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.

 

F-16s Tracking Stolen Cessna

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by traderjack
 


The REALLY awesome coincidence is how you can draw a direct parallel to the 9-11 hijackers who supposedly, with similar training and background, were able to accomplish even MORE amazing feats with their multi-engine turbine rigs....

Like flying one into the pentagon at about 10 feet above ground level at cruising speed without touching the ground below them..


These middle eastern people are natural-born pilots.




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


yeah, everyone has a different system....and it WAS the 1970s....

Anyway, the ability to steal a Cessna or a Bonanza....not too difficult.

What is interesting is the tracking ability of NORAD. Of course, at 12,000 feet and travelling at about 120K (depending on wind) it wasn't exactly a North Korean Missile with an EMP warhead!!

As I said, this is interesting.....



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Read back to my first post in the thread...

Or the post that the other goon called me insane for posting...

Surely you don't have THAT short an attention span.
Nah, you're just looking for brownie points on the thread with the other members... YOU KNOW what I have said.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


And I stand by the point that I have nothing to concede because this wasn't a false flag for anything. Nothing happened.

If you want to think that I'm out for brownie points be my guest. You want to fear monger and scream about false flags every time we turn around, be my guest. I'm pretty much done responding to you.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Too bad these natural born airline pilots can't figure out how to run a non-feudalist Government that bows to the will of an industrialized nation.

Too much to ask?
I suppose every culture has their weakness.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Then be done responding to me.

Just remember that I told you this guy would be labeled a terrorist before anyone knew he was anything other than a Canadian.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Better yet, be done listening to me...
Put me on ignore.
Or your "foe list".



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Too bad these natural born airline pilots can't figure out how to run a non-feudalist Government that bows to the will of an industrialized nation.

Too much to ask?
I suppose every culture has their weakness.


Eh, Turkey has a secular government. Just thought you should know. . Far from feudal. Perhaps you have the Turks confused with the Saudis?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


And yet he hasn't been yet has he.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Does anybody beside me find it unusual that a *WHACK* of F16's can immediately tail a flipping Cessna, yet not one F16 managed to intercept all the commercial aircraft during 911?

Just too funny.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You don't read well, do you?

"Wait for it...
By tomorrow we'll hear that this guy had ties to Al Qaeda."


Of course Al Qaeda was a blanket assertion meant to represent ANY boogey man the US Government dreams up.
Lashkar E Taioba...

Whatever, they're all the same. They're all state sponsored. Just depends on which strong-arm the US wants to blame.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. I guess it didn't go over too well.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


Read my earlier reply about that. On 9/11 there were 14-21 armed aircraft on alert for the entire continental US.

The politicians gutted the alert force in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Yeah, the US has a "secular Government" as well. Tell that to the Christian Faith Based organizations that received millions over the last few years under Bush.

And then tell that to the Muslim Americans.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Did you bother to do your unit conversions before screaming conspiracy? 670nm = nautical miles. 1800 and however many miles = statute miles. 1nm ~= 3 miles... 670nm ~= 2010 miles. Not that big of a leap to say he could've made that flight easily and well within the limits you provided.

Edit: Nevermind. I have found my foot has been inserted into my mouth. I was thinking of leagues and nautical miles (3 nm = 1 league)... The actual conversion ratio is much less, and probably of little significance. You are correct, good sir. Fishy, indeed.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Highground]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


Highground.....re-check your math.

One Stature Mile = 5,280 feet

One nautical Mile = 6,060 feet.

When converting from MPH to Knots, use a conversion rate of 1.15

Example, 100 K = 115 MPH.

Please do not confuse miles with kilometers. In that case it is a 1.6 conversion....kilometers are shorter than miles, remember.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
The protocol for this event is just as it is for all others when there is a hijacking. Ultimately, it is the FAA's responsibilty to keep our skies safe. When there is a hijacking, the regional FAA office where the incident took place notifies FAA in Washington. The FAA in Washington has a hijack coordinator who must first confirm the hijacking. Once he has done so, then he contacts the National Military Command Center (NMCC) located in the Pentagon to ask for military escort the aircraft. At this point, the NMCC contacts the Secretary of Defense for the approval to provide military assistance. Once the approval is given, then the approval would be sent to NORAD and the fighters would then be scrambled. Before an intercept command can be given; both the President and the Office of the Secretary of Defense must be contacted for the approval. It is a process that can sometimes take a while as evidenced on 911. It's my opinion that this process was intentionally sabotaged in order for this killing to take place and that's all I care to say about it. I still get angry over it.

As for stall speeds on an F-16 fighter jet, this is a discussion that gets repeated time and time again in aviation circles, related to just about every aircraft design out there. The problem is that the term "Stall Speed" is often quoted but is somewhat meaningless...

Any airfoil will generate lift in proportional to its airspeed and angle of attack. Increase either one and the amount of lift generated goes up. There is, however, a limit to the angle of attack, "the critical angle of attack", beyond which the airflow over the surface becomes turbulent, lift decreases dramatically and drag increases... the airfoil has been "stalled".

The important thing to note is that the critical angle of attack can be reached at any airspeed provided the aircraft has the control authority (and the flight control system allows it) to increase the angle of attack to this level.

In normal flight, we can increase lift by increasing airspeed, angle of attack or both. It follows, therefore, that if we want to fly slower and slower without descending we must increase the angle of attack. But, as mentioned above, the angle of attack can only be increased so much before the wing will stall.

So, when someone asks about "Stall speed", what they are really asking is "How slow can an airplane or jet fly before it must be flown at the critical angle of attack in order to generate enough lift to maintain altitude". Fly it any slower and we must either accept a controlled descent or else pull the nose up higher, begin to stall the wing and enter a somewhat less controlled descent!!

As was previously pointed out, air density plays an important role in the performance of a wing, so the higher we fly, the faster we must fly (for a given angle of attack) to generate the same lift.

Finally, don't forget that intelligent flight control systems built in fighter jets measure parameters like airspeed, angle of attack, air density etc and can restrict the control inputs given by the pilot in such a way that the airplane remains in its normal flight envelope. In the above example, this means that the onboard computers can force the pilot to accept a gradual descent at lower airspeeds rather than giving them the opportunity of putting the plane beyound the critical angle of attack. So what I'm trying to say here is there is no set "stall speed" for an F-16.

Finally, as to motives of why this guy did what he did, it's anybody's guess. My first thought is that it was a suicide mission - and it very well may have been. He "may" have had a pre-determined target in mind somewhere in the US to crash the plane but we will probably never know. But then again, he did land the plane so as for it being a suicide mission, that's a big question. The F-16's may have just put the fear of God in him and he decided he didn't want to die afterall.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Highground
 


Highground.....re-check your math.

One Stature Mile = 5,280 feet

One nautical Mile = 6,060 feet.

When converting from MPH to Knots, use a conversion rate of 1.15

Example, 100 K = 115 MPH.

Please do not confuse miles with kilometers. In that case it is a 1.6 conversion....kilometers are shorter than miles, remember.



Ah, yes. Check my edit, must have been doing it as you were posting. This is what I get for attempting to do math and remember conversions at 1 in the morning.
And my internet is being quite frustrating. I don't think Comcast wants me to come to ATS...



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


At 55% power, and 12,000 feet a Cessna 172 can fly 790 miles.

From the Cessna website, the range of a Cessna 172 Skycatcher is 610nm or 1130km. From Beaverton Ontario (they didn't say where the flight started at, so I picked that one at random) to Ellsinore Missouri, "as the crow flies" it's 796 miles or 1281km. Now when he landed they said that he had "about 30 minutes of fuel" remaining in the plane.

The 796 miles would be if he flew straight there. From the sound of things he kind of wandered around for awhile before he landed.

I caught your edit after I replied. You were editing as I was getting numbers.


[edit on 4/7/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Highground
 


Actually, that is incorrect.

A nautical mile is more like 1.2 US Standard Miles... Or thereabouts.

Damn the conversions, though. why can't we have a standard system?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join