Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 498513
  • *Total Topics: 14681
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 181
  • *Total: 184

Facebook

Author Topic: Confessions of khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Oklahoma City, PanAm 800 and American 587  (Read 32225 times)


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3225
Another mysterious fact about 77's "Black Boxes":

"Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 (77) 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed inventory control serial numbers".

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13693
What is very obvious Mark is that you've stalled.

You're clearly not an aviator.

Clearly, neither are all those pilots who flew all those aircraft, fighters, airliners and sailplanes, in the low pass videos I posted and dozens, perhaps even hundreds more that are viewable on YouTube. They are all faked, aren't they. 

Are you going to claim that an F/A18A or F14 that _leaves a wake in the water_ as it flies past at 0.9 Mach isn't in ground effect? Or that a 25-meter wingspan sailplane, skimming the ground at 3 meters altitude at redline airspeed, isn't in ground effect?  If you are really the aviator you claim to be... I hope you flew for some other country than mine, because your training, skills and knowledge of this matter are clearly deficient. As are your observing skills. And we all know from your past posts how you like to misrepresent the facts.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13693
@Picowatt,

Here's another interesting anomaly:

"A flight data file created by the downloaded Flight Data Recorder information of American Airlines flight 77 was created on Thursday, September 13, 2001 at 11:45pm. However, as reported by USA Today, Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance reported that the FDR for AA 77 was recovered on Friday, September 14, 2001 at 4am, 4 hours and 15 minutes after the creation of the AA 77 FDR data file".

Presenting quotes without attribution or links again? Even you should know that the timestamp of the file depends on the clock of the computer it was created on. Even you should know this. I haven't bothered to set the time on my video camera in a long time, and it is several hours out. When I make a video and transfer that file to my computer, I notice that the file's timestamp often says it was created _tomorrow_.  Your unattributed quote is proof of exactly nothing, except your political agenda and your willingness to ignore facts that conflict with your predetermined conclusions.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
Your desperation is right up there with Sarkey's.

Stating a truth is throwing mud you say?

Look at your hands - what is that muddy looking stuff there?
LOL, I have made specific statements concerning flight.  You allege that I am wrong.  You offer no evidence.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3225
Clearly, neither are all those pilots who flew all those aircraft, fighters, airliners and sailplanes, in the low pass videos I posted and dozens, perhaps even hundreds more that are viewable on YouTube. They are all faked, aren't they. 

Are you going to claim that an F/A18A or F14 that _leaves a wake in the water_ as it flies past at 0.9 Mach isn't in ground effect? Or that a 25-meter wingspan sailplane, skimming the ground at 3 meters altitude at redline airspeed, isn't in ground effect?  If you are really the aviator you claim to be... I hope you flew for some other country than mine, because your training, skills and knowledge of this matter are clearly deficient. As are your observing skills. And we all know from your past posts how you like to misrepresent the facts.

@Tinselkoala,

F/A18A or F14 fighter aircraft are not 757's Bub! Jet fighters have completely different flight characteristics then wide wing aircraft. The low pass video of the larger Jet you posted was at least 100 feet off the runway.

Additionally, I posted a link to the FDR information. Here it is again:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12519

One could argue the "Fire House" clock was running slow too. What's your political agenda involve?

I didin't trash pick my flight credentials from an alleyway dumpster like you.




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13693
@Tinselkoala,

F/A18A or F14 fighter aircraft are not 757's Bub! Jet fighters have completely different flight characteristics then wide wing aircraft. The low pass video of the larger Jet you posted was at least 100 feet off the runway.

Additionally, I posted a link to the FDR information. One could argue the "Fire House" clock was running slow too. What's your political agenda involve?

BUB.... you are once again betraying your ignorance.

Quote
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] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29 
There is nothing preventing a large heavy aircraft from flying at cruise speed or even faster when in ground effect.  Fighter jets, high-aspect ratio sailplanes and even heavy jet airliners can do it. The reason that the airliners aren't going lower is because they don't want to take the chance of contacting the ground! They don't have ejection seats and their pilots are generally a lot more conservative than jet jockies. The difficulty of the Pentagon flight lies in the fact that the 270 degree descending turn is not that easy and it's improbable that a novice pilot could do it accurately.... NOT in the final run in ground effect.  As a "naval aviator" you should know what a 270 overhead approach looks like. But maybe not...
My agenda is Truth, and we already know how many times you've misrepresented and distorted the Truth when talking about other topics.

A hundred feet? I laugh at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6s0pBqIriw

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3225
BUB.... you are once again betraying your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29 
There is nothing preventing a large heavy aircraft from flying at cruise speed or even faster when in ground effect.  Fighter jets, high-aspect ratio sailplanes and even heavy jet airliners can do it. The reason that the airliners aren't going lower is because they don't want to take the chance of contacting the ground! They don't have ejection seats and their pilots are generally a lot more conservative than jet jockies. The difficulty of the Pentagon flight lies in the fact that the 270 degree descending turn is not that easy and it's improbable that a novice pilot could do it accurately.... NOT in the final run in ground effect.  As a "naval aviator" you should know what a 270 overhead approach looks like. But maybe not...
My agenda is Truth, and we already know how many times you've misrepresented and distorted the Truth when talking about other topics.

A hundred feet? I laugh at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858

@Tinselkoala,

All you did was copy and paste some superfluous malarkey above. You don't have any idea what your talking about; "Flying inside Ground Effect"! Where'd you come up with that from? The aircraft flys over ground effect. You're shameless. You've been branded a degenerate alcoholic by people who know you on this forum! Try and sober up for a change.

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8362
@Tinselkoala,

All you did was copy and paste some superfluous malarkey above. You don't have any idea what your talking about; "Flying inside Ground Effect"! Where'd you come up with that from? The aircraft flys over ground effect. You're shameless. You've been branded a degenerate alcoholic by people who know you on this forum! Try and sober up for a change.

Hey, come on, lighten up a bit will you?

I have no idea if you are a real pilot or not but if you are...you know nothing about ground effect, at least as it was taught to me in flight school and, what I learned proved to be correct while flying.

Back in 1947 Chuck Yeager made some high speed passes after taking the X-1 off from the ground instead of being dropped by the B-29.  He was going over 1,000 mph about 10 feet off of the deck so...according to you he could not have done that yet...he did do it.

I have no idea what happened at the Pentagon that day...I do find it curious that it was not covered as much as the other 911 sites but...blaming the impossibility of the scenario claimed based upon ground effect is not going to hold up.

Bill

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3225
@Pirate88718,

Every particular aircraft has it's unique flight characteristics. The ones for the 757 are radically different from the X-1. Given the level flight indicated by downed light poles, an FDR air speed of 300 knots, and mild approach trajectory, the only way to cut through the "Ground Effect Cushion" would be to slip the aircraft, which most likely would have left a large skid mark in the lawn, because one wing would need to be tilted sharply to one side. Righting the plane would cause it to Jolt up in the air with alot of force. Ski boats have a planing speed. Pushing the hull back down to it's berth depth while on sking plane would be impossible. Lastly, a window above the entry point remained unbroken where the "Vertical Stabilizer" was supposed to make contact.     

There's no way a pilot could make the 757 aircraft get on ground level with just the cockpit controls alone on that glide path above cruise speed.           

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
@Tinselkoala,

All you did was copy and paste some superfluous malarkey above. You don't have any idea what your talking about; "Flying inside Ground Effect"! Where'd you come up with that from? The aircraft flys over ground effect. You're shameless. You've been branded a degenerate alcoholic by people who know you on this forum! Try and sober up for a change.
Really?  You're making an argument over prepositions now?

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
@Pirate88718,

Every particular aircraft has it's unique flight characteristics. The ones for the 757 are radically different from the X-1. Given the level flight indicated by downed light poles, an FDR air speed of 300 knots, and mild approach trajectory, the only way to cut through the "Ground Effect Cushion" would be to slip the aircraft, which most likely would have left a large skid mark in the lawn, because one wing would need to be tilted sharply to one side. Righting the plane would cause it to Jolt up in the air with alot of force. Ski boats have a planing speed. Pushing the hull back down to it's berth depth while on sking plane would be impossible. Lastly, a window above the entry point remained unbroken where the "Vertical Stabilizer" was supposed to make contact.     

There's no way a pilot could make the 757 aircraft get on ground level with just the cockpit controls alone on that glide path above cruise speed.         
You offeed an argument premised on ground effect in general. That argument has collapsed and now you wish to argue a different argument that ground effect specific to a 757 prevented Flight 77 from hitting the building basically at ground level.  Feel free to offer any argument you like.  Just consider that the more that you have to amend your argument the weaker it gets.

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3225
You offeed an argument premised on ground effect in general. That argument has collapsed and now you wish to argue a different argument that ground effect specific to a 757 prevented Flight 77 from hitting the building basically at ground level.  Feel free to offer any argument you like.  Just consider that the more that you have to amend your argument the weaker it gets.

@MarkE,

The X-1 is more of a missile than an airliner. There's a video of what's clearly a missile impacting the Pentagon, but no clear video evidence of a plane. The aerodynamic formulas are the "General" area all aircraft conform to.

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8362
@Pirate88718,

Every particular aircraft has it's unique flight characteristics. The ones for the 757 are radically different from the X-1. Given the level flight indicated by downed light poles, an FDR air speed of 300 knots, and mild approach trajectory, the only way to cut through the "Ground Effect Cushion" would be to slip the aircraft, which most likely would have left a large skid mark in the lawn, because one wing would need to be tilted sharply to one side. Righting the plane would cause it to Jolt up in the air with alot of force. Ski boats have a planing speed. Pushing the hull back down to it's berth depth while on sking plane would be impossible. Lastly, a window above the entry point remained unbroken where the "Vertical Stabilizer" was supposed to make contact.     

There's no way a pilot could make the 757 aircraft get on ground level with just the cockpit controls alone on that glide path above cruise speed.         

OK, you mentioned downed light poles...why would a missile hit the light poles in the first place?  If someone launched a missile, there would be no need for such a low level flat trajectory right?  If one were to argue that they wanted it to look like an aircraft, then why use such a flat flight path which would look suspicious to folks like yourself?

Bill

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
@MarkE,

The X-1 is more of a missile than an airliner. There's a video of what's clearly a missile impacting the Pentagon, but no clear video evidence of a plane. The aerodynamic formulas are the "General" area all aircraft conform to.
I did not make any argument concerning the X-1.  If you wish to argue using aerodynamic formulae then present your analysis using those formulae.  Otherwise you are just throwing words around.  If you wish to concede your ground effect contention, then we can move on to a different contention.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at:


OneLink