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: LaBTop
originally posted by: LaBTop
Well, after reading that post by MrBig2430 in page 43, its him as the only one, that tried at least to use some contra-argument. Without, as usual, adding some drawing or such, of his own.
But I told you already, that the plane's right wing tip, just cut through pole 1.
And I asked Zaphod for an estimation of the wing tips flex-up at 825 KMH and he guessed about 3 meter, which I used in first instance.
In fact, we don't even need that much flexing by far, I will show you that, later on.
And its right wing tip that cut through pole 1 at a cut-height of 20 to 23 ft / 6.1 m to 7.0 m (as guessed by Adam Larson) is where I based my calculations on.
The calculations and measurements I used are still right and don't need any alterations :
MrBig2430 : Ok. So you're basing everything on the wing tips flexing up 3 meters. Correct?
Let's assume that's correct.
Now present evidence that wing tips ONLY were what hit the light poles in the so called "OS". I don't believe that's the case though.
I believe that the "OS" says that the wings hit farther onboard, where wing flex is MUCH less.
This makes your claims and all the measurements you've done inaccurate.
Start over buddy.
So, when do you start offering your claims and measurements, proving mine wrong.?
How can the wings be bending up with 3.75G if the fuselage is holding them down with 1G? Where is the extra 2.75G if the plane is not strapped to the test jig?
1. Absence of command authority --snip--
Simultaneous anomalies can be „coincidences“, but as they increase in number they may force a scientist to put his or her theory in question. Regarding air defense on 9/11 we can identify at least six major simultaneous anomalies.
--snip--
So the top people responsible would be:
# the FAA's Hijack Coordinator
# the DDO in the NMCC
# the Secretary of Defense
On 9/11 all three were absent from their command posts in the crucial hours between 8:14 a.m. (first hijacking) and 10:03 (last crash).
>>> Michael Canavan, the Hijack Coordinator of the FAA (and former Special Forces General) was not in the office but had flown to Puerto Rico; Lynne Osmus, his Deputy, arrived in the office only after all the planes had crashed
>>> General Montague Winfield, the NMCC DDO (who in 2012 became Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense), was not at his post between 8:30 and 10:00 a.m.; Captain Charles Joseph Leidig, his Deputy, had just qualified for being DDO one month before; General Winfield had asked him the afternoon before if he would sit in as DDO from 8:30 on; Winfield returned to his post only after all planes had crashed
>>> Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stayed away from the NMCC, too, and arrived there no sooner than 10:30 a.m., after all planes had crashed
This seemingly well-timed absence of key people is still unexplained. It obstructed the air defense effectively.
2. Communication breakdown --snip--
In other words, president Bush was largely out of the loop for about two hours due to an unexplained temporary communication breakdown.
The same problem was seen in the Pentagon's NMCC, where the before mentioned ( LT : DDO stand-in) Captain Leidig was „having a difficult time“ contacting the FAA's Operations Center. Once the line was established it was „repeatedly lost because of technical problems“, according to an internal document by the 9/11 Commission. (10)
Because of this unexplained failure the basic communication between civilian air
traffic control and the Pentagon was effectively obstructed during the attacks.
Furthermore the pilots of the F-16s finally taking off from Langley at 9:30 could not be reached by their NORAD supervisors for unknown reasons until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:37. Only at 9:38, a few seconds after the Pentagon crash, could a connection be established to the fighter pilots, who were only then redirected to Washington. (11)
3. Radar loss
Flight 77 was hijacked exactly in a small area of poor radar coverage, a so-called „radar gap“, as the Washington Post reported in November 2001. (12) Because of this the airliner disappeared from the eyes of air traffic controllers, right when it turned. This was essential for the terrorists' success in reaching the Pentagon. But how could the alleged hijackers have known, that this gap existed, where it was located, and when they would have arrived there? No logical explanation is given for this. --snip--
Summary
September 11, 2001, was a quite remarkable day for the air defense system of the United States.
>>> The key people responsible for managing a hijacking were absent from their command posts right in the crucial hours.
>>> Important telephone and radio connections didn't work until after the attacks were over.
>>> A hijacked plane disappeared in a radar gap, and nobody is willing to explain.
>>> A wargame projecting a hijacking was taking place simultaneously.
>>> The airbase that should have protected the capital was not able to send fighter jets within an hour of time.
>>> Interceptors from alert bases were scrambled with unexplained delays and then diverted several times.
In short, a whole set of highly improbable events occurred simultaneously on that morning. From a scientific point of view these anomalies need further investigation. It is not credible that Bin Laden was responsible for these anomalies, nor that they were sheer coincidences.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MrBig2430
Actually, I did mention G load, several times thanks.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MrBig2430
As I said then, 3 meters was about the max you would see, but it would depend entirely on how the aircraft leveled out from their descent.
.
You'll see slightly more wing flex at the speed that they were flying, at that altitude, simply because of the fuselage moving up and down more than in the thinner air.
originally posted by: Salander
For any pilots here, I wonder how many have ever flown their jet at Vmo +90? I've been Vmo +10 at the most, and the airplane does not like it, even at altitude.
How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?[/]
Lol @ ground effect.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LaBTop
The hijackers knew about the FAA radar gaps through several ways. Every time the radars in those areas had problems the FAA put out a NOTAM. Those can be looked up online,even back then.
How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?
How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?