GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. 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.

User Menu

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

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

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 501249
  • *Total Topics: 14923
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 22
  • *Total: 26

Author Topic: Confessions of khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Oklahoma City, PanAm 800 and American 587  (Read 34748 times)

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Red:

My understanding was that the twin towers were constructed of an exoskeleton...meaning, the main supports were on the outside of the building and the floors were connected to the outside framework.  One of the after action reports showed that the building contractor used inferior bolts (which were cheaper) to attach the floor beams to the framework.  The heat weakened these bolts and, once the upper floors collapsed, the pancake was the result.  I am not a building engineer so I can not speak to how true this is but, if true, it makes sense.
............................
............................
Bill 

Bill, Mark,
I do realize that our discussions are based on informations from a distance and that the real facts to a large extent will remain elusive.  Our conclusions will remain just a theory, either towards or away from the official version which is critiqued here.
The dilemma in my mind is the contradiction between what I saw in video and pictures as an event flow, versus what was claimed. Like an analysis you do on the many OU proposals here and Youtube video's seen.  The question "does it make sense?, is it possible ?, when we apply common sense & the physics laws we know as reference.

So looking at the issue using only "pure physics" (no other adulterations)
We have a building with 2 skeletons, 
1..  A massive core column skeleton
2..  An external column skeleton
These are tied to each other by the floor beams. 

Scenario 1,
The floor attachments weaken and cascade downwards pushing the external beams outward. 
For the floor to fall it needs to break away from the internal and external skeleton columns, this could happen in various sequence orders. As seen on video footage, the floor breakaway happened fairly uniform in the horizontal plane in its individual time frame.  That would imply in general,  a break away shear on the attachment bolts.  The shear force is a vertical force.
The center core was the main spine of the building and he strongest frame work in the building.  The general horizontal loading on the central column imposed by the floor beam breakaway would have been near symmetrical, all round.
  * Wouldn't you expect to see a major portion of this core still standing after the collapse ? with a near symmetrical shear ?

Scenario 2,
If we assume that things happened unevenly, a lopsided loading was imposed by the breakaway floors that could have resulted in the destruction of the core skeleton. With the forces more in one direction, a pull and less shear,  the total tower would have not fallen so nicely on its own footprint.  I would guess that the fall time in this second scenario would have been longer than the first one due to the force action & re-action times.

Conclusion
1.. A symmetrical vertical fall is the fastest but would leave the core standing with a small debris foot print.
2.. A asymmetrical vertical fall is the slowest, with no core standing but would have a large(r) foot print

We know (as seen with our own eyes, not someones written report)
1..  The fall speed was fast (free fall, it couldn't go faster << )
2..  No core remains standing
3..  Small debris footprint.

Comments
* The core column is effectively a pylon, how do you make a pylon of that height fall on its own foot print?
* How do you make something fall at free fall speed ?.
* What chances to you have for a weakened building with fairly large foot print, due to random fire & random intensity, to fall uniform and evenly instead of random/partial, WTC7 ?

You may provide a rebuttal, (only physics)

Quote from: MarkE
The power that we have is still at the polls.  We have an election next year.  What if a large number of people voted against the sure bet of Bush/Clinton in the primaries?
How can you vote against if you have only 2 parties/candidates ?  with full control of media and unlimited funds ?
How was Bush Jnr re-elected for his second term ?

Red

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline CANGAS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
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


There is a core group of those who are completely willing to "bluff" when they have gone beyond their narrow field of expertise.

Prove to me that you are not "bluffing".

The X-1 was designed prior to any real knowledge of supersonic aerodynamics. It violates virtually every rule of design that was learned by, ironically, study of its own supersonic aerodynamic failures.

Surprisingly,  it was never flown at 1,000 MPH in the thin air of 40,000 feet , was it?

There are today, few few very high performance aircraft that can make the Mach on the deck. One famous example is the MIG 25 Foxbat. It was pimped as the fastest operational fighter but it could not make the Mach on the deck. Arabs crash landed them in the desert instead of dog fighting Eagles and Phantoms that CAN make the Mach on the deck.

I suspect that you really didn't really mean it when you said that the X-1 went 1,000 MPH on the deck. But, if you were not hallucinating, and, did really mean it, you seriously need to produce documentation for such an astounding claim.

Or else tell me what brand of whisky you drink. My brand is not strong enough. My brand is not powerful enough to enable me to believe that an X-1 could take off on its own power and do a 1'000 MPH fly by.

You are making it up and dissing me by expecting that I am dumb enough to believe any kind of baloney that you would believe if one of your buds told it to you.



CANGAS 173

Offline CANGAS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
Bill, Mark,
I do realize that our discussions are based on informations from a distance and that the real facts to a large extent will remain elusive.  Our conclusions will remain just a theory, either towards or away from the official version which is critiqued here.
The dilemma in my mind is the contradiction between what I saw in video and pictures as an event flow, versus what was claimed. Like an analysis you do on the many OU proposals here and Youtube video's seen.  The question "does it make sense?, is it possible ?, when we apply common sense & the physics laws we know as reference.

So looking at the issue using only "pure physics" (no other adulterations)
We have a building with 2 skeletons, 
1..  A massive core column skeleton
2..  An external column skeleton
These are tied to each other by the floor beams. 

Scenario 1,
The floor attachments weaken and cascade downwards pushing the external beams outward. 
For the floor to fall it needs to break away from the internal and external skeleton columns, this could happen in various sequence orders. As seen on video footage, the floor breakaway happened fairly uniform in the horizontal plane in its individual time frame.  That would imply in general,  a break away shear on the attachment bolts.  The shear force is a vertical force.
The center core was the main spine of the building and he strongest frame work in the building.  The general horizontal loading on the central column imposed by the floor beam breakaway would have been near symmetrical, all round.
  * Wouldn't you expect to see a major portion of this core still standing after the collapse ? with a near symmetrical shear ?

Scenario 2,
If we assume that things happened unevenly, a lopsided loading was imposed by the breakaway floors that could have resulted in the destruction of the core skeleton. With the forces more in one direction, a pull and less shear,  the total tower would have not fallen so nicely on its own footprint.  I would guess that the fall time in this second scenario would have been longer than the first one due to the force action & re-action times.

Conclusion
1.. A symmetrical vertical fall is the fastest but would leave the core standing with a small debris foot print.
2.. A asymmetrical vertical fall is the slowest, with no core standing but would have a large(r) foot print

We know (as seen with our own eyes, not someones written report)
1..  The fall speed was fast (free fall, it couldn't go faster << )
2..  No core remains standing
3..  Small debris footprint.

Comments
* The core column is effectively a pylon, how do you make a pylon of that height fall on its own foot print?
* How do you make something fall at free fall speed ?.
* What chances to you have for a weakened building with fairly large foot print, due to random fire & random intensity, to fall uniform and evenly instead of random/partial, WTC7 ?

You may provide a rebuttal, (only physics)
How can you vote against if you have only 2 parties/candidates ?  with full control of media and unlimited funds ?
How was Bush Jnr re-elected for his second term ?

Red


There  are many readers, here and elsewhere, who are grossly ignorant of structural engineering design principles, and so do not understand how intrinsically strong the exoskeleton of the twin towers was. The design of the twin towers was magnificently strong, and, in actual practice , highly over-designed.

Bad bolts? Rolling on the floor and busting a gut laughing!!!!


CANGAS 174

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
When detonating a shaped charge:  Pay attention to which way you point it.

I think you know Mark.  ;)

Offline Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1738
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

Bill,

There was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

Quote
"On January 5, 1949, Yeager used Aircraft #46-062 to perform the only conventional (runway) launch of the X-1 program,
attaining 23,000 ft (7,000 m) in 90 seconds."
End Quote

This was performed with the X1-1 aircraft. The X1-1 maximum speed was approx. 700 miles per hour (1,100 km/h) at ALTITUDE.
So this aircraft could not fly 1,000 mph as you say at any altitude. Now if Yeager did take off from the ground and climbed
to 23,000 ft in 90 seconds, then the rocket fuel would be used up. So on this flight he did NOT do any high speed low
altitude passes. And, there was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

GL.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548

There  are many readers, here and elsewhere, who are grossly ignorant of structural engineering design principles, and so do not understand how intrinsically strong the exoskeleton of the twin towers was. The design of the twin towers was magnificently strong, and, in actual practice , highly over-designed.

Bad bolts? Rolling on the floor and busting a gut laughing!!!!
CANGAS 174

I am sure it was but I do not want to go that far,  I prefer to keep it a simple exercise,
The main point which I wanted to put across, do you rather abandon common sense and physics and believe the investigators with disbelieve.
Or you demand and hold the investigation to account for a higher integrity standard of work.

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
I am sure it was but I do not want to go that far,  I prefer to keep it a simple exercise,
The main point which I wanted to put across, do you rather abandon common sense and physics and believe the investigators with disbelieve.
Or you demand and hold the investigation to account for a higher integrity standard of work.

Its taking far to long for common sense to kick-in and an essential part of that is the need to hold the investigation to account.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8364
Bill,

There was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

Quote
"On January 5, 1949, Yeager used Aircraft #46-062 to perform the only conventional (runway) launch of the X-1 program,
attaining 23,000 ft (7,000 m) in 90 seconds."
End Quote

This was performed with the X1-1 aircraft. The X1-1 maximum speed was approx. 700 miles per hour (1,100 km/h) at ALTITUDE.
So this aircraft could not fly 1,000 mph as you say at any altitude. Now if Yeager did take off from the ground and climbed
to 23,000 ft in 90 seconds, then the rocket fuel would be used up. So on this flight he did NOT do any high speed low
altitude passes. And, there was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

GL.

It has been a while since I have read them, but I have all 3 of Yeager's books and I believe that Jack Ridley and maybe even Bob Hoover made ground take-offs in the X-1.  You guys are right, probably not 1,000 mph at that altitude but certainly faster than 350-400 mph.  Yeager said he held it on the deck after taking off and was surprised at how fast the speed built up before he pulled it up into a steep climb.
I was close on the X-1-1's top speed, 958mph and not 1,000mph like I thought.


A fast Google search reveals this:
Bell X-1Rocket plane
The Bell X-1, designated originally as XS-1, was a joint National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics-U.S. Army Air Forces-U.S. Air Force supersonic research project built by the Bell Aircraft Company. Wikipedia
Top speed: 958 mph (1,541 km/h)
First flight: January 19, 1946
Wingspan: 28' (8.50 m)
Length: 31' (9.42 m)
Weight: 7,000 lbs (3,175 kg)
Engine type: Reaction Motors XLR11
Manufacturer: Bell Aircraft


Bill

Offline SeaMonkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
Quote from: Tin-Koa
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.

You seem a bit confused TinK.  I have not claimed
to be an aviator on this forum.  Whether I am or not
is unimportant at this point.

The Military Aircraft airfoil design permits such low level
flight approaching or in excess of mach 1 if desired.

Commercial passenger aircraft, particularly when carrying
"passengers" are forbidden from such maneuvers or
even exceeding 250 Knots below a certain rather high
altitude.  There may be certain exceptions subject to
pre-approval for purposes of demonstration and/or
flight testing.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline CANGAS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
It has been a while since I have read them, but I have all 3 of Yeager's books and I believe that Jack Ridley and maybe even Bob Hoover made ground take-offs in the X-1.  You guys are right, probably not 1,000 mph at that altitude but certainly faster than 350-400 mph.  Yeager said he held it on the deck after taking off and was surprised at how fast the speed built up before he pulled it up into a steep climb.
I was close on the X-1-1's top speed, 958mph and not 1,000mph like I thought.


A fast Google search reveals this:
Bell X-1Rocket plane
The Bell X-1, designated originally as XS-1, was a joint National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics-U.S. Army Air Forces-U.S. Air Force supersonic research project built by the Bell Aircraft Company. Wikipedia
Top speed: 958 mph (1,541 km/h)
First flight: January 19, 1946
Wingspan: 28' (8.50 m)
Length: 31' (9.42 m)
Weight: 7,000 lbs (3,175 kg)
Engine type: Reaction Motors XLR11
Manufacturer: Bell Aircraft


Bill


Typical of the X-1 series was a loaded weight of a tad over 12,000 pounds while the standard 4 cylinder motor had a total thrust of 6,000 pounds. With thrust being only half its weight at rotation, the climb was not all THAT steep.  ::)

Your vague semi quote was probably your poor memory of Yeager saying that immediately after an air drop, he held the X-1 down so he wouldn;t crash into the B-50 overhead. And near the end of the fuel burn, the aircraft weight would have been down close to 7,000 pounds. With a thrust of 6,000 pounds, it would have gone like hell and impressed him with the acceleration. Until the X-1 the best weight to thrust ratio he had experienced may have been an F-80 or F-84, with a ratio of much worse than the nearly 1:1 of a nearly burnt out X-1.

You originally blurted out "1'000 MPH at 10 feet off the deck". Now you are back pedaling and weaseling and trying to hide your tracks.


You make a sensational claim, YOU FURNISH QUOTES AND PROOF!! All you're furnishing are vague half-memories of what you might have read.

Your credibility has just crashed and burned. Like Yeager's 104. 


CANGAS 176

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3390
Here's a picture of it:

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8364

Typical of the X-1 series was a loaded weight of a tad over 12,000 pounds while the standard 4 cylinder motor had a total thrust of 6,000 pounds. With thrust being only half its weight at rotation, the climb was not all THAT steep.  ::)

Your vague semi quote was probably your poor memory of Yeager saying that immediately after an air drop, he held the X-1 down so he wouldn;t crash into the B-50 overhead. And near the end of the fuel burn, the aircraft weight would have been down close to 7,000 pounds. With a thrust of 6,000 pounds, it would have gone like hell and impressed him with the acceleration. Until the X-1 the best weight to thrust ratio he had experienced may have been an F-80 or F-84, with a ratio of much worse than the nearly 1:1 of a nearly burnt out X-1.

You originally blurted out "1'000 MPH at 10 feet off the deck". Now you are back pedaling and weaseling and trying to hide your tracks.


You make a sensational claim, YOU FURNISH QUOTES AND PROOF!! All you're furnishing are vague half-memories of what you might have read.

Your credibility has just crashed and burned. Like Yeager's 104. 


CANGAS 176

Ummm...no, you are not correct.  Yeager said this about his GROUND take-off.  I think he would know the difference from a ground take-off to a drop from a B-29...right?  Or, do you not agree?

I was correct about the top speed, I was just mistaken that he hit this speed on the deck.

I am still correct that he flew faster than the 250-300 in ground effect that was deemed "impossible" earlier in this topic.

Also, all X-1 pilots dropped the nose of the craft after being dropped because the B-29's speed was very, very close the the stall speed of the X-1 and, as Yeager has said...stalling the X-1 after being dropped while fully loaded with fuel was not a good thing to do.  Gravity, and the climb that Maj. Gardenias put the 29 into during the drop would have kept the X-1 from hitting the B-29 so...you are not correct about this either.

TK's video links also prove that high speed is indeed possible in ground effect.  Of course, you think they are fake.  If I have to, I can search out a video of Tex Johnson (Famous Boeing test pilot) flying a 707 jet airliner during the test phase making maneuvers that you guys would also deem impossible.

OK  Here is one link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE

Here is a 757 doing a vertical climb after a high speed low pass in ground effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRiCHgQnf9s
He is obviously going near top speed in the low pass otherwise he could not have went vertical.

One of these planes is only about 10 ft. off the deck doing about 400 knots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJGVXpunZ_4&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0&index=2

Here is a high speed pass by a Jaguar under 10 ft off the deck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKME4EQDkIU&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0&index=3

Here is an F-14 in ground effect over water at high speed:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yreoDmKN_M&index=10&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0

B-52 doing a high speed low pass in ground effect:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4xxVyZvwM&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0&index=16

747 doing a low pass at about 15 ft off runway:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6s0pBqIriw&index=48&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0

777 doing a high speed low pass in ground effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1ijLu2HzvI

Harrier doing over 400 knots in ground effect:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRfDsSnLtE4

727 doing 300 knots in ground effect:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXXA-pRIQV8&index=76&list=PL1AE2DC91FAD215D0

747 ground effect high speed pass:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVBhFaToYC0

Well, so much for it being impossible eh?  Looks like your theory just crashed and burned.

Bill

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8364
Here's a picture of it:

That is not the X-1 that broke the sound barrier Oct. 14, 1947.  This photo is the X-1 E model.  I think this one had a little bigger engine.

Good photo.

Bill

PS  Here is the original X-1 the same that did the ground take off:

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8364

Typical of the X-1 series was a loaded weight of a tad over 12,000 pounds while the standard 4 cylinder motor had a total thrust of 6,000 pounds. With thrust being only half its weight at rotation, the climb was not all THAT steep.  ::)



CANGAS 176

Incorrect again.  That would be for a drop flight.  The X-1's landing gear was designed to be used when the fuel was gone and would not support a full fuel landing or take-off.  So, Jack Ridley got out his slide rule and calculated just how much fuel they would hold and also the take-off distance required.  Yeager said that when he took off, it was exactly at the spot Ridley had driven a stake into the ground based upon his calculations.

Therefore, the climb would have been very steep indeed as the ship was very light compared to the air drop weight.

Bill

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Guys, your focus is badly distorted in your discussion about "ground speed"
You are missing the point
The possibility to fly on that LEVEL is immaterial as a  YES or NO.
The flying object was on a DESCENDING COURSE ANGLE trying to CRASH into  the Pentagon.
YES, crashing it did, with or without ground buffer.

So long it came to a rest into the wall is all what mattered, even if it had to use its landing gear to do so.

Red

 

OneLink