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.

 

The PentaCon

page: 11
65
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Are you now going to retract your statement about only one "non-anonymous witness"?

If not, we can conclude that the CIT are the real pentaCON and that you have no interest in facts.



NONE of the witnesses you posted are quoted as saying that they actually SAW the light poles get clipped.

Kat Gains was on the 110 and wouldn't be able to see that from there anyway.

I reccommend you go there and survey the topography and analyze the location POV's of these witnesses as I did.

Of course in a black operation of this magnitude it would be silly to assume that none of the witnesses were plants/or completely fabricated accounts.




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
darkbluesky:


You don't have to rely on JohnLear.

We have plenty of pilots who are members of www.pilotsfor911truth.org that have analyzed.

All agree 100% that the flight path you are suggesting is impossible for a 757.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Ok, I took the time and spend some time on the FlightSimulator2004,

This are the sharpest turns I could come up with the 757 with partly extrem banking up to 90 degree:



You should compare that with a google view of that area so you can get the dimension.

The sharpest turn of 90 degree you see is one I flew with a half the speed and 90 dgeree banking.

Banking to 45 degree takes at least 3-4 sec and banking back again 3-4 sec and without enough banking your turn rate is very low.

Of course this is done with a more or less useable home flightsimulator and with an more or less accurate AA757 model and flight dynamics and therefore not that accurate to the real thing.

But eith this model I used and simulation and a comparable speed, darkblueskys path is 100% impossible to fly. It's even very laughable to try if you see the scenery dimension from above. (I put some markings on the scenery as help)

Now the question for me is rather is Jacks's flight path (the S!) really possible for a 757 to fly at that speed? I could not test that because I miss orientation points on my scenery.

I think it is but the correction (banking) is that heavy that this should have been noted by jacks eyewhitness.

The situation is much more possible if you do not need to fly an S (banking is soo slow) but only one turn before the pentagon.

And so here my question to JACK:
Are you sure of the beginning of your flight path? The yellow line?

I consider the S as rather not so possible because the strong bankings required that no eyewhitness noted.

p.s. John:
I personel don't think much about your 'uncommon' theories in various thread and topics. But your experience about flying and your answers here impressed me.




[edit on 27-2-2007 by g210b]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Of course in a black operation of this magnitude it would be silly to assume that none of the witnesses were plants/or completely fabricated accounts.


I think we've reached the point where it would actually save time to compile a list of people who you feel were not in on this operation.

That list would be significantly shorter than the insider list you're implying.

In all seriousness Jack, you're peeing in your own pool. Are you saying that your witnesses are probably Government shills? Because that's what it sounds like. (Luckily most of your witnesses didn't agree with your "fly-by" scenario, or I'd have to add you to the insider list too.)



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
darkbluesky:

We have plenty of pilots who are members of www.pilotsfor911truth.org that have analyzed.

All agree 100% that the flight path you are suggesting is impossible for a 757.


Jack,

If you have any pull at Pilots for 9-11 Truth.org you should get them to dump any "pilots" that say a 757 cannot complete a 50 degree left hand turn in 3.8 seconds, with a turn radius of 2000 ft. at 300 kts with a bank angle of 75 degrees.

Turn radius (ft) = V*V / 11.26(tangent of bank angle)
Turn rate (seconds) = 1091 (tangent bank angle) / V

V = velocity in Kts

Do the math. A level 75 degree banking turn exerts approx 4 Gs on the airframe.

This maneuver is possible.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
darkbluesky:

We have plenty of pilots who are members of www.pilotsfor911truth.org that have analyzed.

All agree 100% that the flight path you are suggesting is impossible for a 757.


Jack,

If you have any pull at Pilots for 9-11 Truth.org you should get them to dump any "pilots" that say a 757 cannot complete a 50 degree left hand turn in 3.8 seconds, with a turn radius of 2000 ft. at 300 kts with a bank angle of 75 degrees.

Turn radius (ft) = V*V / 11.26(tangent of bank angle)
Turn rate (seconds) = 1091 (tangent bank angle) / V

V = velocity in Kts

Do the math. A level 75 degree banking turn exerts approx 4 Gs on the airframe.

This maneuver is possible.


Funny how I've got some guy using the same forumla to debunk us the other way!

Read this thread:
z10.invisionfree.com...

He even claims that this bank is unlikely:




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
darkbluesky:

We have plenty of pilots who are members of www.pilotsfor911truth.org that have analyzed.

All agree 100% that the flight path you are suggesting is impossible for a 757.


Jack,

If you have any pull at Pilots for 9-11 Truth.org you should get them to dump any "pilots" that say a 757 cannot complete a 50 degree left hand turn in 3.8 seconds, with a turn radius of 2000 ft. at 300 kts with a bank angle of 75 degrees.

Turn radius (ft) = V*V / 11.26(tangent of bank angle)
Turn rate (seconds) = 1091 (tangent bank angle) / V

V = velocity in Kts

Do the math. A level 75 degree banking turn exerts approx 4 Gs on the airframe.

This maneuver is possible.


Funny how I've got some guy using the same forumla to debunk us the other way!

Read this thread:
z10.invisionfree.com...

He even claims that this bank is unlikely:



Jack - I realize you are probably very busy fending off numerous assaults on you theories. Too busy to carefully read each post, so let me point out to you that the calculations in the thread you directed me to are for calculating the radius of an arc and calculating the acceleration forces that result from following that arc. They are UNRELATED to aeronautical performance. They are not the same equations I used.

Instead of calculting the radius as Dr. Akward did, I simply used the Google measuring tool.

The link below takes you to a handy little graph (you can find in any advanced aeronautics text) that tells you approximately how tightly and how quickly ANY aircraft can turn at a given speed and bank angle. It also includes a table that equates level flight bank angles to G forces.

tscm.com...

A Boeing 757, or any air liner for that matter, can withstand 6-7 Gs. Much higher that my estimated 4, or Dr. Akwards calculated 4.3.

So my statement stands on it's own.

I must also mention how peculiar I think it is, how quickly you switch from one
"expert" to the next so long as it helps you fend off the current question or challenge. Even if expert A disagrees with expert B on other nuances.

Ask your 9-11 Pilots for Truth. Org pilots if the maneuver I'm suggesting at 300 kts is possible. If you come back and say no, I'm sure you'll offer the supporting evidence, right?





[edit on 2/27/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by g210b
p.s. John:
I personel don't think much about your 'uncommon' theories in various thread and topics. But your experience about flying and your answers here impressed me.
g210b]




Thanks g210b.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I have watched the video the main problem is that the people interviewed only make up four people out of the hundreds of witness. The eye witness accounts didn't sit right with me but I'm not going to say anything else along these lines because you need facts before you make a statement. IMO the mistake was to draw the conclusions at the end of the video.

Some questions.
The police sergeant who was filling up his patrol car on 9-11 where dose his aviation experience come from ?
Is he a pilot ?

Now for this next question any pilots out there can correct me if I'm wrong.

When a airliner comes into land the nose of the plane is raised slightly presume to prevent the aircraft crashing nose first into the ground.
Wouldn't the hijackers have done this to avoid crashing into the lawn and not the building ?

Why would there be a delay between the explosion and the plane hitting the Pentagon ?
I ask because it seems to me that the plane would have exploded on impact in effect at the exact same time it the building.

If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon why wasn't it detected on Radar after the attack ?
Why are there no witness to a low level plane making a steep climb or low level fight after the attack ?

Assuming the plane hit the Pentagon couldn't have an after shock type effect that travelled thou the ground caused some of the power polls to fall over ?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Read this thread:
z10.invisionfree.com...

He even claims that this bank is unlikely:



Very interesting. They hit the smae problem like I have now:

No one of your whitness saw a heavy banking aircraft. (they calculated 70 degree, and in flightsim I was in that range too).
But such banking is required to match your flight path at hight speed.

Still I have the question how did the flight path look at the beginning (2 or 3 miles form the pentagon) of your yellow path.

Ok I come up with a theorie, she might sound far fetched at first but think about it, it really might be like that:

I see the 'turth' flight path like this:


And yup that still would be a smooking gun becasue the light poles are not hit.

I try to explain how I come to this theorie step by step.

First point, your whitness are contradictionaer in the flight path when you consider the NOT observed banking.
You have a contradiction between your eyewhitness like we have one between the official flight path and your flight path.

If there is a contradiction at least one must have told the untrue.

So which one?
We 2 police officers and one worker.

I'd say the 2 police officers. There are a number of points why:
First and that gave me to think, they were police officers at the gas state
AND there were that police car and officers at the pentagon you can see in the pentagon videos. That police car later drovethrough the grass and helipat very short after the impact..
(something I still don't get who would do that? driving over wreackge parts?)

So we have police officers at the best spots and even both time on camera. If the thing was planed then it's very practical to have people at the scene that you have control over in case someone like you comes and you have to 'bend' something.
Your entire smoking gun is based on this 2 eyewhitness mainly, and if they become debunked at last step in the 'game' what do your other eyewhitness still count then?
The one officer behave way too cool and knew much too little about all the importand details like the light pools or where he has parked and how much time passed from sightseeing till impact like everythign was not importand to him.
I agree it's a little unsoldie accusation..

But without them the flight path fits with your other eyewhitness perfect and there is no contracdiction (except about the before I have no clue).

The new flight path has no turn or so slightly that it well is well possible as a small end correction like on landing AND the path leads directly in line over that markant building.

In the simulation I flew today I haddifficult to target the pentagon.
Now if you want to hit it 'optimal' for whomever and you have a free optimal targed help .. I would use it.

When you land a big aircraft you make sure that you are aligned with the rwy long before so you don't get into trouble to make sharp turns and loose your 'target'. Not so easy to keep your target. You need experience to match the turn. So the best isto make no turn short before the target but only small corrections.

I think becasue this banking contradiction, I would not realy on that 2 police officers only and check for further 'not in short line' eyewhitness close to the gas station.
The banking conflict should make you carefully.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Jack, just wondering, but are you really of the opinion that the loose change website is a credible source?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Do the math. A level 75 degree banking turn exerts approx 4 Gs on the airframe. This maneuver is possible.




I don't believe the maneuver is possible because you will be getting into high speed buffet at that speed well before you ever reach 4 g's 's. To talk of anything over 3 G's in a modern airliner is ridiculous. They are not certificated for the kind of load maneuvering. They are certificated to +2.0 and thats it. 2 g's is lot of g's in an airliner. During their entire lifetime they will rarely see that. 3 g's is absolutely not seen ever. 4 g's is what aerobatic aircraft are stressed for. Forget about what a pilot can withstand, just worry about the airplane and here's why:

An airplanes wing is designed to create enough lift to make it takeoff, fly to altitude, cruise, descend and land. Thats it. Federal Air Regulations make the aircraft manufacturers design the wing strong enough to withstand 2 g's or twice the weight of the airplane. Thats for safety margin. The airplane in its lifetime will probably never see 2 g's. Airliners are carefully flown by professionals and other than an occasional thunderstorm with strong vertical currents it will never even see 1.5 g's.

Now lets look at someone trying to fly a Boeing 757 one hundred feet off of the ground at from 350 knots to 450 knots. If he pulls the maximum of 2 g's, which the airplane is certificated for the wing will be generating enough lift to support twice the aircraft's weight which we'll say is 250,000 pounds. So twice that is 500,000 pounds of lift is being generated to keep the airplane level. Now lets say the pilot is one hundred feet off of the ground and pulls 3 g's in a turn. The weight that the wing will now have to support is now 750,000 pounds and it is not designed to do that. As the weight, caused by the excessive g's is increased, the airplane will begin to buffet because it can no longer support the weight it is being asked to support with the available lift being generated frrom the wings. The buffet is caused by the air over the wing separating from the wing and no longer producing lift. As the buffet begins lift instantaneously decreases. At 100 hundred feet off of the ground there is not much room for error. I would estimate much, much less than a second between the time the high speed buffet began and the airplane descended wing first into the ground.

If you want to worry about the pilot remember that at 4 g's a 180 pound pilot weighs 720 pounds! And if you think that a Arab hijacker with minumum time is going to be able to sustain a 4 g turn weighing 720 pounds then you just don't understand what is is like to weigh 720 pounds or what it is like to try and hold on to a control column when you arms, wrist and hands weigh 4 times normal. Not even possible. And not to worry, the airplane won't be flying at 4 g's!

To state that this maneuver is possible is to have no understanding of the flight dynamics involved or to have any understanding of the physiological ramifications of trying to function as a pilot at 4 g's.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Do the math. A level 75 degree banking turn exerts approx 4 Gs on the airframe. This maneuver is possible.




I don't believe the maneuver is possible because you will be getting into high speed buffet at that speed well before you ever reach 4 g's 's. To talk of anything over 3 G's in a modern airliner is ridiculous. They are not certificated for the kind of load maneuvering. They are certificated to +2.0 and thats it.



Certification limits are not the same as design specs, you know that Mr. Lear.



2 g's is lot of g's in an airliner. During their entire lifetime they will rarely see that. 3 g's is absolutely not seen ever.


Patently false. CAT can induce loss of stability that commonly results in recovery maneuvers that exceed 3 Gs.


4 g's is what aerobatic aircraft are stressed for. Forget about what a pilot can withstand, just worry about the airplane and here's why:


Again false, I'm begining to wonder what you're trying to accomplish here John. To tarnish your reputation?

Aerobatic aircraft and pilots as well as fighter and test pilots commonly experience short duration (8-10 seconds) 9-12 Gs. You can experience 4-5 Gs for 2-3 seconds on any good modern roller coaster.



An airplanes wing is designed to create enough lift to make it takeoff, fly to altitude, cruise, descend and land. Thats it. Federal Air Regulations make the aircraft manufacturers design the wing strong enough to withstand 2 g's or twice the weight of the airplane. Thats for safety margin. The airplane in its lifetime will probably never see 2 g's. Airliners are carefully flown by professionals and other than an occasional thunderstorm with strong vertical currents it will never even see 1.5 g's.


I have no other option but to say this statement is complete and utter disinformation. (except the part about airline pilots being professionals)


If you want to worry about the pilot remember that at 4 g's a 180 pound pilot weighs 720 pounds! And if you think that a Arab hijacker with minumum time is going to be able to sustain a 4 g turn weighing 720 pounds then you just don't understand what is is like to weigh 720 pounds or what it is like to try and hold on to a control column when you arms, wrist and hands weigh 4 times normal. Not even possible.


I disagree, its only for 3 secconds. Also, where does the Arab even come into play? I thought you "knew" that the planes were holographs? Why are you even in on this debate? Maybe it wasnt an Arab, maybe it was a Spook. Im just arguing the maneuver is possible, Doesn't matter to me who pereformed it. And your arguments against the maneuver, John, are lacking to say the least.


And not to worry, the airplane won't be flying at 4 g's!


BS- more intentional disinfo. All air liners can withstand 6-7 Gs. If you folks think they can't, don't ever get on a flight that has any possibility or going through a front of thunderstorms. When you hear about those reports of turbulence where people, trays, food, etc fly around the cain, how many G's do you think the aircraft experiences? I'll give you a hint.....More than 2.



To state that this maneuver is possible is to have no understanding of the flight dynamics involved or to have any understanding of the physiological ramifications of trying to function as a pilot at 4 g's.


To state that it's impossible, as a pilot with your experience John, is disingenuous to say the least.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Thanks for the feedback g210b.

Here is the estimated flight path based on all the witnesses that will be presented in the "Researcher's Edition".



We have an eyewitness that saw it fly over the driving range.

And many others in the neighborhoods of 13th and poe area.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
From what I've read the on board computers keep a 757 from exceeding 1.5G's, and cannot be overridden by the pilot. Mostly for passenger comfort of course.

John do you know if this is true?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
From what I've read the on board computers keep a 757 from exceeding 1.5G's, and cannot be overridden by the pilot. Mostly for passenger comfort of course.

John do you know if this is true?



That may be true I was never qualified in the Boeing 757,



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
John and Anok, Specifically John, What the heck are you thinking? Any airliner exceeds 1.5 G during rotation at take off. Why would the 757 computers prevent this?

I'm sorry, but I'm begining to believe the ATS John Lear isn't the real John Lear, or the real John Lear isn't the pilot he claims to be.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky


originally posted by johnlear
To state that this maneuver is possible is to have no understanding of the flight dynamics involved or to have any understanding of the physiological ramifications of trying to function as a pilot at 4 g's.


To state that it's impossible, as a pilot with your experience John, is disingenuous to say the least.



None of the rebuttals made by darkbluesky in this post are valid. In several of his responses he is not addressing the issue. Rather than waste my time answering each one of darkblueskys responses if anybody has a question in particular I would be happy to respond.

I believe that darkbluesky is trying his best to address a difficult and complex issue and I would not call him disingenuous.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
John and Anok, Specifically John, What the heck are you thinking? Any airliner exceeds 1.5 G during rotation at take off. Why would the 757 computers prevent this?

I'm sorry, but I'm begining to believe the ATS John Lear isn't the real John Lear, or the real John Lear isn't the pilot he claims to be.



As I stated in my original post an airliner rarely exceeds 1.5 g's. I believe that you are misinformed.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
NONE of the witnesses you posted are quoted as saying that they actually SAW the light poles get clipped.


Are you purposefully being decietful or are you just insane?

Note: This is third time I have posted this quote.


www.guardian.co.uk...

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."


Emphasis mine.

What 9-11 research has compiled about witnesses specifically mentioning the light poles.


911research.wtc7.net...

at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.



These accounts are in two links.

Here.

And here.

The witnesses to the plane hitting the poles, combined with the physical evidence of the downed poles, far outweighs your four led interviewees.

Are you still going to insist that only one person says they saw the plane hit the light poles?


[edit on 27-2-2007 by LeftBehind]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join