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.
Never looked at it that way, but what about the lack of debris ??
Again i could be wrong but can an aircraft of substantial size (airliner) actually travel at that speed at that altitude with the drag
There is NO "lack of debris". That impression is made, and taken to heart, by the writers and readers of the many "9/11 conspiracy" websites that infest the Internet. All claims, without merit --- as a deeper search away from the lies and distortions of those sorts of websites proves. Those individuals who use those sites as their "sole source" of "information" are being terribly misled:
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
Maybe if you would actually look at photos taken AT the Pentagon, rather than across the highway, you might just see what you keep claming wasnt there.
You are presenting quite a misleading image. Yes there was debris.
Again i could be wrong but can an aircraft of substantial size (airliner) actually travel at that speed at that altitude with the drag ?
Once an airplane reaches certain altitude landing gear automatically flips out.
Airplanes at such speeds would be simply thrown upwards with wings probably broken off.
The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out.
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.
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.
I have studied aviation since childhood,
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by stewalters1
Again i could be wrong but can an aircraft of substantial size (airliner) actually travel at that speed at that altitude with the drag ?
Yes. Already brought up in this thread. For your convenience here is a link to the paper that discusses it in detail: Aerospaceweb.org - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect
A big noisey jet plane at that altitude and not one person got a shot of it with a camera or video cam.
Look at concorde when that crashed, ok it was blowing flames out of it's rear but it was filmed by a guy driving his car.
Originally posted by samkent
A big noisey jet plane at that altitude and not one person got a shot of it with a camera or video cam.
The camera was 86 years old and the sinking took 2 ½ hours but not one photo of the Titanic sinking.
Look at concorde when that crashed, ok it was blowing flames out of it's rear but it was filmed by a guy driving his car.
Concorde wasn’t traveling at 500+ mph nor across a highway. Concorde was some distance from the expressway so the man had time to grab and activate his camera.
Has there ever been any other video of a air crash that wasn’t expected to happen?
Once an airplane reaches certain altitude landing gear automatically flips out.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Boreal
Once an airplane reaches certain altitude landing gear automatically flips out.
I am extremely skeptical about that. (I am struggling to be polite about it).
Please provide a link to reputable evidence for your assertion.
Also the people on the titanic were sinking and in a state of panic, if your fearing for your life a camera isnt a priority.
I was under the impression that once the aircraft is coming in to land the automatic landing gear light is activated along with an alarm,