Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

leostokes
How did the Saudi's know where the budget office was?

What makes you think they targetted the "budget office'? Why would they target the "budget office"?

Who told them to hit the smaller budget office target.

What makes you thing they targeted the budget office? Why would they target that office?

Why not target Rumsfeld office?

What makes you claim they targeted any particular office?

reply to post by leostokes


Have you ever tried diving down onto a target in a flight simulator? It's almost impossible in a plane that hasn't been modified for it, and it's damn hard in a plane that HAS been modified for that.

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes

 

Have you ever tried diving down onto a target in a flight simulator? It's almost impossible in a plane that hasn't been modified for it, and it's damn hard in a plane that HAS been modified for that.

What is the need for a steep dive?

reply to post by leostokes


By the time you see the target you're going to have to dive pretty steep, but even a relatively shallow dive is going to be affected by wind, and other forces. The best way for them to do it was to hit relatively flat the way they did. If they go too high in a dive they go over the roof into the courtyard. Too shallow in the dive and they go into the ground short. A relatively flat angle, and even if they hit the ground, the debris is going to shoot forward and impact the building causing damage.

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes

 

By the time you see the target you're going to have to dive pretty steep, but even a relatively shallow dive is going to be affected by wind, and other forces. The best way for them to do it was to hit relatively flat the way they did. If they go too high in a dive they go over the roof into the courtyard. Too shallow in the dive and they go into the ground short. A relatively flat angle, and even if they hit the ground, the debris is going to shoot forward and impact the building causing damage.

I was just looking at a simulation of flight 77.
Near the end of the simulation land marks appear. Arlington cemetery is seen this side of the target. The Potomac river and bridge is seen the other side of the Pentagon. Flight 77 is already lined up on the target. I assume the altitude is 7,000 feet. The target is huge. The only maneuver needed is to loose altitude.

Furthermore, delay risks interception in protected air space.

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Yes, and if it managed to hold together, somehow (See EA990 benchmark), it could not have maintained controlled flight at that speed and altitude, especially not with a pilot at the helm no better than Hani Hanjour.

Also, the commercial airliners are not built for super-sonic speeds (or their equivalent EAS, @ sea level).

(alleged) Flight 175 was travelling at 85 knots (EAS equivalent) in excess of the point at which EA990 experienced structural failure when travelling at a speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet.
Mach 1 at 35,000 feet, is 663.5 mph = 576.5 knots
(still need to calculate EAS @ Sea Level, for Mach 1..).

In terms of structural failure, there is no "nearly intact" because it means that the wings begin to oscillate and then, break off (or lose an engine as the case may be)

South tower plane was clocked at approx 500 knots or 575mph (+) at about 700 feet altitude.

EAS equivalent airspeed will be supersonic (greater than Mach 1) - will figure it out, somehow, and come back with the EAS for the south tower plane @ 500 knots, at Sea Level (700 feet altitude).

Could someone please help me figure out the EAS (equivalent airspeed) and Mach # for 510knots (9/11 Commission Report), or even 500 knots (conservative estimate) at 700 feet altitude? Thanks - I don't have the time to figure out how to do it right now.

Here's the calculator.

www.luizmonteiro.com...

Thanks again.

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by leostokes


And until you see the building itself you can't be sure of where the target is, even with landmarks. But again, too steep, you hit the ground short, and miss the building. Too shallow you miss the roof. A sweeping turn gives you time to line up and a nice shallow trajectory so that if you hit the ground short the debris skips into the building.

Landmarks are great for giving you the general area the target is in, but if you see the target late, you have to dive down hard to the target area. If they saw the building late, they had to get back to it, so they turn and drop onto it.

The Pentagon wasn't protected airspace. It has a flight route into the airport that practically goes over the corner of the building depending on winds.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Do you have the temperature? Pressure setting? All the variables needed?

reply to post by Zaphod58


No, what's missing?

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes

 

And until you see the building itself you can't be sure of where the target is, even with landmarks. But again, too steep, you hit the ground short, and miss the building. Too shallow you miss the roof. A sweeping turn gives you time to line up and a nice shallow trajectory so that if you hit the ground short the debris skips into the building.

Landmarks are great for giving you the general area the target is in, but if you see the target late, you have to dive down hard to the target area. If they saw the building late, they had to get back to it, so they turn and drop onto it.

The Pentagon wasn't protected airspace. It has a flight route into the airport that practically goes over the corner of the building depending on winds.

edit on 12/9/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

They do not know the target is between the cemetery and the river?
They do not know they are already lined up on the target?
Protected air space or not, they risk interception, do they not?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Is it 510 indicated or true? Because you need true. If it's 510 true, then EAS is roughly 500 knots, based on 700 feet pressure altitude, and 68 degrees temp at Central Park.

reply to post by leostokes


They may have not seen it until they were almost at it, in which case, they had to turn to reline up with it.

Theoretically they were, but you can figure pretty easily where the planes were coming from, and how long it would take to get them airborne and to the area. With the planes hitting at roughly the same time, you would have known that you would have had some time. Even if they were intercepted over the Pentagon the fighters couldn't have done anything but watched.

reply to post by Zaphod58


It's ground speed. I'm really interested in what it's (equivalent) airspeed and Mach # would be, for high altitude, when travelling at 510knots at about Sea Level, to give us an idea of the difference between the two, and what it means in terms of equivalent air pressure forces acting on the aircraft at low altitude vs. high. I guess what's needed is the formula for calculating EAS from TAS at high altitude, and then reverse it.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Then you can't find EAS. You have to have true airspeed to find it. Groundspeed, Indicated, and True are all slightly different.

Zaphod58
reply to post by leostokes

 

They may have not seen it until they were almost at it, in which case, they had to turn to reline up with it.

Theoretically they were, but you can figure pretty easily where the planes were coming from, and how long it would take to get them airborne and to the area. With the planes hitting at roughly the same time, you would have known that you would have had some time. Even if they were intercepted over the Pentagon the fighters couldn't have done anything but watched.

Well I hope you are not offended if I say that after reading your replies, You have not changed my mind.

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Then you can't find EAS. You have to have true airspeed to find it. Groundspeed, Indicated, and True are all slightly different.

What we're really wanting is the equivalent TAS and Mach # at high altitude, for an EAS at low altitude, of 510 knots.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


TAS would be 915 knots at -67 true temp, at 35,000 feet.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thanks. And the equivalent Mach #?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


1.6 or so.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thanks.

Actually, on a straight conversion I just got

915 knots (@ 35,000 feet) = 1.3833Mach

= EAS (equivalent airspeed) of 510knots (if your calc was right) @ Sea Level (700 feet).


Best Regards,

NAM