• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
TjW said:
No. For any wing, there is an angle of attack for which the lift of the wing is zero. Since you can go all the way to zero, then given airspeed above the stall, there's some point where you can reach the lift that just balances your weight.
Click to expand...


Sorry, let me correct. A boeing 707 can't fly level at low altitude at 600 MPH.

We're talking about the liklihood of a 707 hitting the WTC at 600 MPH. Putting aside dive bombing attacks, I can't see this ever happening.

According to this chart:

Boeing 707-320C Never exceed speed (VNE) is 425 KCAS (Knots calibrated air speed).

At cruise altitude (25,000ft) 425 KCAS is Mach 0.99 or 597 KTAS (True Air Speed) (the chart actually says Mach 0.95 as Maximum Mach, allowing for a buffer, I suppose, or possibly allowing for variations between Indicated Air Speed and Calibrated Air Speed).

In contrast, if the 707 hit the WTC, at that altitude the VNE of 425 KCAS is Mach 0.66 or 425 KTAS. (Assuming no wind, with nominal atmospheric conditions, Indicated, Calibrated, and True airspeeds are all the same (and the same as ground speed) at sea level).

Hence 600 MPH (520 Knots) at sea level exceeds a Boeing 707's Never Exceed Speed (VNE) by 15%.

Theoretically airframe integrity begins to be compromised at VNE. Would a 707's wings tear off at 15% over VNE? I don't know. But I can't imagine a scenario in which a 707 would ever hit the WTC at that speed.

Of course, it is almost certain that the people doing the calculations simply looked up typical cruise speed and calculated the WTC's survivability based on that. I'm not saying they didn't determine it for that speed. :)

I'm just saying a scenario with an impact at that speed was never going to happen.

(Incidentally, on the same charts no VNE for the Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 is given...)

-Andrew
 
suggestions for LC3

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10061

FLAME ON!
flamethrower.gif
 
JamesB said:
Those aren't anti-aircraft weapons, they are anti-missile defense systems mounted on ships. Unless an Aegis cruiser is stationed in the parking lot of the Pentagon it is not relevent.
Click to expand...


The US Army's current standard mobile AA unit is the M1097 Avenger

The Avenger Air Defense System is a US military weapon system utilized by both the Army and the Marine Corps that provides mobile, short-range air defense protection for ground units against cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, low-flying fixed-wing aircraft, and helicopters.

This is one of the air defense systems placed around the Pentagon in Washington, DC after the September 11 terror attacks. The Avenger system has been in use since 1989.
Click to expand...

If the Pentagon has an air defence system, why did they deploy this puppy?

Two things to consider:

1) The Pentagon is primarily an administrative building, not an operations centre
2) The Pentagon is located in a major city very close to (and on the approach line of) a major airport.

Therefore, to think the Pentagon had any form of AA defence system in place (never mind an automated one) is nonsense.

Hence why the CTers think it.

-Andrew
 
Darth Rotor said:
How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?
Click to expand...
Since I don't know what I'm talking about, please explain to me what antiaircraft systems were installed at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.
 
Gravy said:
Just read the Kevin Ryan paper. I'm glad he's not testing water for U.L. His ignorance and cherry-picking of data could endanger people.
Click to expand...

The only thing that makes that better is that Ryan is now the co-editor of JONES. (Anybody else note that acronym?)
 
brumsen said:
Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.
Click to expand...
true, but i wouldnt be surprised if that was one of the weaker criticisms that was subitted
 
brumsen said:
Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I will have to submit mine then, both Legge and Jones refused comment.
 
I dont accept his article as peer reviewed either, until they can proove that a panel of qualified experts in the area covered by the paper reviewed the article for content and validity, and then approved it...Greening or Jones or Woods...
 
brumsen said:
Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.
Click to expand...

You mean the editors of the publication, not the Scholars? I see Jones and Ryan on the Masthead. Not trying to be a jerk here, just being technical.
 
Last edited:
Quote from Sun Zoo on suggestions for LC3 (my fav quote):

"South tower plane as drone evidence, no matter how "controvertial" it may be, in fact, the more controvertial the better, as long as it's true."
 
Re: missile batteries at the Pentagon, Richard Clarke told us in his book that they thought about having air defences in Washington in 1996 but the idea was turned down. Here's the quote:

The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington. Unfortunately, those two federal law enforcement agencies were housed in the Treasury Department and its leadership did not want to pay for such a mission or run the liability risks of shooting down the wrong aircraft. Treasury nixed the air defense unit, and my attempts within the White House to overfule them came to naught. The idea of aircraft attacking in Washington seemed remote to many people and the risks of shooting down aircraft in a city were thought to be far too high. Moreover, the opponents of our plan argued, the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem. On occasions when aircraft were hijacked (and in one case when we erroneously believed a Northwest flight had been seized), the Air Force did intercept the airliners with fighter jets. We succeeded only in getting Secret Service the permission to continue to examine air defense options, including the possibility of placing missile units near the White House. Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts.
Click to expand...
 
If I did a drug study for DRUG X, and I submit the study to a journal where the reviewing committee were a bunch of Philosophy proffs, would you trust the study enough to buy the drug or take it, or even invest money in it?

Even if I submitted the study on Drug X to a medical journal. If it were some obscure journal, where the peer review panel consisted of 1-2 somewhat related experts, would you trust the drug or the study?

Why is it we have such high standards for medical trials, but none, at least from the Truth movement, for evidence in their suggested murder by govt of 3000 people.
 
answering questions

Now I know that this is a fast-moving thread, but given that I have myself been accused of not answering questions, I cannot help but notice that quite a few direct questions from me have not been answered:

To JamesB
To Gravy
To Belz... (eta: originally asked here)

Apologies if I missed the answers to these questions.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
You mean the editors of the publication, not the Scholars? I see Jones and Ryan on the Masthead. Not trying to be a jerk here, just being technical.
Click to expand...
Well, it is a journal published by Scholars for Truth, the editors of which are Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan - both members of that organization.

(btw, that's today.... First it was Jones and Wood, then just Jones, now Jones and Ryan... I asked somebody on the advisory board what was going on here, but he couldn't tell me.)
 
brumsen said:
Now I know that this is a fast-moving thread, but given that I have myself been accused of not answering questions, I cannot help but notice that quite a few direct questions from me have not been answered:

To JamesB
To Gravy
To Belz...

Apologies if I missed the answers to these questions.
Click to expand...

I already mentioned on the "journal" forum. I e-mailed Jones on a variety of issues regarding PNAC, including sending him the paper I wrote in response to Legge's paper (which mentioned PNAC). He changed some parts of his powerpoint to correct "mistakes" which I pointed out, but never responded to me.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Hi.

How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?

Then, look up the various Soviet exported arms, in calibers that include 12.5 mm, 25MM, the ZSU23, 57 MM, and beyond and see how many places such AAA is still in service.

Just a tip for your Google habits.

DR
Click to expand...

Phalanx is an anti-ship missile defense system. Vulcan? As in 20mm Vulcan cannon? Maybe its the gun of choice for the phalanx because it rapid rate of fire(100 rounds per second).

This is all nonsense though. There is a much easier way to determine if there is a missile/gun defense system, such as an FAA low-altitude chart for DC which show restricted airspace around the Pentagon. Let me save you the trouble, the airspace isnt restricted and if you look at an approach plate for the runway 15 viusal approach, it takes the airplane right over the Pentagon, less than 300' AGL.
No missile defenses, sorry.
 
JamesB said:
I already mentioned on the "journal" forum. I e-mailed Jones on a variety of issues regarding PNAC, including sending him the paper I wrote in response to Legge's paper (which mentioned PNAC). He changed some parts of his powerpoint to correct "mistakes" which I pointed out, but never responded to me.
Click to expand...
So I take it that you did not ask him your question about peer review?

eta: did you send your paper marked as a submission to the journal? If so, he owes you an (motivated) editorial decision. You should insist on that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom