It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation
G force doesn't have anything to do with it. A G is the feeling of force on the body when an aircraft maneuvers. Commercial aircraft are designed to take several positive and a couple negative.
The only thing that would come into play is ground effect, which would actually help somewhat, as the aircraft would balloon up slightly when it got into ground effect.
"
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee
Yes. It's not easy to fly low, at high speed, but yes, it can be done. There are some great videos of New Zealand Air Force 757s coming in low and fast past an airshow crowd, before climbing at a ridiculously steep angle.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye
They didn't fly at 10 feet until just before impact. The FDR data shows them descending through the light poles, then there's a slight G effect about the point where they're into ground effect, and at 4 feet immediately before impact.
originally posted by: D8Tee
Why do people keep saying the plane struck the ground before impacting the pentagon?
originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Salander
fairy tale? How so? Is there proof somewhere that I'm missing? Not likely...but I'll bite.
A2D
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye
They didn't fly at 10 feet until just before impact. The FDR data shows them descending through the light poles, then there's a slight G effect about the point where they're into ground effect, and at 4 feet immediately before impact.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee
Yes. It's not easy to fly low, at high speed, but yes, it can be done. There are some great videos of New Zealand Air Force 757s coming in low and fast past an airshow crowd, before climbing at a ridiculously steep angle.
There's another of a French C-135 in Algeria (the C-135 is based off a commercial design) that comes by the camera less than 100 feet it looks like, at high speed. Great video.
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xenogears
What does any of that do to explain the problem of something massive was required to take them all out in one fell swoop, and still jive with the impact situation on the building?
And we don't need any more what if's. I've laid out teh specific requirements to pull off such a job, and somebody now needs to one up all that with a methodology that circumnavigates that real world model, in detail.
weren't these 9 11 pilots, barely trained pilots. One would think they wouldn't attempt to perform a difficult almost directly horizontal crash, but a more angled crash.
originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Xenogears
weren't these 9 11 pilots, barely trained pilots. One would think they wouldn't attempt to perform a difficult almost directly horizontal crash, but a more angled crash.
75 years ago barely trained Japanese pilots were able to hit moving ships - Ships there were shooting back !!
originally posted by: Xenogears
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee
Yes. It's not easy to fly low, at high speed, but yes, it can be done. There are some great videos of New Zealand Air Force 757s coming in low and fast past an airshow crowd, before climbing at a ridiculously steep angle.
There's another of a French C-135 in Algeria (the C-135 is based off a commercial design) that comes by the camera less than 100 feet it looks like, at high speed. Great video.
weren't these 9 11 pilots, barely trained pilots. One would think they wouldn't attempt to perform a difficult almost directly horizontal crash, but a more angled crash.