, and can be done. It can be done in commercial aircraft, it can be done in military aircraft.

There won't be any long videos of low passes, because they're just that, passes. The simple fact is that even a short low pass proves it's possible, no matter how you twist it. Flight 77 wasn't flying at that altitude for long, so it did have to be able to fly at low altitude and high speed for long.

reply to post by Another_Nut


So it can't go 400+ knots at lower altitude? It doesn't matter if he's 400 knots though, I just have to show that high speed flight is possible at half wingspan, which it is.

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Ok how do YOU know his speed? Vid desc only says the plane can do 440 knots at 23k ft.

This a huge differncein what you are showing vs trying to get us to believe.

Eta in that video that plane is still flying at above half singular even if its fuselage is only one meter above ground level

edit on 4-8-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Look, no matter what anyone says logically, this guy is not going to accept that this is all a lie. He is going to believe that Fundamental Extremist Muslims with almost no flight skills pulled off the biggest terror attack in American history. There is zero evidence of what he is claiming despite showing some cool airplane videos.

Physics does not matter. The government said this is how it happened and that is how it happened. Do you think another 10 pages of this will matter? It's time to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

So it can't go 400+ knots at lower altitude? It doesn't matter if he's 400 knots though, I just have to show that high speed flight is possible at half wingspan, which it is.

Now you are back tracking .

You challenged him. T

I challenged you.

And instead you avoid your words and the evidence you posted.

That video does not show an aircraft flying at 400 knots under half wingspan.

Period.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


No flying experience? How did he get type rated in a 737 then?

reply to post by Another_Nut


Because it's not possible right? Because all the experts that say it's possible are wrong right? You guys really need to teach them that they're wrong and show them how wrong they are.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase

 

And as it has been explained to you, repeatedly, you can fly in ground effect, including at half your wingspan. You can even fly nose level in it. All you have to do is trim the aircraft nose down. It's entirely possible to do, and can be done. It can be done in commercial aircraft, it can be done in military aircraft.

There won't be any long videos of low passes, because they're just that, passes. The simple fact is that even a short low pass proves it's possible, no matter how you twist it. Flight 77 wasn't flying at that altitude for long, so it did have to be able to fly at low altitude and high speed for long.

I read the pdf you posted regarding the air zimbabwe pilot Tarr.

He clearly states that the first two bypasses were at alt 30 ft. at 125 knots (i had a good guess regarding the fly by speed, guess why?).
The 400 knots fly by was at alt 100 ft.

The wingspan of the 707 is 130 ft.

The 100 ft are well ABOVE half wingspan. Why would you use something that 100% confirms my arguments?

I have no reason to disbelieve the zimbabwe pilot as the alt 100 ft were business as usual.
I would have disbelieved him if he said that the (not filmed) high speed fly by was at 30 ft. But it wasnt. He said that this was at 100 ft. - Guess why 100 ft but not 30 as he had done it before at 125 knots?

So then, your suggestion would be to constantly pull down the nose to avoid ground effect? Had you ever heard about the word "stalling" ? That "nose down at 30 ft at 400 knots has got to be a very sensible maneuvre and it will definitely cause "NO STRAIGHT HORIZONTAL APPROACH". You'd rather approach like a ship in a storm and that's possible only if you were an expert pilot AND an extremely lucky one for not crashing already one mile before.

reply to post by pinkbirdatabase


Do you even understand the terms you're throwing around? How do you stall a plane in a slight nose down attitude?

But again, you know what, you're the expert, so go teach all these pilots that train for low altitude flights they're wrong, go teach the aerospace engineers how wrong they are, and go rewrite the laws of flight.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

Because it's not possible right? Because all the experts that say it's possible are wrong right? You guys really need to teach them that they're wrong and show them how wrong they are.

Please zaph that's a little bit snarkly a comment isn't it?

I've asked for and respected you opinion and direction in the past.

You have never been that rude when asked to explain your side.

You posted a video you claim shows a plane doing 400+ knots at below half wingspan.

I pointed out that, just like you accused someone else, you don't know fast its was going .

I also pointed out to you that it is not below half wingspan.

So if that's showing an expert why they are wrong i guess you just got schooled by an amateur

I know your pride must be bruised . Be we all learn something new everyday.

Call it up to beginner's luck

reply to post by Another_Nut


Sorry, I took out a little frustration from things on you. I'm usually not that sarcastic, but there's a lot going on, and I snapped. For that I apologize.

You're right, that I don't know the exact speed, but again, the claim was made that high speed passes at half wingspan were not possible. He claimed that any high speed pass at that altitude was impossible, then later said 400 knots, after a number of high speed passes were posted, showing high speed at low altitude. I have shown that high speed, at half wingspan was possible, both with commercial, and with military aircraft. As for speed, for some of these, there is a way to determine speed, but it's with a nice mathematical formula, that's beyond my abilities to perform. You can't tell just by looking at them.

That pass was below half wingspan however. The wingspan on the F63 is 31 feet 9 3/4 inches. How is that plane above 16 feet? The people in the video were having to dive to the ground, or they would have been hit.

I asked an aerospace engineer. The increase in lift from ground effect can easily be counteracted by a reduction in alpha. Ground effect isn't some magical barrier that prevents a plane from hitting the ground... actually the effect is so weak that often it is omitted from professional flight simulators completely.

Also why is ground effect stronger at higher speeds? Also how would a plane stall if constant forward pressure is required to maintain a constant altitude? You do realize that ground effect by virtue of increasing lift will decrease alpha, moving away from a stall right?

Conslusion: You people are idiots throwing around terms you do not understand. ALso the reason you don't discuss laws of physics is because you don't understand them.