Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

I can't believe we didn't check the museum sooner! it PROVES there was an airplane there! we can all log off now...



The evidence shown is a part of some American Airlines plane found on the grass of the Pentagon near a white truck - it likely found it's place on the grass just before or just after the explosion.

reply to post by backinblack

 

But I don't think flaps were used by the 757 that hit the pentagon..

But I'd still like an expert to tell me how hard it was to hold the plane level at that speed and altitude..

Lift is proportionate to air density, 3 times higher at GL compared to cruise height..
Lift is increased by V squared..500mph would create a lot of lift...

No they weren't it would be impossible. Weedy our resident expert pilot made that claim.

reply to post by ANOK

No they weren't it would be impossible. Weedy our resident expert pilot made that claim.

Really? Was he slurring his words at the time??
I don't know how any "expert pilot" would even contemplate flaps at 500mph at sea level..

Originally posted by backinblack
But I'd still like an expert to tell me how hard it was to hold the plane level at that speed and altitude..

Lift is proportionate to air density, 3 times higher at GL compared to cruise height..
Lift is increased by V squared..500mph would create a lot of lift...

So, what is the problem and why do you think it would be difficult to steer at that speed and altitude? All you've posted is simply some information and expressions of incredulity. That is insufficient to conclude or even suspect anything. Again, that is simply idle speculation based on insignificant issues compounded by an obvious ignorance of aerodynamic affects on the controls of a B-757.

Who in their right mind would believe a commercial jet hit the pentagon ?
A : Disinfo' Agents
B: Die hard , flag waving patriots
C: Total morons

There has never been a single shread of evidence published to back up the OS, but plenty to refute it .

When are the blind sheep going to finally open their eyes ?

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey
Who in their right mind would believe a 747 hit the pentagon ?
A : Disinfo' Agents
B: Die hard , flag waving patriots
C: Total morons

There has never been a single shread of evidence published to back up the OS, but plenty to refute it .

When are the blind sheep going to finally open their eyes ?

Wow, you can't even get the plane right but you accuse others of being " blind sheep " !

When you say there is not " a single shred of evidence " am I to take it that you are genuinely unaware of the raft of eyewitnesses, the radar and air traffic control records, the dna identified body parts of passengers and crew recovered from the Pentagon, the flight data recorder ( now fully decoded ), aircraft wreckage identified as from a Boeing 757 ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey
Who in their right mind would believe a 747 hit the pentagon ?
A : Disinfo' Agents
B: Die hard , flag waving patriots
C: Total morons

There has never been a single shread of evidence published to back up the OS, but plenty to refute it .

When are the blind sheep going to finally open their eyes ?

Wow, you can't even get the plane right but you accuse others of being " blind sheep " !

When you say there is not " a single shred of evidence " am I to take it that you are genuinely unaware of the raft of eyewitnesses, the radar and air traffic control records, the dna identified body parts of passengers and crew recovered from the Pentagon, the flight data recorder ( now fully decoded ), aircraft wreckage identified as from a Boeing 757 ?

As I said . Not one single scrap of evidence and it doesn't matter if I named the correct plane, because the the Pentagon was hit by a missile.
Feel free to post your above mentioned evidence , but it won't make the slightest difference because non of it can be tied in to the Pentagon.

You'd better run off now , I can hear your shepherd calling for you

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey
Who in their right mind would believe a 747 hit the pentagon ?
A : Disinfo' Agents
B: Die hard , flag waving patriots
C: Total morons

There has never been a single shread of evidence published to back up the OS, but plenty to refute it .

When are the blind sheep going to finally open their eyes ?

Hmmmmmm, let me see now. I would choose either A. or

E. No One.

Yes, that's it. E is correct, but I'll bet the poster doesn't know why!

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey
Who in their right mind would believe a 747 hit the pentagon ?
A : Disinfo' Agents
B: Die hard , flag waving patriots
C: Total morons

There has never been a single shread of evidence published to back up the OS, but plenty to refute it .

When are the blind sheep going to finally open their eyes ?

Hmmmmmm, let me see now. I would choose either A. or

E. No One.

Yes, that's it. E is correct, but I'll bet the poster doesn't know why!

Because "D" has been reserved for your cap ???

reply to post by gandalphthegrey


The pilot types are set and determined to discuss airplanes because they are more confusing to laymen to discuss, and easier for them to discuss than the evidence. Don't diss them or you'll get spanked by the mods. We've all been spanked lately.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by backinblack
But I'd still like an expert to tell me how hard it was to hold the plane level at that speed and altitude..

Lift is proportionate to air density, 3 times higher at GL compared to cruise height..
Lift is increased by V squared..500mph would create a lot of lift...

So, what is the problem and why do you think it would be difficult to steer at that speed and altitude? All you've posted is simply some information and expressions of incredulity. That is insufficient to conclude or even suspect anything. Again, that is simply idle speculation based on insignificant issues compounded by an obvious ignorance of aerodynamic affects on the controls of a B-757.

Ignorance of aerodynamics??
I know a little but it's also why I said I'd like an experts opinion..
I understand my limitations on the matter, do you??

I never mentioned any issues with steering the plane, you made that up..
i just asked how hard it would be to hold the plane straight and level at such low altitude with so much lift acting on the wings..
Don't keep twisting my posts..It's annoying...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by backinblack
But I'd still like an expert to tell me how hard it was to hold the plane level at that speed and altitude..

Lift is proportionate to air density, 3 times higher at GL compared to cruise height..
Lift is increased by V squared..500mph would create a lot of lift...

So, what is the problem and why do you think it would be difficult to steer at that speed and altitude? All you've posted is simply some information and expressions of incredulity. That is insufficient to conclude or even suspect anything. Again, that is simply idle speculation based on insignificant issues compounded by an obvious ignorance of aerodynamic affects on the controls of a B-757.

Ignorance of aerodynamics??
I know a little but it's also why I said I'd like an experts opinion..
I understand my limitations on the matter, do you??

I never mentioned any issues with steering the plane, you made that up..
i just asked how hard it would be to hold the plane straight and level at such low altitude with so much lift acting on the wings..
Don't keep twisting my posts..It's annoying...

That contradiction just broke my irony meter. The word steer was used because that's my interpretation of what the aircraft occupant in semi-control was doing. In the case of aircraft that means to most rational people that there was some sort of control in the 3 dimensional, yet you accuse me of twisting your posts. There have certainly been lots of twisting of posts in this thread. Yes, it is annoying.....

An aircraft must produce lift or else it falls to the ground. Duh' So, why was this a particular problem? Do you think it would act like a helicopter lifting off and go straight up because of "so much lift"?

reply to post by Reheat

An aircraft must produce lift or else it falls to the ground. Duh' So, why was this a particular problem? Do you think it would act like a helicopter lifting off and go straight up because of "so much lift"?

No mate, but IMO it would be hard to keep down..
I asked for an expert opinion..
If you have one then give it with details of lift under those conditions and what would need to be done to counteract.
If not, why continue with the crap ?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by gandalphthegrey

 

The pilot types are set and determined to discuss airplanes because they are more confusing to laymen to discuss, and easier for them to discuss than the evidence. Don't diss them or you'll get spanked by the mods. We've all been spanked lately.

Thank you for your words of advice , my friend . I will tread carefully .............for now . Watch this space .

If I thought for a single minute that ATS supports the OS , regardless of evidence to the contrary , then I/we have to assume that we are ALL being duped by this site , not only on this subject , but every subject .

Everybody has a price

reply to post by gandalphthegrey


More advice..
It was a 757. Not a 747..
These guys even pick up on silly details like that.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by gandalphthegrey

 

More advice..
It was a 757. Not a 747..
These guys even pick up on silly details like that.

Thank you for correcting me , but it was neither . History will one day reveal the truth and when it does , I will gently sit with a wry smile on my face ,not out of smugness , but because I stood by the truth . I wonder how many of us will be able to do the same ?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

An aircraft must produce lift or else it falls to the ground. Duh' So, why was this a particular problem? Do you think it would act like a helicopter lifting off and go straight up because of "so much lift"?

No mate, but IMO it would be hard to keep down..
I asked for an expert opinion..
If you have one then give it with details of lift under those conditions and what would need to be done to counteract.
If not, why continue with the crap ?

As I recall both weedhacker and I have both expressed the opinion that the aircraft could have done what it did without great difficulty. Can it be any more clear than that? Yes, all you've done in return is just talk smack or as you said "crap"

Here's an unbiased site that has reached the same conclusion. Although the discussion is primary about Ground Effect it does address other issues involved and arrives at the same conclusion I've stated several times. Are you really so dense that you still don't understand that or are you just playing a silly game?

www.aerospaceweb.org...

reply to post by Reheat

Here's an unbiased site that has reached the same conclusion. Although the discussion is primary about Ground Effect it does address other issues involved and arrives at the same conclusion I've stated several times. Are you really so dense that you still don't understand that or are you just playing a silly game?

I read the whole article..
Lift is not addressed in any detail at all..
You and Weed have really just brushed off the question with little or no detail..
Neither of you have ever been in the situation so your opinions are just that and not based on experience..

Originally posted by Reheat
Here's an unbiased site that has reached the same conclusion.

I don't consider any site that is specific to the 911 events as unbiased.

You should be able to find proof of your claim without referring to sites specific to 911.

State your point and add sources that PROVE it, not just link to sites that share your opinion (or you think it does, which it didn't).

Originally posted by backinblack
I read the whole article..
Lift is not addressed in any detail at all..
You and Weed have really just brushed off the question with little or no detail..
Neither of you have ever been in the situation so your opinions are just that and not based on experience..

You read the article, did you? I counted the use of the word lift over 85 times and only went through about half of the article.. If you don't like that one find one you like.....

You seem so obsessed with lift while ignoring other normal forces also acting on an aircraft in flight, I doubt your stated qualifications to even express a valid opinion on these issues at all. You do realize there are forces other than lift don't you? If you don't google the subject and then come back and explain to us why you believe this is so difficult.

I never said at any time that I had experience with flying large transport aircraft in low level high speed flight. Do you know anyone who has?