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.

 

What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

page: 16
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Why do people keep thinking this was a missile? Just because someone said on TV is kind of looked my a missile stuck it does not mean that it actually did. People, come on!




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to K J Gunderson post #266, part 1
 



posted by K J Gunderson

Here is your problem right here son. You are not sure if he has accounted for it. That would be because you have not actually read all of his posts like it was suggested before you spend two pages defending him.


posted by scott3x
You want to read his almost 2000 posts to find out if he's accounted for it, be my guest. I'd personally rather do other things.



Many of us have been knocking heads with jthomas for years, and jthomas has been pushing disinformation for years.

So we do not have to go back and read his 2000 disinfo posts on ATS, or his thousands of disinfo posts on other forums, because we have been keeping up all along.

We know what jthomas stands for.

We know that those photos of dead in the Pentagon were targeted Pentagon personnel and not Flight 77 passengers strapped into seats. Not one person has come forward publicly to volunteer to testify that they personally witnessed seeing passengers still strapped in seats in the Pentagon.

The aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and could not possibly have left passengers in seats inside the damaged Pentagon area not aircraft parts.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by turbofan

Well, "Turbo"....


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Do you understand how dangerous it is, for a test pilot, to approach Mach 1 in an airplane not designed to exceed Mach??? YOU saw the video, right?




.... fighting me on these
critical points, and NOW you agree?


Your analytical skills aren'y kicking in. HOW MANY times does it need to be expalined to you that 462 knots at sea level IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR Mach 1? Your argumentative tactics, here, are obvious, and trollish.

Did you use an online calculator to check for yourself? Answer the question. OR, borrow an E-6B (or equivalent) from one of your "pilot" friends, if you don't have one, and do it the old-fashieined way on the 'whiz-wheel'. (Do you even know these terms?

You repeat, but you still take out of context, and twist, what I'm trying to explain.


The aircraft was designed to fly at 360 knots.


LOL!!!! LMAO!!! (I get accused by gunderson up there of being 15??? Then I'll act like everyone else here, and use those twitter terms...)

ANYWAY....wrong!!! It was NOT "designed" to fly at 360K. IF you think that, then it proves you are talking from your bum, because you have no idea what you're trying to say, and you certainly can't understand me.

'cause, now you now continue in ignorance:


This is the craft's structural limit.


NO. It is the manufacturer's and the FAA's published Limitation based on many factors....airframe LONGEVITY, and safety margins, being of priority. You finally almost get it correct next, but you completely misunderstand the terminology....sad. (note the key word below...."operating".)


Velocity MAXIMUM OPERATING.


You have not paid any attention, and you don't understand, nor do you bother to read, what I write.

Try looking back up, and finding where you are going wrong.




It went over by ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY KNOTS! 1 - 5- 0 knots!


Back on the other airplane, at the WTC again, are we??? Change goal posts much???


What was that you said about drag increase with the speed?


Yes. I know. You conveniently did not "quote" the rest. Pick and choose, much??? Twist meaning, much???

NOW, you liked it when I said:


Originally possted by weedwhacker
Wanna know what the airspeed would have to be? Sea level, Standard temp....to get up to Mach 0.96, the KCAS would have to be 635K.


But, just above, we understand that VMO is "360 knots". Right? AND you are so intent on using the 150K above VMO....right? Now, quick math question -- what's 360+150??? OK, have an answer?

Welllll.....DING! DING! DING! Do you know what the Mach number is???

I'll let you look it up.



DING, DING, DING!!! Has the light bulb gone off yet?


Now I'm asking you....is it screwed in tight enough?

Ooops....apparently not, because despite ALL of my help, you still don't get it....

Evidence:


What is EAS at 35,000 feet.

It's OVER mach 1.


You are trying to claim that 510 knots at over 35000 is above Mach 1. Well, that is correct. BUT, IT IS NOT A VALID COMPARISON, son!!!

You don't know the difference between INDICATED and TRUE airspeeds. You will not learn, and I don't know why.

I will try one last time: To get a TRUE airspeed of 510 knots (remember we're using that for the mystery airplane at sea level...which recall is NOT exceeding Mach 1) at 35,000 feet your indicated (calibrated) airspeed seen on the instrument would be about 305 knots. Look it up, use a calculator. It isn't that dificult. BTW, for the mystery airplane at FL350 and 305 KCAS, its Mach number is about 0.89 OH...and this mystery airplane at sea level? IF it is a B757/767 the airpeed indicator does not go up to 510 knots.

Now....more misunderstanding, or carefully selecive editing:



You admitted to this!

Can a Boeing 757/767 fly at MACH 1 (IE: Break the sound barrier) at
35,000 feet.

THe answer is NO!


Who says? YOU?


You ADMIT IT HERE AGAIN:



Originally posted by weedwhacker
That speed, at that altitude, is not acheivable.


Did I mention in LEVEL flight??? If not, I meant to. BUT, of course, you love it if I make the tiniest mistake.

But your mistakes are legendary:


By the SAME token, the 757/767 CANNOT reach speeds 150 Knots over VMo at Sea level (Pssst...has that light bulb turned on yet?)


By the same token....yes it can. The WHOLE POINT has always been that to achieve those speeds well above VMO they HAD to descend, with high power settings (probably firewalled).

I have stated that over and over. Yet, you love to twist, again and again. Either intentionally, because it is the learned tactic of the "movement", or because you just really don't understand.

You seem to gloat because you seem to think that 150 knots over VMO at sea level is going to be OVER Mach 1. You think you've trapped me, and again it is your lack of knowledge and understanding that has tripped YOU up.

YOU are still thinking that because I mentioned acheiving Mach 1 at sea level in a B757/767 would requre nearly vertical descents, that it's a "gotcha" on me. Can you see your mistakes yet???


Wow


You said it, sonny.



We have proof. Egypt Air. You said parts will fall off.


Yeah. BUT what does Egypt Air exceeding Mach at 22,000 feet have to do with another similar airplane at sea level? Here, just to maybe get through your skull, the number for Mach 1 at 22,000 feet: 460KCAS BUT, let's say you have a B767 at 22,000 ant 450 knots? Mach is now 0.98

Same 450 knots, now at sea level??? Mach number is now 0.68

Sorry you're having difficulty understanding Mach numbers and temperatures at different altitudes. OH...and BTW, look into the actions of the pilots on Egypt Air....the FO was trying to kill them all, the Captain was fighting with the airplane to recover, not realizing that they were at cross-purposes. The airframe was over-stressed by pilot actions, not just speed alone.

AND when I said parts start to fall off at such high speeds it does NOT mean total structural failure....I'm talking about minor non-structural components, at first.


To recap:

- a 767/757 cannot reach speeds 150 knots over maximum operating speed


Inaccurate. You did not specify an ALTITUDE. If you mean at sea level, you are INCORRECT.


- a 767/757 cannot break the sound barrier at 35,000 feet


Completely false.


- air is more dense near sea level and therefore increases drag on the air frame


Correct, but the drag increase SOLELY due to altitude is minimal. SPEED has a greater effect. Please look it up.


- aircraft exceeding their max operating limits will begin to break apart.


We're back to your nonsense about VMO, and your total lack of understanding its meaning.

MMO is MORE limiting. I've already pointed that out, guess you missed it, eh???

You have a lot to learn.

You don't know anything about the differences of high altitude flyingwhere Mach number is more important, and lower altitudes where airspeedis determining.

When we're at cruise at FL350, the autothrottles are in Mach Speed mode. Either from the Mode Control Panel setting, or from the FMC when we're in VNAV.

Say you want to cruise at Mach .82? You dial that into the Mach 'window' on the MCP, or it is inthe FMC on the 'cruise' page. You can input the Mach you wish, or let the VNAV calculate it for you, based on the programming that looks at the variables, and bases the target Mach on what you desire, ECON, LRC (long range cruise) or a fixed mach speed.
In ECON or LRC as fuel is burned off, and weight reduced, the target Mach will slow.

Anyway, FL350 and you want M.82 Airspeed will indicate about 280K. ATC wants you to increase to M.83 You change it, and once it stabilizes your new airspeed??? 284K.

One hundredth a change in Mach is just a few knots indicated (calibrated) at the high altitudes. Here's another thing: Say you descend to FL280, and decide to use Level Change on the MCP, and you want to hold the current KIAS (284K). When you level at FL280, your Mach will now be .72 Your TAS will be slower, too....ALL with the SAME indicated airspeed. That's reality.

But, this is a waste of my time, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Doesn't count, though, unless you find a way to explain:
--------------
The debris at the crash site.


The debris from what, exactly?


The DNA.


What DNA? The DNA that confirms there were NO ARABS on-board? The DNA that has 3 more passengers on that plane than the manifest? The DNA that miraculously survived a fire hot enough to VAPORIZE metal? Be specific.


The eyewitnesses. ALL of them, even the few who've changed their stories.


OK. If I take one witness that says a plane crashed into the building and one that says there was a flyover, another who saw a missile, and someone who saw no plane at all, just an explosion....what do I get?

How can you take ALL eyewitness accounts? They cancel each other out. What about that is hard for you?


The Flight Recorder data.


I will pass. I cannot offer any explanation but the one you already hate - who gave us the FDR and who reported the results and what did they have to gain? Include it as something I cannot explain away. Fine by me.


The missing airplane owned (or leased) by American Airlines.


Let me see if I follow. You are asking people who think that the government took out 4 of its buildings and 4 planes worth of people and then faked a ton of evidence whether or not they think anything could have been done with the plane. For all we know it is not missing at all, it could have been stripped down and recycled, sitting in a hangar somewhere...


The hundreds of First Responders at the Pentagon...civilians...who know what they saw.


What, what exactly did they see? I know for a fact that hundreds of first responders DID NOT SEE A PLANE CRASH. So what part of what they saw do you need addressed?


The continuing hundreds (or thousands) of more individuals who participated in sifting through the debris to find and identify everything they could, not only for forensics, but to find every remaining piece of "whatever" hit.


Now you are just speculating. Hundreds or maybe even Thousands of people were in there doing forensics work? Are you sure you want to float that tale? You do not even know if it was 5 people, let alone thousands. The majority of people were there to move stuff. Very few of them were actually trained to identify anything of import. Nice guess though.


The LACK of any parts in the debris OTHER than from a Boeing.


Like wings?


The missing passengers and crew.


So this same government that kills 3000 of its own would not know what to do with about 70 people on a plane? You tell me where they went. They did not end up in the pentagon. The coroner did not find them. The DNA results were faked. You tell us where they went.


The personal effects of the passengers and crew, reccovered at the site.


Yep, planting a burnt suitcase would be tough wouldn't it.


NOW, that shouldn't be so hard???


Is that a question?

NOW, that shouldn't be so hard???
I am just curious. I will give you these to play with for now. I will be back.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Firstly, I don't have a friggin' clue WHO you are.

AND with comments like this:


The video shows that aircraft exceeding their STRUCTURAL LIMITS (IE: VMo / MMo ) begin to break apart and become "out of control".


You sound as hysterical as the narrator in the A380 video, if that's the one you refer to.

WHERE did that airplane appear "out of control"? They had a fairing on the belly break on the first try. Did the airplane "break apart" and crash??? What's the MMO on the A380? M.89? They exceeeded that by quite a lot. To test. And it was a success. So why so dramatic?

BUT your ignorance and obnoxiousness never lets up...


...because it's a shame you have to play
pretend pilot and screw up massively.


Look in the nearest mirror.



It's clear in the quoted examples above your logic and comprehension of these basic aero analogies escapes you.


Look in the nearest mirror.



For crying out loud, there are non-pilots keeping up with the discussion and poking fun at you!


You mean your sycophants who know just as little as you???


why don' t you post your name so we can look you up on FAA.gov...It takes just something simple like that to prove your capabilities.


Yeah, that works so well for John Lear....and Wittenberg....I still laugh. (I've heard stories about Wittenberg...)



Come on, you know my full name.


I have no idea who you are. But, it's obvious you're not flying the Boeings...or ever did.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Your analytical skills aren'y kicking in. HOW MANY times does it need to be expalined to you that 462 knots at sea level IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR Mach 1? Your argumentative tactics, here, are obvious, and trollish.


Too bad I can’t reach through the monitor and give your head a shake…but you really need it. I KNOW 462 knots at SEA LEVEL is not anywhere near Mach 1. I have NEVER stated this, nor do I care.

For the last five pages I’ve been asking you what the EAS of the aircraft will be a 35,000 feet if the speed at sea level is 462 Knots.
Come on “Weed”, you seem to be the only one confused about this issue.

Like I said before, the non-pilots here understand the questions I have been asking you; why do you fail to comprehend that I want to know the EQUIVALENT AIRSPEED at 35,000 feet when an aircraft is moving 462 knots at sea level.

It’s not a difficult question; nor is it a trick question. Do I need to draw a picture to help you through this?


LOL!!!! LMAO!!! (I get accused by gunderson up there of being 15??? Then I'll act like everyone else here, and use those twitter terms...)

Let’s just say I have been resorting to these twit terms for lack of more effective words which have yielded warnings in the past.


ANYWAY....wrong!!! It was NOT "designed" to fly at 360K.



NO. It is the manufacturer's and the FAA's published Limitation based on many factors....airframe LONGEVITY, and safety margins, being of priority.



OK, so you want to play semantics? The aircraft was not designed for specific flight up to 360 knots in a given air density, temperature, etc., but the Manufacturer sets this limitation based on airframe LONGEVITY, and safety margins, being of priority (



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Can anyone help “Weedwacker” with his inability to understand what I’m asking? The poor guy thinks I’m bent on 510 knots equating to mach 1 at sea level.


Maybe someone else can take a crack at this?


I was having a problem following along but now I see that much of that is because what I thought you were saying apparently is actually what you were saying. WW's responses kept making me question my ability to understand what you were saying but as far as I understood the question it was that if a plane was flying 462 knots at sea level then what would that same plane's EAS be at 35,000 feet. Each time, WW responded with telling you what it would be at sea level. I am not even sure how to make that mistake over and over. The sentences are clear concise English.
This all also brings something to light though and that goes back to his talk about the simulator. WW does not seem to understand that atmospheric forces act on a plane. He says the simulator accounts for that "as best it can" but someone still has to put the data in. He said he hit the pentagon real easily. This is why I asked what data he put into his simulator to recreate the atmosphere of that place, day, and time. I never got my answer. I am finding it hard to buy anything he has to say about the Pentagon anymore. Why is it that WW, MMichael, and Jthomas are all pretty much offering up the same lines over and over again? Why is it that none of the three has been able to keep there credibility intact in any one thread? Why is it that people think they can just tell people they are a pilot, structural engineer, whatever and then just expect people to believe them even when they completely contradict KNOWN pilots, SAs, or whatevers?

I used to think there were two sides to this discussion but it seems to me that there is just one side and then people who insist on pretending they have the other side.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale WW's responses kept making me question my ability to understand what you were saying but as far as I understood the question it was that if a plane was flying 462 knots at sea level then what would that same plane's EAS be at 35,000 feet. Each time, WW responded with telling you what it would be at sea level. I am not even sure how to make that mistake over and over. The sentences are clear concise English.


Thank you for understanding this simple question when a self proclaimed
pilot could not figure it out after five pages.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Thanks for your response SPreston; it'd gotten to the point that I'd plain given up on this thread and even this forum...


Originally posted by SPreston

posted by scott3x

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Here is your problem right here son. You are not sure if he has accounted for it. That would be because you have not actually read all of his posts like it was suggested before you spend two pages defending him.


You want to read his almost 2000 posts to find out if he's accounted for it, be my guest. I'd personally rather do other things.


Many of us have been knocking heads with jthomas for years, and jthomas has been pushing disinformation for years.

So we do not have to go back and read his 2000 disinfo posts on ATS, or his thousands of disinfo posts on other forums, because we have been keeping up all along.

We know what jthomas stands for.

We know that those photos of dead in the Pentagon were targeted Pentagon personnel and not Flight 77 passengers strapped into seats.


There was a news article that said the "strapped into their seats" bit though, wasn't there? I'm not saying it was accurate, but I'd like to see that article myself; does anyone know its url?



Originally posted by SPreston
Not one person has come forward publicly to volunteer to testify that they personally witnessed seeing passengers still strapped in seats in the Pentagon.


Good point. All the more reason that I'd like to see that article...




Originally posted by SPreston
The aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and could not possibly have left passengers in seats inside the damaged Pentagon area not aircraft parts.


I was persuaded a long time ago that the plane didn't crash into the building. But many still aren't, which is why I'm trying to see where they got this "strapped into seats" meme.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



WW's responses kept making me question my ability to understand what you were saying but as far as I understood the question it was that if a plane was flying 462 knots at sea level then what would that same plane's EAS be at 35,000 feet. Each time, WW responded with telling you what it would be at sea level.]


Lilly....turbofan is being intentionally obtuse. He kept asking illogical questions, and I was trying to point out his lack of correct premise. My fault was I could not express, in writing, sufficiently. It has been a LONG time since I've taught this stuff...AND it's something that you just SHOW someone, either one-on-one or in a class setting.

462 KEAS at sea level? Standard day, it is the SAME as KCAS and KTAS. "Turbo" would NEVER acknowledge that, but continued to pester in a petulant way, which is his style of attack.

But back to 462 knots ---

To have a 462 KTAS at FL350 let's use the calculator...because that isn't something that one knows just off the top of one's head.

Atmospheric Properties Calculator

This does more than just solve for and calculate True Airspeed and Mach number from altitude and temp...it provides a lot of the arcane science calculations for aerospace engineering purposes as well. (I think "Turbo" refused to even look at it...)

SO....IF you were at 35,000 at standard temp for that altitude, and IF you were indicating on your aispeed indicator about 273 kts, your TAS would be 462 kts.

What "Turbo" and the others...well, just the "others"...are trying to say is....because the KEAS at FL350 in this case is 258 kts, they allege it is therefore impossible to have the KEAS of 462 kts at sea level, as recorded on the AA 77 SSFDR.

BUT....all this nonsense about the EAS fails to notice, and THAT is what I kept trying to point out, that the MACH NUMBER is what really matters!!!

This EAS garbage is simply another in the P4T's pathetic attempts to bamboozle, because they keep getting painted into corners, and have to come up with ever creative ways to double-talk their way out....

Here, let's look at EAS:


Main article: Equivalent airspeed
Equivalent airspeed (EAS) is defined as the speed at sea level that would produce the same incompressible dynamic pressure as the true airspeed at the altitude at which the vehicle is flying. An aircraft in forward flight is subject to the effects of compressibility. Likewise, the calibrated airspeed is a function of the compressible impact pressure. EAS, on the other hand, is a measure of airspeed that is a function of incompressible dynamic pressure. Structural analysis is often in terms of incompressible dynamic pressure, so that equivalent airspeed is a useful speed for structural testing.

At sea level, standard day, calibrated airspeed and equivalent airspeed are equal (or equivalent), but only at that condition. For the performance engineer, there is no practical reason to use equivalent airspeed for anything. However, structural analysis is often performed in terms of equivalent airspeed (since it is a direct function of the incompressible dynamic pressure), so the performance engineer needs to be able to convert Ve to parameters that are more useful.


Confused yet? They hope you are...


The significance of equivalent airspeed is that at Mach numbers below the onset of wave drag, all of the aerodynamic forces and moments on an aircraft scale with the square of the equivalent airspeed. The equivalent airspeed is closely related to the Indicated airspeed speed shown by the airspeed indicator. Thus, the handling and 'feel' of an aircraft, and the aerodynamic loads upon it, at a given equivalent airspeed, are very nearly constant and equal to those at SL, ISA irrespective of the actual flight conditions.


What they hope you'll think is because of that statement, that somehow the "feel" of an airplane at 462 kts at sea level will be substantially different. Well...other than being more responsive and requiring less surface deflection for a given change in attitude (roll or pitch) the controls still work the same way, as in left, right and nose up/down.

"Turbo" has already shown us, in his OWN links examples that deflate his entire premise.

To actually know whether the airplane will fly at these speeds, use the formula for coefficient of lift.

I am looking for a calculator for that....



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Lilly....turbofan is being intentionally obtuse. He kept asking illogical questions, and I was trying to point out his lack of correct premise. My fault was I could not express, in writing, sufficiently. It has been a LONG time since I've taught this stuff...AND it's something that you just SHOW someone, either one-on-one or in a class setting.


Explain it to someone else. I really could care less what your excuses are for not being able to articulate something that was fairly easy.

TF asked you a simple question. If a=X at Y altitude, then what does a= at Z altitude?

Every time you answered, you very indignantly stated that at Y altitude it would be.......such and such. You were asked again what it would be at Z. Again you answered what it would be at Y. I watched this go back and forth at least 5 times. TF would ask yet again, what would it be at Z and again you would answer with what it would be at Y.

The best part is that Y was supplied in the question. You do not need to know ANYTHING about airplanes or flight to see this. I am sorry that simple logic escapes you so easily. I see a lot of licensed drivers do incredibly stupid things that are dangerous and sometimes deadly. Maybe you are a pilot but there is no way in Hell that I would get in any plane you were flying. If you think that the atmosphere the plane is flying in has no effect on how it flies and you cannot read a simple question NO MATTER HOW OFTEN IT IS ASKED, then I pray no one is ever on any plane you are controlling.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What they hope you'll think is because of that statement, that somehow the "feel" of an airplane at 462 kts at sea level will be substantially different. Well...other than being more responsive and requiring less surface deflection for a given change in attitude (roll or pitch) the controls still work the same way, as in left, right and nose up/down.

"Turbo" has already shown us, in his OWN links examples that deflate his entire premise.

To actually know whether the airplane will fly at these speeds, use the formula for coefficient of lift.

I am looking for a calculator for that....


I really have no idea why you wasted all that time babbling. The simple fact is that whether you did your math right or really truly know the correct answer, you were not understanding a simple question as evidenced by your repeated attempts at answering some other question instead.

Now I read this joke though. The controls are the same as in up, down, left, right. Uh huh. Is that all there is in flying a plane then? Thanks for simplifying that.

I hardly think anyone was trying to say that up will be anything but up and left anything but left. What you were missing is that the plane will be reacted upon differently by different atmospheres and this will translate to the controls.

You are convincing me that you are not a pilot as well. Please keep posting.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I answered every question...it is the inability of "Turbo" to understand that the premise of the question was faulty to begin with.

He enjoys twisting and skipping around with out of context non sequitors whilst laughing to himself at his clever profundity.

I answered again and again...exactly what was asked, then my only mistake was to explain in more detail...and everyone's eyes glazed over.

Look....we don't sit around and do the calculations and discuss the science of aerodynamics. He was, and still is, comparing apples and oranges with thie EAS nonsense. His own examples, I.E. the A380 flutter test and the Egypt Air crash show his contradictions....THEN he has the gall to say I was out of line because I brought up a Boeing 727 that EXCEEDED Mach 1, and recovered and landed safely!!! The gall!

He keeps going on about EAS....I am trying to point out that it is the Mach number that matters...there is such a thing as Equivalent Mach, and I mentioned that, was ignored.

I gave too much detail, and it was unabvle to be understood. THAT ALONE tells me he doesn't understand...his terminology is foreign to how pilots speak, it is more the way a layperson talks. I don't know where he gets his "knowledge", but it sure ain't from the practical, it's all theoretical and not first-hand experience.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I was going to add this to the other post, but may as well put it here.

This kind of stuff is for the engineers and performance types...it's something you learn back in the day, then don't need to use anymore UNTIL an event like this on ATS!!


We find that the coefficients of lift, drag and moment depend upon the angle of attack, the mach number and the Reynolds number.

For subsonic speeds, normal airfoils have a linear relationship between angle of attack and coefficient of lift until just before stall occurs (the airfoil or wing experiences a loss of lift). For higher speeds, when the mach number is higher than 0.3 (mach number is the velocity of the aircraft divided by the velocity of the sound), then the coefficient of lift is

CL = CLo / (1 - M2)1/2

where

CLo= the coefficient of lift at low speed
M = the mach number in the free stream

Note that the coefficient of lift at low speed, CLo, is the value that is normally obtained experimentally. The above equation holds true even for mach number values less than 0.3, but the effect on the coefficient of lift is minimal.

Finally, we said that the lift coefficient is also dependent on Reynolds number, RN, where

RN = rVd/m

Here, the Greek letter, r, represents the density of the fluid--air; V is the velocity of the free-stream airflow; d is the characteristic length of the airfoil and, the denominator, given by the Greek symbol, m, represents the fluid viscosity. Actually, the Reynolds number determines the type of flow (whether laminar or turbulent), which, in turn, determines where the flow separates from the airfoil or wing. This, in turn, affects the lift, drag and moment coefficients, as explained above. We note that as Reynolds number increases, the maximum lift coefficient increases. But this does not occur indefinitely; when flows become very turbulent, the maximum lift coefficient begins to drop and so does the overall lift coefficient.


Now....plug in numbers to those equations, and let's see for ourselves IF it is impossible for the Boeing 757 to move through the air at 462 KCAS at near sea level. (Because we want to see if the drag coefficient will prevent that). This is only looking at the auirflow characteristics. The input of thrust, whether from the engines, or assisted by gravity, is another matter.

The atmospheric calculator in the post above will supply the various other needed variables, the RN and density. We still have to find a number to define "d", the length of the airflow. You could just use an estimated value, as long as you kept it the same in all calculations.

I'm not trying to make this harder....it's just that this "EAS" stuff is diverting attention from the reality of aerodynamics....like I said, it's their latest smokescreen....


My point has always been that the "EAS" is irrelevant. It is the Mach number that matters to the airplane, and whether the forces are such to cause either flutter development, or ultimate structural failure.

Every time I point that out the inevitable attack comes from a "kid" who thinks he knows better than an older man with 30+ years of actual HANDS ON flying experience....AND time IN the jet under discussion.

This isn't 'facebook', it's ATS.....




[edit on 29 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I answered every question...it is the inability of "Turbo" to understand that the premise of the question was faulty to begin with.



Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You talk to much. Look at your posts lately. The last few are lines and lines and lines and lines about how you have knowledge you just cannot express here. I doubt you even get the paradox there.

You can make excuses all you like if it helps you sleep at night. If the question was so faulty, why did you even try answering it? What possible answer could there have been for such a faulty question?

Lie to yourself, I can read. Over and over, you were asked one thing and you kept answering another. You did not protest each time with "I cannot answer that because the question is faulty."

Please take your excuses and lies and BS and drop it on some other doorstep. No one buying here.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The typical liar will employee two well known and well worn techniques.

The first step is to blame the people asking you about your knowledge. Claim they asked it wrong and that is why you kept answering wrong or some variation thereof.

The second step is to suddenly and for no apparent reason, offer an uncalled for lesson. It is akin to "Look, I must not be full of crap because I can talk about all this other stuff too. I am talking to you engineers and such...this is big talk no one asked for and has nothing to do with the discussion or thread topic for no reason whatsoever. Doesn't it make me look more credible now?"

It would be funnier if there were not so many dead people involved.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


OK.....Look, I just found this:


This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.


The question(s) were about the "ground effect" notion that used to be the biggie, and has been debunked. Ground effect is a real phenomenom, but as I always said it was not a fator in the Pentagon crash.

Oh...talking too much again....

....here's the rest:


One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006


aerospaceweb.org...

These folks supplied the aerodynamic calculator, and they are obviously engineers and some may be pilots. At least they know pilots...anyway, they have no dog in this hunt, and seem to be quite knowledgable and neutral.



...commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin...


Hmmmm.....who wrote that last night in one of his overly-long posts??? AND, I just read this today, to confim what I already knew....so.....





[edit on 29 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



The typical liar will employee two well known and well worn techniques.


"typical liar"???

Them's fightin' words!!!!!!


You should apologize to me, for the implication that I HAVE LIED AT ANY TIME!!!!

Frankly, it is beneath you, as I thought you were fairly well-educated....seems I was mistaken.

NOTHING I have written was anything but from my own persoanl knowledge and opinion to the best of my ability from my experience.

Alleging that I have to "compensate" is insulting. My only mistake was in thinking that people would appreciate more background and a more thorough understanding...too bad some are going to act childish instead.
______________________________________________________

AND, since you brought up intellectual dishonesty, "Lilly", it is time to point out all of your ghastly mistakes in the earlier challenge I made -- to address the evidence of American Airlines 77 at the crash site. Your "answers" were pathetic.

Would be funny if there weren't so many deaths involved.....



[edit on 29 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
"What Hit The Pentagon On 9/11/01?"

American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757

Here is the link to the Flight Recorder "Factual Report of Investigation".

Now, the challenge is to PROVE it to be a complete fabrication...made up...created by the incredible powers that must exist in the hands of the NTSB and the FBI.
_______________________________________________

Oh...and ANYONE, feel free to look over the 'DATA PORT' input notations, and then don't be shy about asking ME about any terms you don't understand....I imagine I will tend to explain with too much knowledge and authority. But, I'll try to remember to dumb it down....



[edit on 29 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757

Here is the link to the Flight Recorder "Factual Report of Investigation".

Now, the challenge is to PROVE it to be a complete fabrication...made up...created by the incredible powers that must exist in the hands of the NTSB and the FBI.

Funny how the investigators first said the recorders were found right where the plane allegedly went in, then was later changed to found near the C ring hole. Kind of like the ever evolving story of what caused the C ring hole.




top topics



 
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join