It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander
Very rarely have you seen me rely on "government" or "media". I take great delight in showing how "truth" theories do not match up with the evidence or reality.
Page 4 , originally posted by: CaptainBeno :
Interesting theory indeed.
However, holes start to appear in you story when you state:
The average cruising speed "indicated" of a Boeing 757 is 528 mph or 850 kmh or 458 knots. This is cruising speed. Any deviation from that straight and level flight i.e. a descent, with throttles "pushed forward" will increase IAS. To say the pilot put the aircraft into a steep descent to hit the Pentagon without increasing IAS is complete rubbish.
pale5218 : That's not what it says in the transcript. The flight made a right 360 degree turn just west of the airport and the Ground Speed which is calculated by the radar system and displayed on the Data Block, it is showing 370 knots in the last radar hit. I don't think I said anything nor did I hear anything about a steep descent without increasing IAS.
As a matter of fact, the radar doesn't even display the ground speed until the controllers tag it with the S. The flight is three fourths of the way through the turn.
Page 11 ASCE Pentagon Report : Concrete columns exist at 20 ft on center in the fifth story and at 10 ft on center in the lower stories.
Page 4 , CaptainBeno : a reply to: pale5218
Yep, fair enough. However, given the evidence (Lots of threads etc etc) and my own personal knowledge of flying aircraft. This guy with his limited experience must have been a bloody ace if he could hold off straight and level at that speed inches above the ground (Take into account ground effect) and to not scratch the surface one little bit. At least he could be commended on his flying skills. I don't know anyone who could fly that low , score a direct hit, nice and level and not cause any pre damage to his surrounds?
Page 5 : a reply to: hiddenNZ
CaptainBeno : Yep, kinda, you're right though.
In fixed-wing aircraft, ground effect is the increased lift (force) and decreased aerodynamic drag that an aircraft's wings generate when they are close to a fixed surface. When landing, ground effect can give the pilot the feeling that the aircraft is "floating". Also, when going extremely quick, it can be a pain in the ass. It either pulls you in or does not let you get low enough! Depends on your speed.
But all I'm saying is, he was extremely talented to keep it nice and level to get the hit he did that day. A fluke maybe?
I've tried it on a real sim. To get down nice and low before the freeway and get a hit. I just kept bouncing and hitting the grassy area. But hey, I'm no expert with 4500 hours.
Landing, sure....easy. The aircraft is set up for it. Full throttle...nope.
Page 5 : a reply to: hiddenNZ
Zaphod58 : The easiest explanation for ground effect is that when you reach the same altitude as your wingspan, there's a cushion of air that "bounces" back up under the bottom of the wing, and pushes the aircraft up. So for a 757, at 125 feet, there's going to be a bounce effect, and the aircraft isn't going to sink through that altitude, without the pilot pushing forward on the control column. Ground effect results in reduced drag, and increased speed, because you don't have wingtip vortices forming.
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.
Page 14 and 15 : The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon.Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken
Post # 14, by Ricochet : One other point of height reference would be the generator trailer. A standard trailer is 13 feet tall, landing legs down, no power unit (truck) attached. If the engine clipped the top of it that would put the bottom of the engine housing at about 12 feet.
-snip- Flight 77 was not trying to land, nor in a flare, nor at approach speed, thus no high angle of attack, no ground effect, and no "cushion." Based on FDR (flight data recorder) evidence: full power, 460 knots. At full power, a descent requires a nose low attitude.
Even level flight near maximum airspeed calls for a low angle of attack. As you speed up, lift increases, so you must adjust your nose attitude (and thus airfoil angle of attack) downward if you want to descend at high airspeed.
That is what Flt 77 did. R/D (rate of descent) for flight 77 from 4 nm (nautical miles) out based on FDR info, ground plot, and altitude points. (Roughly 4 nm away @ 2000' MSL (mean sea level) to about 40' MSL' at impact point at 400+ knots) ~ 7 nm per minute, lose about 2000 feet of altitude, it's about 3500 fpm. Between 3000 and 4000 fpm is a good range of values, if the pilot was able to maintain a uniform R/D, which I doubt he did. If, as it appears, he flattened out at the end and reduced his R/D in the last few seconds to stay on target and not hit the ground prematurely, (See below) his angle of attack is still low, and "Ground effect" does not come into play.
"Fluid compression" within a wingspan's distance from the ground (125' for a 757), besides not existing in that flight
regime as any "ground effect, would be experienced as the transient compression of a small column of air that disperses quickly, below or behind the center of lift. At low angles of attack such "compression" would happen behind
the center of lift on the wings relative to the direction of travel. In the direction of travel, with nose down (below horizontal) air is being compressed above the wing and at the leading edge as the aircraft skin meets the air molecules. The aircraft keeps moving ahead of the alleged "compression wave" under the wing. (Take a toy plane, tilt the nose 5 degrees below the horizontal, and see where an air cushion would have to be under the airfoil.) Flt 77 wasn't flaring, air below thus could not form a non-existent "cushion" to break downward momentum. (Momentum is Mass *Velocity.) Flt 77 hit the building before it hit the ground in any event, (and clipped a few light poles.) This "Scholar" inadvertently has made a case for why the building was hit with no ground impact first, but he makes that case for the wrong reason. The alleged "cushion" was simple lift from high airspeed and a slight nose adjustment. If the hijacker pilot had made a large nose-up control input, increasing the angle of attack considerably, you'd have seen a ballooning (and a miss) though not due to ground effect, but due to normal creation of lift. At 150 knots, L = /2*K*V^2.
At 450 knots, you get roughly 9 ((450^2)/(150^2)) times the lift from V^2 increases. You don't need ground effect, which isn't there anyway.
-snip- The biggest risk to a hijacker was over controlling the nose attitude, or wings. Flying fast required setting a good "first guess" descent angle early on in his attack run, to avoid over controlling close in. Speed of closure required him to pay very close attention to his target's drift in his windscreen. At high speeds, small errors and subsequent corrections are needed
large corrections can be magnified due to large aerodynamic forces (much lift.
a reply to: pale5218 :
NoCorruptionAllowed : I must respectfully submit that because there were so many ignored facts by officials, and sequestered evidence ignored by the "steering" committees involved in the official explanations, that everything or anything these officials and government people have stated are simply not credible in any way. Even if everything they said did actually happen, their lies and stories simply have no credibility either way. I also know from spending years actually building the wings for the Boeing company that they are not hollow. They have very strong front and rear extruded spars and the inboard ribs are not just thin metal like the baffle panels every 2 plus feet are. There are also fairly thick upper and lower rib strengtheners that would be like knife blades when hitting anything at the speed said was crash speed.
Those inboard ribs the wing skins are attached to and the wing skins near the wing's center section are insanely over designed for strength and robustness. They would have been a powerful sword when striking that building and there isn't a trace of damage in places that would have been obliterated if that aircraft actually struck at that speed. Not shattered into dust as they say happened.
The other factor that is rarely addressed is how the official stories have all been sold to everyone, by using peer pressure, emotional pressure, the fear of ridicule, and every other means of deceptive pressures to force that story on the public or be the target of a political form of excommunication on naysayers, unbelievers, and even people asking too many uncomfortable questions.
Whether or not the official story is true, the stench of a dirty rotting rat is quite prevalent and still smells today just as strong.
Page 9, originally posted by: facedye
-snip- the speed of the craft, again, based on all official reports available, was ~530 mph before impact. what this tells me is that the information you're referencing and citing is entirely incomplete, and non-inclusive of all available data.
I have no idea why this reconciles anything for you. it just adds more fuel to the fire.
pale5218 : the pilot reported seeing the aircraft in a descent on a flight path into the Pentagon. If you look at the video and see where the C130 was when the B757 hit, I would say 7-8 miles in trail. That being said, easy to see an airplane, easy to see it hit the building at this distance. What would not have been AS easy to see is the plane hitting the light poles.
-snip- did you watch the video because you can see what direction it comes from, clear without a doubt. The angle is not known because you have to see how the building is situated. I mean are you asking descent angle? lateral angle?
The angle isn't needed from what I described the direction is clear.
I am stating what I see on the radar, 370 knots across the ground.
Posted by GBP/JPY in page 10 :
posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 12:59 PM
Oh, the post above me...
I saw a brand new Jet Ranger with the three color paint job......
With a video crew reporting the news.......they said not enough debris to fill a suitcase
They were early in the event, and the video was clear and plain...
So, I have the image in my volumes of memories, oh and they match Shanksville, another Jet Ranger with a new three color paint job....how they come from the factory
For a little detail, I have all of it....the trees at Shanksville had no debris on that video.....
edit on 12-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)
You can find a more complete version of this collection (3000 hours of television from 20 channels over 7 days) at Understanding 9/11: A Television News Archive. This collection contains television news programs recorded live from around September 11, 2001 by the non-profit Television Archive to...
WORD31 departed about 0930 (LT : no, 0927), and VENUS77 which was seen over the Pentagon, departed around 0945 (LT : no, 0943).
professional staff member of the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the 9-11 Commission.
I joined the staff of the Joint Inquiry, and then the Commission, for a specific reason. I was a witness to the immediate aftermath at the Pentagon site; my office in Crystal City faced the building. As a career intelligence officer, military and civilian, I wanted to know more. That quest continues.
On the Joint Inquiry I served on the “Other Agency” Team. Teams were dedicated to three specific organizations; the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Another team examined policy and history leading up to 9-11. My team, then, had a very large plate–the Department of Defense, less NSA, but including the Defense Intelligence Agency, the, then, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office; the Departments of Energy, State, Treasury and Transportation, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and the Secret Service. Our mandate was to look at intelligence issues; we did not examine in any detail the actual events of 9-11, itself.
On the Commission I served on Team 8; our task was to look at the events of the day in the sky outside the airplanes. A different team looked at the airlines and events inside the airplanes. Our focus was on two specific organizations, FAA and NORAD and its components, specifically the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). We established the essential facts of the day and told our story as “We Have Some Planes,” Chapter One of the Commission Report.
Both the Commission and the Joint Inquiry operated under tight time constraints and there was simply not enough time to do everything we wanted to do. With the recent and continuing release of Commission files I have the opportunity while things are still reasonably clear in my mind to revisit my work, hence the title of this blog.
My resume submitted to the 9-11 Commission contains this handwritten notation “NORAD issue–he did ‘Bros to Rescue’ [Brothers to the Rescue] issue.”
There is a short feature article about my Joint Inquiry Staff work in “MINES, the magazine of Colorado School of Mines,” vol. 93, no. 2, Spring 2003, page 16. The article is in PDF format and can be accessed via the result of this Google search.
Miles L. Kara Sr.
Yes WORD31 was westbound. VEN77 might have been planning an East Coast exercise but when he departed, it was not to join the exercise. He had a purpose ! He wouldn't even tell the Andrews Controllers.