Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.

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

which by your own math puts it above HALF wingspan

the math

31 ft 9 3/4 in/ 2 = 15 ft 11 in (close)

15'11" < 16 ft

therefore it flew ABOVE half winfspan

and even then only for a split second

wait see what your saying reviewing clip again
eta ty for apology i understand stressful times

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.

You seem to be somebody who would even claim that the laws of physics would make it possible to land with the front wheels first..... and i mean commercial airliners but not the special design of the DC 3.
Of course you stall when you pull the nose down while you are in "ground effect". You cannot pull down the nose below half wingspan altitude without stalling. So you then must constantly pull down and up and down and up again to prevent stalling. That is pretty sensible and requires a lot of experience and luck, particulary when this is done at 30 ft. Alt at 400+ knots. Come on! Get real! We're talking about a 757!

And then dont quote me wrongly!

I always said that there is NO HORIZONTAL APPROACH AT ALTITUDE BELOW HALF WINGSPAN AT 400+Knots POSSIBLE, AND NEITHER IS IT REALISTIC due to the laws of physics (ground effect) and due to the matter of fact as how the wings are designed.

You still would have to explain us how you could do that. Tell me the maneuvres you do in order to fly that way and to overcome the laws of physics without stalling. I am still keen to learn something from you that is literally unknown so far, probably - due to your confidence - because those who tried to show us such an approach so far haven't survived it. I tried but couldnt do that in the simulation either without crashing.

This is hilarious!

You seem to be somebody who would even claim that the laws of physics would make it possible to land with the front wheels first.....

What?

It is possible to land with the "front wheels" first. Doing so would require a nose down attitude which implies a high sink rate or very high speed, neither of which are advisable. With that said, in some aircraft, particularly those without leading edge devices, landing on the nose gear is much more possible but still not advisable.

I responded to the rest in my previous post.

reply to post by Another_Nut


And the 16 feet was a round up. Sorry for not being super precise there. But the point I was making was that at least a couple of those guys in that video looked to be around 6 feet tall. That plane came in, sustained, nose level, high speed, and they had to dive out of the way. There is a still that measures the bottom of the plane as being approximately 1 meter off the ground.

The total height of the aircraft is 14 feet 1 inch. I'd say that the wings are roughly 8-10 feet off the ground at the root going by the still photos. So if the bottom of the plane is 1 meter (3.28 feet) off the ground, then you're looking at the same height as with the gear down (approximately). That means that the entire aircraft in that pass was below half wingspan height, which you put at roughly 15' 11".

reply to post by pinkbirdatabase


You don't even know what a stall is.

In fluid dynamics, a stall is a reduction in the lift coefficient generated by a foil as angle of attack increases[citation needed]. This occurs when the critical angle of attack of the foil is exceeded. The critical angle of attack is typically about 15 degrees, but it may vary significantly depending on the fluid, foil, and Reynolds number.
Stalls in fixed-wing flight are often experienced as a sudden reduction in lift as the pilot increases the wing's angle of attack and exceeds its critical angle of attack (which may be due to slowing down below stall speed in level flight). A stall does not mean that the engine(s) have stopped working, or that the aircraft has stopped moving — the effect is the same even in an unpowered glider aircraft. Vectored thrust in manned and unmanned aircraft is used to surpass the stall limit, thereby giving rise to post-stall technology.[1][2]

en.wikipedia.org...(flight)

A stall occurs when the wing angle of attack goes up past the point where air flows over the top of it smoothly, and starts to swirl. That doesn't happen when you push the wing angle of attack down. So no, you do NOT stall when you push the nose down in high speed flight in ground effect. If the wing angle of attack goes down there is always airflow going over it. If it goes up then air starts to swirl off the back of it, and you lose lift, and stall.

But please, explain to me how you stall with a wing in straight and level flight, or even slight nose down attitude. I'd love to hear this.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase

 

You don't even know what a stall is.

In fluid dynamics, a stall is a reduction in the lift coefficient generated by a foil as angle of attack increases[citation needed]. This occurs when the critical angle of attack of the foil is exceeded. The critical angle of attack is typically about 15 degrees, but it may vary significantly depending on the fluid, foil, and Reynolds number.
Stalls in fixed-wing flight are often experienced as a sudden reduction in lift as the pilot increases the wing's angle of attack and exceeds its critical angle of attack (which may be due to slowing down below stall speed in level flight). A stall does not mean that the engine(s) have stopped working, or that the aircraft has stopped moving — the effect is the same even in an unpowered glider aircraft. Vectored thrust in manned and unmanned aircraft is used to surpass the stall limit, thereby giving rise to post-stall technology.[1][2]

en.wikipedia.org...(flight)

A stall occurs when the wing angle of attack goes up past the point where air flows over the top of it smoothly, and starts to swirl. That doesn't happen when you push the wing angle of attack down. So no, you do NOT stall when you push the nose down in high speed flight in ground effect. If the wing angle of attack goes down there is always airflow going over it. If it goes up then air starts to swirl off the back of it, and you lose lift, and stall.

But please, explain to me how you stall with a wing in straight and level flight, or even slight nose down attitude. I'd love to hear this.

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

There's just the first sentence important to define what a stall is.
Quote: In fluid dynamics, a stall is a reduction in the lift coefficient.

That is exactly what happens when you pull down the nose while you are flying in ground effect. in order to prevent ground effect lifting your airplane, you must pull down the nose as you correctly said. Thats correct. What happens next depends on you. Crash or nose up. What would be your decision? That exactly prevents a straight horizontal flight approach at 400 knots at altitude below half wingspan.

I don' t discuss newton's laws with you. Accept them or stick to your fantasies. Or better ask a flight captain of a commercial airliner.

Bb

reply to post by pinkbirdatabase


That's not a stall. If you're going to try to discuss it, then at least get terms right. Is that so hard? You aren't talking about stalling, you're talking about descending, and there's a huge difference.

Except you don't have to push the nose down, you can also trim nose down, and if you trim it right, you can fly level, with the trim keeping you in ground effect. Planes can fly level, with a slight nose down attitude, as long as the wing has a near zero angle of attack. In fact, some, like the B-52 have a normal nose low, level attitude. You can trim the plane to keep you in ground effect, it's just not easy to do.

How you been Rob? Long time no see!

Isn't debating "ground effect" pretty academic when we have a large body of witnesses on record who actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon ?

We even have a real time recording of Arlington police calling in an "American Airlines plane over the Pike" at 0.32 :-

www.youtube.com...

No-one saw a missile either en-route or at the Pentagon.

reply to post by Alfie1


You would think, but people have "discredited" all the witnesses, and the official reports, so they're not going to be believed no matter what they saw, or what they say.

reply to post by C0bzz

It is possible to land with the "front wheels" first. Doing so would require a nose down attitude which implies a high sink rate or very high speed, neither of which are advisable.

Yes it is.
See the July 28,2013 crash of Southwest.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase

 

That's not a stall. If you're going to try to discuss it, then at least get terms right. Is that so hard? You aren't talking about stalling, you're talking about descending, and there's a huge difference.

Except you don't have to push the nose down, you can also trim nose down, and if you trim it right, you can fly level, with the trim keeping you in ground effect. Planes can fly level, with a slight nose down attitude, as long as the wing has a near zero angle of attack. In fact, some, like the B-52 have a normal nose low, level attitude. You can trim the plane to keep you in ground effect, it's just not easy to do.

How you been Rob? Long time no see!

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

You're too funny. I quote your own link (see below) in my previous post ....

In fluid dynamics, a stall is a reduction in the lift coefficient. 

.... and you answered in your recent post:
"That's not a stall".

So then, what should we do other than ignoring you?

Take it for granted that you stall or crash when you pull down the nose of a 757 at 400+ knots at level 30 ft or even lower. You cannot fight gravity nor can you fight ground effect with your "solutions".
Gravity will make you crash and ground effect will lift you above half wingspan altitude minimum.
Chose whether you prefer gravity or ground effect? Fight gravity and enjoy ground effect. Fight ground effect and "enjoy" gravity.

Are you being paid to defend the obviously fake CCTV pictures that are showing us a horizontal flight approach what is absolutely impossible for a 757 at an altitude below half wingspan?
J

reply to post by pinkbirdatabase


Read more than one sentence in a stall description when it relates to aircraft. Yes, it's a reduction in lift, but you can not stall a wing in level flight, no matter how hard you try.

Stalls do not derive from airspeed and can occur at any speed - but only if the wings have too high an angle of attack.

You can ask any aerospace engineer, or any pilot. A stall occurs when airflow is disrupted over the top of the wing, due to a high angle of attack. In level flight, you can not have a stall. You can try to redefine the terms, or whatever you want, but a stall can not occur on a wing that is in level flight, because there is no disruption of airflow over the wing.

Sufficient airspeed must be maintained in flight to produce enough lift to support the airplane without requiring too large an angle of attack. At a specific angle of attack, called the critical angle of attack, air going over a wing will separate from the wing or "burble" (see figure 1 ), causing the wing to lose its lift (stall).

www.pilotfriend.com...

Try as you might, no pilot is going to say that a stall can occur with a zero or near zero angle of attack on the wing, or with the aircraft at a negative angle of attack (except you and your friends Rob).

reply to post by Zaphod58


You're getting funnier, my friend. Read below and then pull down the nose and see what will happen at 400+ knots when flying below half wingspan altitude. I hope that i must never fly with you.

Stalling Angle of Attack - Fixed Wing

In ground effect, the angle of attack required before a wing stalls, for a given amount of lift, is reduced. The extent of this decrease in stalling angle of attack will vary according to the nature of the aerofoil, but can be several degrees. The difference will also be affected by any reduction in the maximum lift coefficient of a particular wing in ground effect, compared to that coefficient in free air.A generic portrayal of the difference in stalling angle of attack in and out of ground effect is provided below. Since bringing a wing into ground effect increases lift, it follows that a given angle of attack will reach maximum lift at a lower angle of attack than it would in free air - but also that maximum lift will be less than in free air because of the reduced drag.

www.skybrary.aero...

An airplane also tends to, be more longitudinally stable in ground effect. It is slightly nose heavy. The downwash from the wing normally passes over the tail at an angle that produces a download on the tail. Ground effect deflects the path of the downwash and causes it to pass over the tailplane at a decreased angle. The tailplane produces more lift than usual and the nose of the airplane tends to drop. To counteract this tendency, more up elevator is required near the ground. During take-off as the airplane climbs out of ground effect, the download on the tailplane increases and the nose tends to pitch up.

reply to post by pinkbirdatabase


You're still not going to stall a wing by pushing the nose down, as you claimed. A wing with a negative angle of attack isn't going to stall, as it will always have airflow over it. Unless you can somehow make the wing travel horizontally while at a negative angle of attack, it's going to have airflow over it. Therefore, you're not going to stall in ground effect by pushing the nose down (pushing, not pulling). You're going to bounce around, due to having to keep the aircraft level, but you're not going to stall the wing.

But again, please, tell me how you stall a wing with a negative angle of attack. I'd love to hear how a wing stalls in a dive, or nose down attitude.

Talk about getting funnier Rob.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by pinkbirdatabase

 

You're still not going to stall a wing by pushing the nose down, as you claimed. A wing with a negative angle of attack isn't going to stall, as it will always have airflow over it. Unless you can somehow make the wing travel horizontally while at a negative angle of attack, it's going to have airflow over it. Therefore, you're not going to stall in ground effect by pushing the nose down (pushing, not pulling). You're going to bounce around, due to having to keep the aircraft level, but you're not going to stall the wing.

But again, please, tell me how you stall a wing with a negative angle of attack. I'd love to hear how a wing stalls in a dive, or nose down attitude.

Talk about getting funnier Rob.

Quoting my quote:
To counteract this tendency, more up elevator is required near the ground.


And then you're pushing the nose further down???
What's next at 30 ft?
Crashing (gravity) or pulling nose high up? Then comes ground effect into the game, and stalling.
If you're an expert pilot you could perhaps prevent a crash. But you cannot fly horizontally at 30 ft. altitude. You'd approach like a ship in a storm, nose up and down. But then you can do that only if you're an excellent and experienced pilot.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
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. never going to happen as i said turn the computer off for a week and go outside and ask people ?? how many around the world reported they heard about it before it could have been .
prepared to be wrong .

the goverment NEVER LIES never lied about the main .

never lied about pearl harbour .

never lied about the the bay of pigs .

never lied about the gulf of toinken .
never lied about vietnam .
never lied about ww2 .
never lied about wepons of mass destruction ..
never lied about evesdropping on the public .
never lied about 9-11
the goverment loves you if you believe all that maybe you should not be on a conspiracy site .
not unless you are getting paid .

and dont forget the moonlandings
are you

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 OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by TopsyTurvyOne

 

Your first link does not work and you second just leads to some random web forum which is hardly proof of anything. I actually just skimmed over a couple of the threads on that site and they are disgustingly disrespectful. There are threads on their mocking the brave members of the FDNY and discussions about the 9/11 actors. If i were a family member of a 9/11 victim i would be taking the likes of Simon Shack to court and sue if for so much cash that he could not afoard a internet connection to spread any more of his sick lies.

you cannot discount 6 years of cumulative research that easily.

I can if its based on utter rubbish

we were presented with a prefabricated 'movie' on the morning of 9/11. please don't dismiss all of this without at least a cursory investigation.

You do realize that for your theory (i use that in the loosest terms possible) to be true everyone in New York city would need to be in on it.

I think you are just spouting this rubbish to have a laugh at the "crazy conspiracy guys" to see if anyone is stupid enough to buy this. Because I really cant believe that anyone could be so detached from reality that they could believe that 9/11 was really just a movie and what we all saw on the news was not actually happening.

please just stop with such vile stupidity (sorry but thats what it is), you are being so incredibly disrespectful to the dead it is unfortunate that ATS T&C's prevent me from giving you the tong lashing you deserve.

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

the broken link should be www.septemberclues.info

on average, of the 343 dead firefighters, there was only one loss per firehouse!
uncanny, when you consider that fire-fighters work and stick together in numbers.
there is copious amounts of evidence presented that 9/11 was indeed nothing
more that a pre-fabricated movie presented to the public to disguise what was
nothing other than the demolition of pre-emptied buildings, in a safe and controlled manner.
did you know that there was a subway workers strike in operation on the morning
of 9/11 and that no underground trains were operational through the WTC complex?
co-incidence? well, add that to the million and one other 'co-incidences' if you wish, but i
certainly will not, when i put it alongside everything else i have learned.
the premise of the work done by SC offends you, but not me. i have/had no
vested interest and i have taken all findings on board and now know exactly where
my mind is at regarding the whole issue. i have a feeling that the world at large is
going to have it's mind settled on the matter pretty soon!
did you hear about the belgian politician who said (on the record and in parliament)
that 9/11 was 'made up'? he knows, just like many other politicians 'know', the real and
true nature of 'events' that day. the world was duped, my friend!

and please don't say you would like to give my t(h)ong a lashing. although i haven't
worn it in years, i am still very much attached to it, and will defend it to the (it's) death.

no strings attached, mate!

Since the EIGHT individual staff warnings to adhere to the 9/11 Forum rules apparently were not enough to achieve cooperation...

Thread closed.