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.
Wingtip vortices trail upward and outward from the wingtips of a "heavy" and spin in a counterclockwise motion. When they reach their highest point (depending on weight and speed of the "heavy") they start to sink towards the ground. Once they hit the ground they will roll laterally at about 2 or 3 knots. A crosswind may keep the upwind vortice in the runway area for an extended time. The worst condition is a light quartering tailwind. In this case the upwind vortice will move towards and up the runway making the judgment of where to touchdown difficult.
If you were following a "heavy" on an ILS approach, it is possible to experience wake turbulence as you proceed down the glideslope. In this case you would fly your approach descending "one dot" below the glideslope center position (fly above the glideslope). In a previous post I stated that the autopilot should be used down to minimums. Here is one case where you would "hand fly" the approach - keeping your glideslope path "one dot below" to avoid any wake turbulence.
Originally posted by GtotheQ
OH yes here comes the disinformation again.
IF you nothing about phsysics science nor aircraft engineering you'd fall so easily for that image.
What about the aerodynamic forces that govern a plane such as sheet vortex, jet blast and wing tip turbulance? If that plane flew over a highway why weren't any cars blown off it?
About The Author
Nila Sagadevan was born in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and educated in Britain. Born in a predominantly Buddhist country to liberal-minded Hindu parents who encouraged belief in a single Creator, he was sent at the age of 5 to Christian boarding schools where he read the Bible, attended Sunday school, and sang in the school choir.
An aeronautical engineer-turned-pilot, Sagadevan left Scotland for America in 1972. He lived in Alaska for 15 years when a profound, life-altering experience changed his concept of earthly religions forever, and caused him to deeply ponder the anthropocentric mindset that guides human life. His quest for knowledge and self-inquiry has led him on a journey through more than 40 countries and to many of the centers of the world's major religions.
Sagadevan, who was the featured guest in a television documentary on extraterrestrial phenomena, also hosted his own radio program, The Open Mind, in the 1980s. The program, which discussed declassified "Top Secret" government documents obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act, reached millions of listeners in the US and Europe. Sagadevan's writings—on world affairs, race relations, spirituality, and other subjects—have appeared in a variety of magazines and newspapers. He lives with his wife and teenage son in Southern California.
The above "opening gambit" is very telling since it delivers hard facts, one after the other, all of which are accurate. It is in this last statement that the twisting begins. The fact that the length of the Pentagon is equivalent to 7.4 757's wing to wing, or that the width of one 757 equals 13.5% of the facade of the Pentagon has no bearing on the actual damage done. Indeed, given the weight and speed of the 757 that is alleged to have impacted the building, the actual damage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraft of the size, weight, and speed of a 757. In other words, the argument actually supports the "no-Boeing" theory better than it supports "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."
Here is the next twist. The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be more plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed approximately 82 tons.
The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!
While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon, can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tail having hit the facade?
More than that, we must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were neither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakes against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able to cause some observable damage?
While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.
The facade of the WTC Towers were made of prefabricated steel yet as we can see from the imprint of the plane, these steel lattices were in no way strong enough to stop the massive kinetic energy of the entire aircraft impacting the building, including the wings and tail fin and leaving a roughly 757-shaped hole in the facade.
This is the scene that many of you will remember from September 11th. It shows the west face of the building, and a collapsed portion of the building, smaller than the area of the building that ultimately had to be demolished and then rebuilt. I think what is particularly interesting about this photo is that it shows several characteristics of the building that were changed as a result of the Pentagon renovation and which as a result of those changes resulted in a much smaller loss of life and injury than might have otherwise been the case. As part of our renovation activities, we did a number of things within the building to improve the building's resistance to attack. Among other things, we included blast- resistant windows. We included a steel framework in the building which helps prevent collapse and damage, as well, as use of a ballistic type of cloth, a Kevlar type of material similar to the materials that are used to produce bullet- proof vests. All of those materials working together helps reduce damage to the building and to its occupants. And in fact the building stood for approximately 35 minutes after impact by the aircraft before collapse occurred. As a result, that 35 minutes, critical minutes, allowed people within the building an opportunity to escape. Had we not had that additional 35 minutes, the total of injury might have been much higher than it was.
Pentagon Renovation Program Communications Specialist, Brett Eaton, confirmed: "The new blast-resistant window system installed in Wedge 1 supported the floors directly above the impact for approximately 30 minutes after the attack, allowing hundreds of people to flee to safety."
Another 9/11 researcher, who is naturally skeptical about the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, produced the above graphic and posed some obvious and logical questions about the feasibility of the official story quoted above. Given the height of just the fuselage (leaving out the 25 feet of tail fin), how is it possible that the immediate damage and the debris of the plane were "largely confined to the first floor"? And remember, we are talking here about a scenario where the plane is flying at just one inch above the ground!
What is more, evidence from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have to have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some 6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon. In this case, the damage should have been almost entirely to the second floor!
Given the enormous
amount of rotational energy stored in the rotating parts of a turbine
engine that would have to be reacted out through the strut, wing, and
fuselage, it is more economical (lighter by tons) to design the
engine/strut to depart the airplane in a controlled manner….
We want the engine to depart safely, which means
without rupturing the fuel tanks in the wings. The single most critical
condition of a safe evacuation is the lack of jet fuel mingling with hot
engine parts at the crash site….
The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak
point in the mount at the rear of the engine. This way, if something
happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear. The
engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and
the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of
harm's way. (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal
Let us postulate two possible failure modes. First, the front mount fails
first, and the engine continues to run normally. The engine would most
likely hammer against the remaining strut until parts of it fail or against
the bottom of the front spar if the strut fails totally. This is
considered undesireable for those who were wondering. A more innocuous
version of that failure would be for the engine to find another
equilibrium position using the failed structure above it to transmit those
upward loads (which are alleviated to some extent by the weight of the
The second scenario is for the front mount to fail, and the fuel lines to
crimp and break. The engine will run normally for several seconds as the
fuel in the line below the break continues to feed in. The crimped and
broken fuel lines will blow exciting amounts of raw fuel into the strut and
out into the airflow, causing a truly inspiring white cloud of vaporized
fuel to trail the airplane - right above the engine. This would be a severe
>>>(1) They are designed in a ditching situation to shear off and flip over
>>> the top of the wing rather than dig into the water & pull the wing off.
Not so. Engines will shear off in the aft direction in a ditching (or at
least, that is how we analyze it).
>Karl Swartz wrote:
>>This is also for landings on runways without landing gear, but I think
>>the concern is more to keep the aircraft from flipping than it is for
>>tearing off the wings.
>How can an engine shear off and go *over* wing? In situations such as
>described above, I would expect the engine wreckage to go *under* the
>wing. (Especially for the water landing.) Also, what is meant by
>"flipping" the aircraft when landing without gear?
An engine can shear off and depart the airplane by going over the wing
if it is still generating thrust and the rear emgine mount failed first,
as it is designed to do.
Shortly before the takeoff rotation began, with 6,000 feet of runway covered, tower controllers witnessed the number one engine (left wing) separate from the aircraft and fly up and over the wing to crash onto the runway.
Landing Gear Evidence
Rim photographed in the Pentagon wreckage. You can clearly see it is a double bead design as required by the NTSB, and you can also see it has had 90% of the rim edge smashed off in the crash.
Some people have tried to claim that the rims are different from a 757 rim - well here (bottom) is a 757-200 rim from an American Airlines 757, I've outlined the exact same symmetrical holes. I think perhaps some people are thrown off by the balancing led weights attached on the rims in the bottom photo? Have you never taken your car in for a wheel alignment and tire balancing? This is clearly the same kind of rim found on a 757. (The hub-covers/grease-covers are not present for obvious reasons - to remove one you pop it off with a flathead screw driver... so how would you expect it to stay on in a 400mph impact with a reinforced concrete wall?)
While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appears to be the same as that of a Boeing 757, does this mean that it comes from a 757? Do other types of aircraft use double rims such as those pictured above? We need to look at the "wheel rim" evidence firstly in the context of there being a massive government conspiracy on 9/11 and secondly in context of the other massive evidence that points to something else having hit the Pentagon. Taking these facts into consideration and the evidence for a general 9/11 government conspiracy, is it not plausible that the conspirators would have taken the precaution to plant evidence at the scene to cover up the truth of their activities? Could this planting of evidence not include a "damaged" wheel rim from a 757 landing gear? In the final analysis, the only people qualified to make any definitive statement on the "wheel rim" evidence at the Pentagon are those people whose jobs involve designing or maintaining Boeing 757 landing gear and/or those people whose jobs involve the design or maintenance of Global Hawk landing gear.
The Global Hawk is like the U-2 with a long wingspan (116 feet) for gliding purposes. It cruises at 395 mph and can be flown up to 36 hours. The plane has many off-the-shelf parts, including the landing gear used for Lear jets and a Rolls Royce engine that is the same one placed in the Cessna Citation personal jet.
Why is it so difficult for our author to accept this? The answer would seem to be that since the official government story does not allow for such a scenario, like all good and obedient citizens, our author feels compelled to believe what the government says, regardless of the massive historical evidence showing that, on several occasions in the past, the U.S. government has allowed, facilitated, or actually carried out, attacks on its own citizens and interests in order to achieve some specific goal, usually associated with waging war on other nations - wars like the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, including the attack on the Pentagon. Either the ATS author is such a "good and obedient" citizen, or we must conclude that said author is an agent of said government.
If we peruse other postings made by the ATS author on the subject of 9/11 in general, it seems that he/she accepts the idea that there was some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part of the US government. Yet he/she appears to have no problem with using the claims of the same U.S. government to back up his argument that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Are we to assume that Boeing is the only aircraft manufacturer to use green primer on the shells of its aircraft? Is it possible that this primer is an aircraft industry standard and that other aircraft manufactures also use green primer?
This is a very good question. So which is it? You can make the argument that a 757 was so flimsy that the Pentagon facade was relatively undamaged by the impact, or you argue that the weight and speed of the aircraft was such that it penetrated 3 rings of the building, but you can't have it both ways!
Again, for anyone, let alone an amateur like CatHerder, to claim that they can positively identify debris from a Boeing 757 from these mangled pieces of material raises questions about the integrity and impartiality of said individual. Can "CatHerder" be sure that these greenish pieces of material are not from some part of the inside of the Pentagon or from another type of aircraft? The very fact that all of these parts and bits of "evidence" were NOT trotted out by the government and put on display for the public and experts to examine is more indication that if they had been, someone would have recognized them as something else entirely.
Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
I am not playing games. I already explained in detail.
Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Originally posted by deltaboy
Debunk this one. If you can.
What is there to debunk?
Someone tossed a piece of a "757" onto the lawn and snapped a photo.
Originally posted by defcon5
Your BS is being [Quote] Thoroughly Debunked [/Quote] yet no response?
I wonder why that is?