Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

reply to post by Reheat

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?

No, I know of no one but just makes me wonder more about all the "so called" experts that are telling us how easy it is.....

Yes the article mentioned "lift" a few times..
But nothing in relation to the lift which would have been created under those conditions..
I actually got the feeling they deliberately avoided the issue..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

Originally posted by backinblack
Yes the article mentioned "lift" a few times..
But nothing in relation to the lift which would have been created under those conditions..
I actually got the feeling they deliberately avoided the issue..

85 times the word lift is mention and that's counting only half way through the article. Quite obviously you didn't even read it as I said earlier..... I'm not surprised at all.

I see you want information delivered to your doorstep on a silver platter. The refusal to read quality material that addresses most of the issues under discussion is typical. The ability to use critical thinking skills is also a trait not found in most truthers. That's why they are truthers.

Well, you admit there is no one you know with experience of flying a large transport aircraft at high speed and low level, so therefore it can't be done. Is that your argument?

reply to post by Reheat

85 times the word lift is mention and that's counting only half way through the article. Quite obviously you didn't even read it as I said earlier..... I'm not surprised at all.

I see you want information delivered to your doorstep on a silver platter. The refusal to read quality material that addresses most of the issues under discussion and the ability to use critical thinking skills are traits not found in most truthers. That's why they are truthers.

Well, you admit there is no one you know with experience of flying a large transport aircraft at high speed and low level, so therefore it can't be done. Is that your argument?

Please point out where in the article that it mentions lift associated with plane under the known conditions..

I didn't say it can't be done..
I just question those that say it's easy although they have no experience in that situation..
You really need to stop this twisting of words...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

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?

I have flown large aircraft at low altitude and high speed, what is the question?

reply to post by whatwasthat


Go ahead whatwasthat...... You do need to put quote within brackets like this [/XXXX] after the first set of comments, so as to separate them from you. Else, just include the last [/xxxx] quote inside the brackets prior to your comments and that will accomplish the same thing to separate the previous comments from yours..

reply to post by whatwasthat


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..
What would the pilot need to do, if anything. to counteract the lift..

This is in relation to the 9/11 Pentagon hit..
A 757 traveling at 500 mph within feet of the ground..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Reheat

 

85 times the word lift is mention and that's counting only half way through the article. Quite obviously you didn't even read it as I said earlier..... I'm not surprised at all.

I see you want information delivered to your doorstep on a silver platter. The refusal to read quality material that addresses most of the issues under discussion and the ability to use critical thinking skills are traits not found in most truthers. That's why they are truthers.

Well, you admit there is no one you know with experience of flying a large transport aircraft at high speed and low level, so therefore it can't be done. Is that your argument?

Please point out where in the article that it mentions lift associated with plane under the known conditions..

I didn't say it can't be done..
I just question those that say it's easy although they have no experience in that situation..
You really need to stop this twisting of words...

I asked a question for clarification. My, you're awfully paranoid about my alleged twisting of your words. I suppose you want me to just assume from now on....

BTW, you have a poster who has large aircraft, high speed, low level experience. Ask his opinion?

reply to post by Reheat

BTW, you have a poster who has large aircraft, high speed, low level experience. Ask his opinion?

I did..

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by whatwasthat
[Like this? Okay , I flew in the US Air Force as a rated pilot, grade 03 Regular Air Force, for receiving HQ check out in B-52 at Carswell AFB. Total 2000 + hours over 600 combat missions DFC 1 OLC, and AM 12 OLC.

Mission profile in B-52 included high speed low level , about 300 feet off the deck was required for qualification, we were free to go as low as conditions and skill level would torlerate. Radar altimeter mounted on the bottm side of fuselage indicated exact distance to the ground directly under the aircraft. At just under 200 feet cattle would run off to the side as we passed by. At 100 feet cattle would run in the direction we were flying before we past over them.
I am saying this to indicate high speed flight at low level in a large airplane produces a noticeable increase in air pressure on the ground beneath the aircraft. The pressure is noticable but in no way interferes with controlling the aircraft, slight forward pressure is all that is required to push lower and in the case under consideration make contact with the ground.

I hope this helps all interested understand that the awful events of 9-11 would be well within the capablity of a novice operator.

My knowledge of the folks who are the dedicated members of the FAA and the NTSB leads me to conclude we can rely on the crash results recovered from the on board recorder.]

Go ahead whatwasthat...... You do need to put quote within brackets like this [/XXXX] after the first set of comments, so as to separate them from you. Else, just include the last [/xxxx] quote inside the brackets prior to your comments and that will accomplish the same thing to separate the previous comments from yours..

edit on 16-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

reply to post by whatwasthat

Mission profile in B-52 included high speed low level , about 300 feet off the deck was required for qualification, we were free to go as low as conditions and skill level would torlerate.

High speed doesn't say much..
Can you give an actual speed please.??

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by whatwasthat

 

Mission profile in B-52 included high speed low level , about 300 feet off the deck was required for qualification, we were free to go as low as conditions and skill level would torlerate.

[High speed doesn't say much..
Can you give an actual speed please.??]

[Your correct the word speed with regard to airplanes does not mean anything by itself.

For all the ATS reader who may not be aircraft pilots why don't you review for them the differences among the terms, indicated air speed , true air speed, limiting mach number and limiting indicated air speed. Most useful convesational number would be speed accoss the ground to use a begining bases.

I would also be helpful to all the ATS readers for you to review to the specs of the B-52 and the airline lost that day, pay attention to the apect ratio of the wing so you can take into consideration the forces envolved are not linearly
comparable as you seem to want to infer

Among all the terms uses in aviation I have never used your term " actual speed " , I admit I have not kept current.

I am begining to see that " actual speed " is a polemics term used to inject some convoluted argument into and otherwise technical conversation.

To be sure there are many areas to look for conspiracies in the events of that awful day, I suggest you focus your energy on those who could have stopped the events if the had taken action to interupt the hijackers on the ground. ]

I find these pages of discussion about air speed and handling a large jet sort of worthless... the two people on ATS who have the best knowledge and experience in such things have proven they will say anything to hold to their story, the websites with other pilots have said it's near impossible... so it just comes down to 9/11 bias. We need someone who is both a pilot, and won't lie to keep to their story.

I've worked for two airlines and just being a passenger flying in to SFO hundreds of times I KNOW that planes wobble a little bit. How often do you get a PERFECT landing, you know where to the FO stands by the door smiling as you leave the plane - not that often... yet the alleged pilot of the alleged AA 77 flew in perfectly and hit the Pentagon right between two objects that would have been a "miss" - the generator and the helipad building.

It's a moot point... we can argue about all sorts of possible variables, but if there's no hole (big enough for an airplane) then the entire thing is a worthless argument.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein--->the websites with other pilots have said it's near impossible

Who? P4911T??

If yoy want answer from a few thousand other jet pilots you are welcome here: www.pprune.org...

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by Thermo Klein--->the websites with other pilots have said it's near impossible

Who? P4911T??

If yoy want answer from a few thousand other jet pilots you are welcome here: www.pprune.org...

Don't worry, he nor any of the others will go there to get more opinions.; He would prefer to call someone a liar because they don't agree with his perverted opinion and pretend that everyone has a bias similar to his. They don't want an accurate answer. They would prefer to keep their delusion going at all costs even their own integrity if one ever were possessed in the first place..

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
... yet the alleged pilot of the alleged AA 77 flew in perfectly and hit the Pentagon right between two objects that would have been a "miss" - the generator and the helipad building.

My prediction was correct. There it is the TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY. I knew it was just a matter of time.

reply to post by Reheat


yet again you twist my meaning and words... I didn't point to a specific website, or say it couldn't be done, I said it's a moot point because there's no evidence of an airplane.

Concerning your Texas Sharpshooter LABEL - the explosion went off precisely and only where it went off... so it's an a posteriori argument (of an explosion, not an airplane mind you) so yet again a moot point.

(Yes, I recognize I brought it up, based on the idea that we were arguing alleged flight aspects, not because it;s a valid argument)

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat

 

yet again you twist my meaning and words... I didn't point to a specific website, or say it couldn't be done, I said it's a moot point because there's no evidence of an airplane.

Concerning your Texas Sharpshooter LABEL - the explosion went off precisely and only where it went off... so it's an a posteriori argument (of an explosion, not an airplane mind you) so yet again a moot point.

(Yes, I recognize I brought it up, based on the idea that we were arguing alleged flight aspects, not because it;s a valid argument)

I didn't twist a damn thing. Not in the slightest.

So, I guess you accuse Sean Bolger who was in the Control Tower at the time of lying when he said he saw the aircraft approaching and then ducked down as it plowed through the building and he heard the noise of the crunching aircraft as it ripped apart itself and the building. There are also many other who saw and described the IMPACT. All of those people simply lied because of their BIAS. Yet, you can look at a small number of photographs, many shot from hundreds of yards away with a telephoto lens and have "ABSOLUTE PROOF" no aircraft hit that building. That has a name which begins with a B and ends with a T. It indeed makes the argument moot unless you also accuse those folks of lying, as well. That's just the beginning of all of the people who you have to accuse of lying, there's several hundred more.......

reply to post by whatwasthat

For all the ATS reader who may not be aircraft pilots why don't you review for them the differences among the terms, indicated air speed , true air speed, limiting mach number and limiting indicated air speed. Most useful convesational number would be speed accoss the ground to use a begining bases.

Long post without an answer to a simple question..
You say you flew low level, high speed...

You didn't say high "true air speed" or high "ground speed" or high "indicated air speed"...
You merely said speed..

Seems to me you simply don't want to answer a simple question...

I'll make it easier for you...
In them low level, high speed flights, what was your "true air speed" ??

reply to post by Reheat

That has a name which begins with a B and ends with a T. It indeed makes the argument moot unless you also accuse those folks of lying, as well. That's just the beginning of all of the people who you have to accuse of lying, there's several hundred more.......

And yet the same folks are in here day after day, going to great lengths to convince us of the fairytale that is the OS..
You have to wonder why they bother...
Why do you Reheat?
Why do you spend hours trying to convince us what you know to be truth?
Your posts don't sound like the caring type, so why ????

Originally posted by backinblackAnd yet the same folks are in here day after day, going to great lengths to convince us of the fairytale that is the OS..
You have to wonder why they bother...

Because as a truther, I survey the forums from time-to-time and come across total crap like this OP and it gives me a bad name among folks like reheat. Because of ill-researched, out-of-someone's delusional nonsense, 'truther' becomes synonymous with 'complete moronic eight-grader'. So as someone has studied the data and the facts regarding the Pentagon attack in more detail than any other poster on ATS, I just have to sometimes scream bull ....