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.

 

low flyby

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 


snoopy, no the B777 is not fly-by-wire....except for the throttles.

Second, for the OP....thanks for finding that YT clip, it's been on ATS in other threads, but buried in the past, so to speak...a week or two is almost like the dark ages, here at ATS.

Now, for non-pilots....that was an Airbus. YES they FBW....YES they have a sidestick, instead of a conventional control column as in a Boeing. BUT the other bits remain the same....there is an artificial 'feel' built in, of course...for the control inputs. (We have hydraucally activated control surfaces operating at a constant system pressure of 3000psi. The command authority allowed to the control surfaces, from the cockpit inputs, must be modulated depending on speed...)

In the video, first pass, gear and flaps down....no problem, and obviously slower than the 'clean' pass, since there are gear and flap...mostly flap...limit speeds.

The 'clean' pass....now, this was an airshow, and regulations are lifted, temporarily... Anyone know what the GPWS is? All jets have it, part of the certification process. Well, any jet at that altitude, when not in the proper landing config, will have aural alarms going off....unless they pull the C/Bs...but again, rules suspended for the airshow.

BUT, it does show that a jet can fly fast, near the ground, so put that theory to rest. Of course, these pilots weren't suicidal, so they had tools to stay safe, one of which is the Radar Altimeter...and you can set its 'bug' to alert whatever height you wish, as a reminder....

BUT, bad guys, intent on crashing into a target, don't really care about GPWS activation and other loud warnings or flashing warning lights, do they?

WW




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:31 AM
link   
More applicable:

757 high speed, low altitude flyby at RNZAF Auckland, New Zealand in 2005. Altitude=100ft, Airspeed=350kt (403mph), followed by 45 degree pull out to 7,500ft.




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by ST SIR 86
 


I totally agree!!!!!!! Anyone with a basic understand of physics KNOWS that even at the 'supposed' 500mph of which the impact was... jet airliner parts DO NOT & CAN NOT completely evaporate upon impact!

Airliners in history that nose drive have ALWAYS scattered debris over a very wide area..



That would be a compelling argument if anyone ever did claim that the plane completely evaporated upon impact. But until someone makes that claim, why refute it?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
There is not one thing about the flying on 9/11 that the terrorist needed flight training for. No one has yet to point out one maneuver or flying feat the terrorist did on 9/11 that required flight training. This is why kids who have never flown can hop in a simulator and hit buildings. Any one who can try, could do it.


Well you forgot about the 360 degree turn that flight 77 made before hitting the Pentagon.

A perfect 360 degree turn (with no changes to the flight controls, accoding to the FDR) and come out lined up perfectly with the Pentagon.

Oh and it was only 1 side of the Pentagon which is 77 feet hight about 1,000 feet long. So he had a kind of small area to aim at, not the whole building.

Also ATCs thought flight 77 was a military plane because of the spped and manuevers it was doing.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh and it was only 1 side of the Pentagon which is 77 feet hight about 1,000 feet long. So he had a kind of small area to aim at, not the whole building.


Only one side? How many sides can the plane hit at the same time? Can it seperate into multiple mini 757s to hit multiple sides?

Of course it is only going to hit one side. One plane - one side.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, sorry....We should allow you to examine that turn, again....even though defcon5 posted a nice vid, albeit flown by professionals, it does tend to dispel one of the myths 'floating' around that wake vortices would somehow make it 'impossible' to fly fast close to the ground. See, it is actually possible to physically fly an airplane close to the ground, even at 'high speed'....

SO, I applaud both the OP, and defcon5, for finding these and posting them...(and, for bringing it up again, since, I did see them somewhere before here on ATS, but sometimes it's good to refresh the audience...)

Back to the turn....I'd like to see real DFDR data, compared to the TRACON data....guessing it's the Washington TRACON, or are some of the Washington ARTCC Radar data getting mixed into the data?

In case you don't know what I'm referring to, I'll tell ya! The TRACON will generally have authority up to about 18,000....but in an environment as complex and busy as, say....DC, or NYC, sometimes there is a 'wedding cake'....or really, an 'inverted wedding cake'...of airspace allocations, depending very much not only on the geography, but also on inter-agency battles that are probably very long-standing....let's call it 'internal poliltics'...or, more bluntly....''turf wars'.

Back to my paragraph above....when the transponder was turned to 'STBY', then the Data Block drops off the screen. The Controller has to try to find the target, using 'primary'....that is the basic 'skin paint' of the airplane...no date, not altitude info, etc....AND, the radar antenna can only upcate every few seconds, since it can't predict, with intant precision, what the target will do. (Of course, I'm talking here about FAA ATC, not military...but the military had a lot on their plate, and quite a bit of sudden stuff happening, and much confusion as they tried to communicate with civilian ATC....)

Just saying, sitting back, in your easy chairs, and saying 'they should have seen this, and they should have seen that, and done this or that.....'

After the fact....it happened, and was confusing at the time, all in less than one hour.

An example....in airline training, we know what the syllabus has in store for us. What I mean is, we brief for about 90 minutes, then go into a Simulator, and fly the procedures briefed....not much is a surprise, but still, we are human, and sometimes we expect there's a trick involved...yet we follow the checklists, and stay to procedure, and try to reason it out.

Imagine you are presented with a scenario that NO ONE ever briefed you on? It is confusing, of course. NOW, consider this fact: even when we are briefed that we will have an engine failure, at liftoff, and will need to return to the airport and execute a single-engine landing....the entire event still takes about 15-20 minutes, in real time. We follow checklists, fly around to land again....and this, in real time, is what it takes....and we PLANNED it before it happens!

Hope I've imparted some perspective....

WW



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well you forgot about the 360 degree turn that flight 77 made before hitting the Pentagon.

A perfect 360 degree turn (with no changes to the flight controls, accoding to the FDR) and come out lined up perfectly with the Pentagon.

Oh and it was only 1 side of the Pentagon which is 77 feet hight about 1,000 feet long. So he had a kind of small area to aim at, not the whole building.

Also ATCs thought flight 77 was a military plane because of the spped and manuevers it was doing.
Any kid can turn the plane. The terrorist bank in the 330 degree turn was sloppy. BTW, that turn was boring, it is simple to do, so do not let the number scare you. That is not an issue. Ask a pilot. How are you able to turn your car around? I mean if you stand up now and turn around you have executed a 360 degree turn. Wow, who trained you?

Sorry, it was not perfect and he was not lined up perfect, he kept changing stuff. Left, right, left again. BTW, his bank angle in the turn was as erratic and a kid off the street could do as well. But the darn terrorist who killed people on 9/11 took pilot lessons and earned licenses from the FAA. Darn, they knew how to fly.

I am sorry, 77 feet does not impress me. All he had to do was hit the building. Now landing on a 77 foot target is hard, but not impossible. But are you joking, the building is sticking up, you can't miss hitting the building, the 77 feet is the window size for a bad landing! Bad landing. He hit low, so he made a good landing on an imaginary runway beyond the Pentagon wall!

I am glad you brought this up! It now makes sense why he did not miss since he was claimed to be the BAD pilot. Because the target he had was the "window size" for a bad landing. He could not miss!

Only flunkies who have never ever landed properly could not hit the Pentagon. I guy in Europe who flew little Cessnas got time in a757 simulator and he hit the Pentagon the first time. Seems like 77 feet sticking up in the air is easy to hit. Your last flight on an airliner the pilot put a hole right in the center of the 77 foot imaginary Pentagon wall at the end of the runway. We pilots have done it thousands of times! Even bad pilots do it! This loose end is closed out!

ATC? Funny stuff. ATC was talking about the speed was indicative of a military plane. At the time they were talking about it, 77 was doing 300 KIAS, and the normal planes the work with in their traffic zone are below 200 KIAS. That is significant. Plus the turns they are use to seeing are not where 77 was. Plus the speed limit in the area above them is 250 KIAS. So you have a guy speeding, which is what military aircraft have waivers to do. This is suppose to mean what? No one has ever give me, a pilot with 35 years of flying experience, an explanation of that the ATC statement means? It means 77 was speeding; period. They said speed. The maneuver part, gee, most planes do not just do a 330 to 360 turn, they usually go on vectors, so the only planes that usually do the kind of turns are military doing the old jet penetrations to land at bases. The airliners do not do the types of approaches the military do, but 77 did a classic jet penetration, not too demanding like some but enough similar in speed and the classic turn to be "like" a military jet. Darn, you now have me solveing another problem, I forgot that the jet penetrations we did included silly turns to let down, like 77 did; another reason the ATC guys said what they said. I can show you more if you need help with this one.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   




snoopy, no the B777 is not fly-by-wire....except for the throttles.

Negative. 777 is fully Fly-by-wire.


That would have been a highly experienced pilot probably doing no more than 200 mph. Not a person who has never flown a 757 flying at 500mph and dodging obstacles.

200mph? Rofl.

About 400mph.


I have put kids in simulators who have never flown and they hit the WTC towers with wings level,

MSFS does not count.


[edit on 7/4/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   
[edit on 4/7/0808 by weedwhacker]

I did online research, compared to what I have been told by friends who actually fly the B777 (an airplane I am not type-rated in).

My friends, fellow pilots, told me it is NOT FBW, except for the throttles, so I repeated that idea.

I've looked at various Boeing sites, and am slowly coming to the conclusion that, YES, the latest versions of B777 coming out of assembly could possibly be FBW, but I still think, my opinion, the earliest versions conformed to the stqid Boeng philosophy of 'cable-to-actuator'...with, of course, the airspeed litmits built into the 'feel' so the pilot didn't overstress the airframe...

Whether the 'feel' was artifically induced by pitot pressure, as in the old B727, or through computer 'enhancement'...I can't say. Again, I never flew the B777. Just had friends, colleaugues....and they said, 'Nope! Not FBW'

Back to what I DO know...the B757 and B767 are definately NOT FBW. THAT I know, since I have thousands of hours on both....

Hope this clears up, not sure why it's important (the FBW issue) but still, hope it clears things up!

WW

[edit on 4/7/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed Of course it is only going to hit one side. One plane - one side.


Well thanks for agreeing with me that the pilot could only see 1 sied of the building and it would have been a small target at the speed he was going.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Back to the turn....I'd like to see real DFDR data, compared to the TRACON data...


I have the actual FDR data from the NTSB (through a FOIA request)



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed Of course it is only going to hit one side. One plane - one side.


Well thanks for agreeing with me that the pilot could only see 1 sied of the building and it would have been a small target at the speed he was going.



Actually I didnt say that at all. I stated that the plane only hit one side. Where in that statement did I say "the pilot could only see 1 side of the building and it would have been a small target at the speed he was going"?

Please show me where I said that. Otherwise you are lying about what I posted.

From the elevation the plane was at, it would be able to see the entire building. Unless the building itself is like 10,000+ feet tall, then you would only see the side you are approaching.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed Of course it is only going to hit one side. One plane - one side.


Well thanks for agreeing with me that the pilot could only see 1 sied of the building and it would have been a small target at the speed he was going.


A 77 foot tall target is easy to hit. If a pilot can not hit a 77 foot standing target they can not land precisely enough to be a pilot. If they hit low, the crash before the runway, if the go over, they land long. On 9/11 if Hani hit high he would have still killed everyone on the plane and do great damage to the Pentagon, so his target was BIG.

A standing target is easy to hit. Hani did it and all of 9/11 truth call him the pilot who can't fly. I suspect those people have an agenda or have not flown yet.

Why would you think hiting something standing up 77 feet would be hard to hit? What if he was aiming at the roof, is he a bad pilot?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
While Ground Effect is a real force on an airplane in flight, it certainly doesn't make flying at low level impossible. Here's another clip of a French KC-135 at low level. I believe it was Algeria.

youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed Of course it is only going to hit one side. One plane - one side.


Well thanks for agreeing with me that the pilot could only see 1 sied of the building and it would have been a small target at the speed he was going.


A 77 foot tall target is easy to hit. If a pilot can not hit a 77 foot standing target they can not land precisely enough to be a pilot. If they hit low, the crash before the runway, if the go over, they land long. On 9/11 if Hani hit high he would have still killed everyone on the plane and do great damage to the Pentagon, so his target was BIG.

A standing target is easy to hit. Hani did it and all of 9/11 truth call him the pilot who can't fly. I suspect those people have an agenda or have not flown yet.

Why would you think hiting something standing up 77 feet would be hard to hit? What if he was aiming at the roof, is he a bad pilot?


Not only that, but the building is almost 1000 feet wide. Not hard to miss. And data supports the idea that he actually clipped the ground before penetrating the building.

[QUOTE]
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ST SIR 86
Yeah but the airplane theory now says its possible?
however i wont change my stance on this ..... No way that i could have been an airplane

Not enough mess on the front lawn! ....

Benn there, at an aircraft accident. I was in charge of the scene as one of the investigators. Our accident aircraft stalled at 1100 feet and hit the ground at and estimated 170 KIAS (193 mph), 77 hit at over 470 KIAS. From a distance, like some of the Pentagon photos 9/11 truth likes to post, not much can be seen, but when I get up close I find tons of parts. The accident scene I was at, the accident aircraft weighed 30,000 pound, and some debris and cockpit instruments were ejected over 300 feet away, some part in good condition, one instrument still indicating the reading on the dial. But the cockpit is buried in the ground, the wings smash and exploded in parts, the engine is buried and pushed the cockpit deep into the ground. Amazing that cockpit instruments were ejected as far as the were. Some metal debris was over 400 feet away in this downward impact of 170 KIAS. The trouble with photos is resolution and distance. 77 impacted the pentagon most of the debris that is ejected should be on the heading the plane was going and further to the left of impact and scattered all over; it is. The energy of impact for the accident was only 20 pounds of TNT, but the cockpit was buried deep in the ground. Energy for 77 was over 2000 pounds of TNT kinetic energy. There were parts all over the place and most of them in the Pentagon.
Looks messy all over.








It looks exactly like 77 hit the Pentagon. But that is just the expert testimony of a trained accident investigator.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
A 77 foot tall target is easy to hit.


A 77 feet tall target is very hard to hit going around 500mph.

Also the pilot would be fighitng to control a plane that is not made to fly at the speed and altitude he was supposed to have been doing.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
It looks exactly like 77 hit the Pentagon. But that is just the expert testimony of a trained accident investigator.


So why have they not released reports matching the parts found to flight 77?

IF there was so many parts found why have we not seen a recontruction of the plane done, this would be done in a criminal investigation?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
So are all the pictures of debris in the posts right above yours just plants then? The cab hit by the lightpole clipped by the plane before it hit the pentagon was severed by thermite maybe? A hologram caused the driver to think it was a plane, the thermite severs the light fixture and then "insert the rest of your theory here" hit the Pentagon exploding.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Man all I know is i'd be you know whating in my pants and running for cover! I don't think those big planes are supposed to stunt fly are they?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join