It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Is this the real truth about the 9/11 planes

page: 15
53
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58

I told myself I was going to back out and stay out of this thread, but this is just so wrong it's not funny. Ground effect is not "half the wingspan of the plane" it's the full wingspan of the plane.

When an aircraft is flying at an altitude that is approximately at or below the same distance as the aircraft's wingspan or helicopter's rotor diameter, there is, depending on airfoil and aircraft design, an often noticeable ground effect. This is caused primarily by the ground interrupting the wingtip vortices and downwash behind the wing. When a wing is flown very close to the ground, wingtip vortices are unable to form effectively due to the obstruction of the ground. The result is lower induced drag, which increases the speed and lift of the aircraft.[3][4]

en.wikipedia.org...(aircraft)

To get through ground effect, you push forward on the control stick. It's that simple. If you couldn't fly below it, then explain this picture:

An F/A-18 Hornet (that is a C model) has a wingspan of 40 feet. That means according to what you said, they couldn't be doing that pass, because there's no way that they are over 40 feet there.

Or even better, here's a 757 making a very low pass.

Does that look like he's over 125 feet?

Tell me about the angle of attack of the 757??? 15 degrees? Probably 20.
I was talking about a horizontal flight at 400 knots or more and the CCTV that shows exactly that. Wingspan of F15?

Read that for more detailed info than wikipedia:

www.princeton.edu...
Quote
Aircraft may be affected by a number of ground effects, or aerodynamic effects due to a flying ...closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at an altitude of one half the wingspan.

Ok
So then, it is tough flying below full wingspan at zero degrees angle of attack but it might be possible under certain wind and surface conditions. Likely not possible at 400 knots and definitely NOT below half wingspan.

I dont question that it is possible to crash into that building with an angle if attack at ( -15) degrees or less or + 15 degrees or more. However, laws of physics forbid to fly below half wingspan with 400 knots at an angle of attack (-15 degrees < x < 15 degrees). That simply does not work due to ground effect.

Ask a pilot if you still dont accept newtons law.

edit on 2-8-2013 by pinkbirdatabase because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:32 PM

At what speed was the 757 travelling? Would that low pass be possible at 450 knots?

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:34 PM

Angle of Attack plays no role in ground effect. You can also have a positive or negative angle of attack, with a zero climb rate. AoA is irrelevant. The only portion of the plane that plays a role in determining where ground effect comes into play is the wingspan.

I don't have to ask a pilot. I have flown several different types of planes, was working towards my license, and spent almost 30 years working on them. I know as much as most pilots, and more than some.

What does the wingspan of an F-15 have to do with it?

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:37 PM

Why couldn't it? Max speed doesn't matter because they were planning on crashing the plane anyway.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:40 PM

I really dont see what the moon has to do with this topic on 9/11 but I'll bite.

Yea I'm pretty certain we landed on the moon. Am I sure beyond a reasonable doubt? not really. But while I'm pretty certain we landed on the moon, I'm also fairly certain that the footage that was fed to us was faked based on expert opinion. Is that what you were looking for?

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:41 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by lambros56

Originally posted by FlyersFan
USA Today - 911 Passenger List
List of passengers who died on the airplanes. Their names. Their homes. Some occupations listed.
They were real. They died.

That doesn't prove that the planes that hit the towers had passengers in them.
The people on the lists didn't die in the towers.

What are you talking about? These are real people. They were on the flight manifests. They died
when the planes hit the towers and hit the pentagon and hit the field in shanksville. Their names
and where they are from are listed. They aren't fake lists. The funerals and memorial services
were real .. and they were for real people who died in those planes on that day.

What are you on about ?
Where did I say these people were fake ?

You and the ones who starred your post......read again what I said.
Where do I mention fake ?
Those passengers were taken somewhere else.
The planes that hit the towers were empty. The passengers on the list were not on them.

Don't be making out I said things when I didn't.....

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:42 PM

So you're saying speed has nothing to do with ground effect...it would be easy to maintain level flight at 450 knots, 15 feet above the ground, in a 757....?

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Flatcoat

At what speed was the 757 travelling? Would that low pass be possible at 450 knots?

No! The more speed, the less it is possible flying horizontally below wingspan altitude. That is what ground effect does. It lifts the plane due to the construction of its wings. That is why you need a certain angle of attack and a certain speed while landing. Otherwise you cannot land and you'd fly at wingspan altitude forever, until you crash into something or until the pilot or lack of fuel reduces horizontal speed as much as necessary to crash into the surface.

We just have to calculate the height of the pentagon versus half wingspan of the aircraft to understand by law of physics at what minimum altitude a horizontally flying aircraft (see the CCTV) must have crashed into that building.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:46 PM

It's full of glaring holes..
for Instance.. If the planes that flew into the towers
were flown in by remote control. how do you account for the dead passengers?

I mean their families reported them dead.

That's just fir starters............

Another sensationalist site with make believe evidence.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:50 PM

How can their families report them dead with NO evidence of them being dead? To determine death one needs a body. preferably an identifiable one.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:51 PM

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

WHAT!!!!

You....

This is whyi dont get you "truthers".

you were confronted with a list of the those who died on the plane and you have this to say

That doesn't prove that the planes that hit the towers had passengers in them.

What kind of pointless argument is that, we have cockpit voice recordings of the hijackings, we have a solid chronology of the flight paths those planes took and it clearly shows that they hit the twin towers. We also have the flight manifests that show who was on those planes. Yet you are saying "ahhh but that doesn't prove anything"

The people on the lists didn't die in the towers.

PROVE IT!

The planes that hit them were rigged by the perpetrators of the attack !

again...

PROVE IT!

Really i cannot believe anyone would actually post what you just posted.

Why can you not accept that those people died on those planes?
edit on 2-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

The people were real in my opinion.
In my opinion the planes were switched and remotely flown.

Sorry if that's too difficult for you to accept.

It's also my opinion that the evidence put forward by the investigation didn't prove those people were on board the two planes that hit the towers.
They may have boarded the original planes but I don't believe the original planes hit the buildings.

You find it hard to understand someone would say what I have said. That may be because you believe the official theory..........because that's all it was.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Angle of Attack plays no role in ground effect. You can also have a positive or negative angle of attack, with a zero climb rate. AoA is irrelevant. The only portion of the plane that plays a role in determining where ground effect comes into play is the wingspan.

I don't have to ask a pilot. I have flown several different types of planes, was working towards my license, and spent almost 30 years working on them. I know as much as most pilots, and more than some.

What does the wingspan of an F-15 have to do with it?

So you are saying that you could fly below wing span at 400 knots with zero angle of attack? If you are saying that, we disagree. Otherwise we are saying the same thing.
I do not question a crash. I question that type of aircraft with that wingspan due to laws of physics combined with the CCTV pictures. Without that CCTV i would be able to imagine different possible scenarios. However that CCTV violates laws of physics if it were that plane.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo

How can their families report them dead with NO evidence of them being dead? To determine death one needs a body. preferably an identifiable one.

The passengers boarded the flights .. they took off!
Now how did the bad bogie men get the passengers of the planes?

No I personally don't have witnesses to this , but I'm sure we could get loads.
There is a passenger manifesto.

Try again

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase
It violates all laws of physics if you could ever do that. Neither manually nor remote controlled you could do that. This plane CANNOT fly horizontally above ground level below an altitude of half wingspan. If you can do that then we'd have to rewrite all so far known laws of physics.

Once again, care to show us these "laws of physics" that state that... Why are you avoiding this simple question?

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:11 PM

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase
It violates all laws of physics if you could ever do that. Neither manually nor remote controlled you could do that. This plane CANNOT fly horizontally above ground level below an altitude of half wingspan. If you can do that then we'd have to rewrite all so far known laws of physics.

Once again, care to show us these "laws of physics" that state that...

He can't, and i doubt he know the difference between angle of attack and attitude.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Mitsuskitzo

How can their families report them dead with NO evidence of them being dead? To determine death one needs a body. preferably an identifiable one.

Erm, then what about the dead in all the plane crashes where there have been insufficient remains to provide proof of death?

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by lambros56
Those passengers were taken somewhere else.
The planes that hit the towers were empty. The passengers on the list were not on them.

What specifically makes you think this, and not that the planes were actually real and were full of those real people?
Where do you propose all those folks were taken too? Are you saying that they are alive somewhere on this planet and haven't once reached out to their families? This makes no sense. Or that their families know and are keeping quiet. Some actors they are, showing up each year on 9/11 to read off the names.

Wonder what the gov't is paying them.

Please keep in mind too, that AA and UAL would've had to be in on this whole thing.

Not ONE whistleblower! Anywhere. There has to be thousands of potential participants to this inside job. Regular Americans...

I'm sorry I don't buy it for one second

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:37 PM

Originally posted by lambros56

The people were real in my opinion.
In my opinion the planes were switched and remotely flown.

Sorry if that's too difficult for you to accept.

It's difficult to accept because it's so bizarre in its pretense and there's no evidence for any of it.
You fail to consider the implications of trying to pull that off.

It's also my opinion that the evidence put forward by the investigation didn't prove those people were on board the two planes that hit the towers.
They may have boarded the original planes but I don't believe the original planes hit the buildings.

I've heard no good reason for anyone to believe such a thing. You have to be in close proximity to the planes to remotely control them. So where was the person with the remote control?? SInce we know there weren't any planes shadowing them...

You find it hard to understand someone would say what I have said. That may be because you believe the official theory..........because that's all it was.

I find it amusing that CT's try to insult people for believing the facts as they've been presented- or the"official story". There's no need for another way for this to have been perpetrated.

Our gov't is not that smart people! Look at how they tried to convince the world of WMD's. They couldn't even do that convincingly!

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:41 PM

Here are some pictures with the height:

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:44 PM

Where did I say "easy"? I said it was possible. HUGE difference.

new topics

top topics

53