Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Police stopped traffic before the plane hit; Eyewitness says he saw a plane
Topic Started: Jan 27 2008, 06:16 AM (3,855 Views)
Hetware

I've already made my position exceedingly clear in this regard. The fact that you are bringing up Hani Hanjour shows that you are either not paying attention, or are intentionally trying to distort what I am saying.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
behind

Hetware
Feb 1 2008, 01:05 AM
The vast majority of the momentum of the plane was in the fuselage, and much, if not most would have been in the skin.
Um... no. Completely wrong.

Try to tell engineers that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware

Well if you wish to be pedantic, perhaps I should have said "shell". The point being that the mass of the plane is concentrated in the solid parts, and not in the hollow parts which are filled with air. Momentum = mass X velocity. Where is the mass of the plane?

I'll ask my brother who has a degree in aerospace engineering.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

Reddawn
Feb 3 2008, 10:51 AM
Hetware
Feb 1 2008, 01:17 PM
Stundie
Feb 1 2008, 09:01 AM

Here is what happens to car unfortunate enough to get in the way of a jet engines turbines from 50 yards away.

So if AA77 was going full throttle and Lloyd saw this plane clip a light pole, (So it is much less than 50 yards away!) then please explain why is car is still intact and not blown over as in like the video above demonstrates??

The 757 that passed over Washington Blvd was clocking at 540 mph. In the video you posted the plane was standing still. This is a more realistic, yet sill poor comparison.

Stundie should know that the physics involved with jet blast (ground effect, wake turbulance, whatever you want to call it) are completetly different depending on the situation.

1. When a plane is at a standstill and applying full power. This is the case stundie illustrates and the effect, is indeed rather dangerous and powerfull to anything behind it.

2. When a plane is taking off. This wake turbulance ia also powerfull but not as much as in the first case. The primary danger is to other planes that may take off right behind it as the turbulance creates vortexes in the air that can affect the lift and flying characteristics of planes attempting to depart right behind it. ATC has rules for how long a following plane must wait to depart behind a large jet. The same rules do NOT apply behind landing jets.

3. When a plane is landing or flying close to the ground at full speed. This was the case at the Pentagon. While the engines are still producing thrust and turbulance, the effect is greatly minimized and almost completely negated by the forward momentum of the plane.

The supposed "ground effect" that DRG and others espouse is nonsense. Check out this video which shows a 747 landing less than 30 feet above people and a vehicle, with zero effect on them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2231669038729956701&q=plane+landing&total=15038&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8


1. Of course it is dangerous as the Top gear experiment shows you. The point I was making is if AA77 was going at full throttle as the commission states?? (I hope you agree because this is what they say!) And the plane was only 20-40ft above the ground, then there would cars flung all over the place as the video shows you what happens to a car from 50 yards. (Which is much more than 20-40ft!)

2. You creating Strawmen arguments. I've not argued about the dangers of planes taking off, or even landing, or turbulence.

3. Could you please explain what you mean when you say "the effect is greatly minimized and almost completely negated by the forward momentum of the plane?"

Also a plane landing is not using the full power of the jet engines, so posting a picture of a plane landing which is much slower than 500mph and of course not using full power, will not create any ground effect.

You are creating strawman arguments which have only happened inside your head.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
behind

Hetware
Feb 5 2008, 09:14 AM
Well if you wish to be pedantic, perhaps I should have said "shell". The point being that the mass of the plane is concentrated in the solid parts, and not in the hollow parts which are filled with air. Momentum = mass X velocity. Where is the mass of the plane?

I'll ask my brother who has a degree in aerospace engineering.
Yes I would expect that there is more mass in the shell than air. But this is ofcource long and complecated issue, the planes and the damage on the 9/11.

For exemple in the Pentagon case the damage inside the building is all to much to be explained with a plane or plane parts. And the experts who tried to explaine it officially, obviously knew that very well and what is interesting to me is how they explained it. Can be seen here and in Pentagon Building Performance Report (2.5 MB)
(And they dont try to explaine the so called exit hole)

Edited by behind, Feb 7 2008, 09:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
behind

Stundie
Feb 7 2008, 08:45 AM

And the plane was only 20-40ft above the ground
It is imo one of the most absurd part of the official story how low the "plane" allegedly was.

Official story: "3.3 SECURITY CAMERA PHOTOGRAPHSA: Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photo-graphs (figures 3.3 through 3.7),taken approximately one second apart,show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.The first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image ofthe aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 sec-ond) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon.Two photographs(figures 3.3 and 3.7),when compared,seem to show that the top of thefuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken"

B757 Body Exterior Width is 12 ft 4 in and the if we say that the enginees are about three feet lower than the body we are talking about 5 feet above the ground :D

"3.7 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT: The Boeing 757 approached the west wall of the Pentagon from the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s.As it approached the Pentagon site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped anantenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and severed light posts.When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the build-ing (0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a few feet above the ground"
Pentagon Building Performance Report

I mean ... it is so stupit that it is really embarrising.

(But I am from Europe and here it is not as emotional issue as in US and I ofcource understand that, it happened in your country, I am looking at it from a distance)
Edited by behind, Feb 7 2008, 09:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SPreston
Member Avatar
Patriotic American
behind
 
It is imo one of the most absurd part of the official story how low the "plane" allegedly was.

Pentagon Building Performance Report

I mean ... it is so stupit that it is really embarrising.

officially the aircraft was flying 1 ft 11 in off the ground

Yes it is embarrassing. That so many people on this board, and several other boards, who have claimed to study this Pentagon attack in detail, would continue to believe this silly fantasy, is even more embarrassing. As behind points out, the absurdity is how low the aircraft was in the official story. With their obviously altered 'security videos', they screwed themselves by forcing the alleged 757 aircraft to descend a steep hill and pull up in an impossible manuever in order to attain the flight trajectory seen in their manufactured videos. Here in their Pentagon Building Performance Report, they nailed the lid on their own coffin by officially stating the aircraft's height above the ground and the distance from the Pentagon west wall. When viewed with an open mind, their official Flight 77 trajectory became impossible. This official document was produced by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI). This report is the OCT of the Pentagon attack.

page 14
 
Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the
fuselage of the aircraft
was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the
first photograph of this series was taken.

Posted Image
The 757-200 fuselage is oval with a width of 12 ft 4 in and height of 13 ft 2 in. The bottom of the engine cowlings are 4 ft 11 in lower. So officially the aircraft was flying 1 ft 11 in off the ground (engine cowlings to ground) when it entered the first photo of the series and was 320 ft from the west wall of the Pentagon. The belly tank hangs about 1 ft 11 in below the fuselage.

page 18
 
When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the building(0.42 second before impact), it was flying
nearly level, only a few feet above the ground (figures 3.2 and 3.13, the latter an aerial photograph modified
graphically to show the approaching aircraft).

first photograph of this series
Posted ImagePosted Image

However to enter the 1st floor of the Pentagon, the aircraft needed to fly even lower in order to slide under the 2nd story floor slab which is about 13 ft above ground level. The overall aircraft height would have been 18 ft 1 in from top of fuselage to bottom of engine cowlings if they were an inch above ground level. There is no evidence any engines or anything else struck the lawn at any time. Thus the fuselage top was 5 ft 1 in too high to slide under the 2nd story floor slab. Officially the aircraft entered the 1st floor under the 2nd story floor slab and penetrated through the 1st floor rings to exit out the C-Ring wall at the Exit Hole. To make matters worse, there were polyethelene cable spools directly in the path of the fuselage and belly tank with a height of 6 ft 6 in and 5 ft 5 in which could not fit under the belly tank. These cable spools were not destroyed nor damaged nor melted.
Posted Image

It is highly unlikely that a 757 diving down the steep 120 ft hill from the Navy Annex at 530 mph would have been able to pull up in order to accomplish the level flight path across the Pentagon lawn 1 ft 11 in above it. The aircraft could not have fit between the 2nd story floor slab and the cable spools. Of course the cable spools were not melted in the phony looking white-hot initial explosion shown in the official security videos, even though they were supposedly surrounded by the exploding jet fuel. Jet fuel does not burn white-hot. That is impossible. Jet fuel burns red/yellow/orange. White-hot is much hotter. There were no shadows in the foreground from the supposedly very bright explosion. Even though the security videos are official, they are very poor fakes. Therefore for multiple reasons, it is impossible for a 757 to have impacted the Pentagon as the official fantasy tells it.

It is embarrassing that anyone would be foolish enough to believe it. :cigar:

Posted Image Posted Image
Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?
Posted Image
Edited by SPreston, Feb 8 2008, 01:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply