Only a disinfo agent would say that no plane hit the Pentagon

[cjnewson88]

Why is it every truther theory sounds like it was imagined by a not particularly bight 5th Grader?

Because the 'not particularly bright 5th graders' are their target audience??

 

[cjnewson88]

Here is my last attempt to get through to 88. This is a photoshop from FSX.

Not entirely accurate, distance, approach angle, angle of attack, and bank not exactly correct, but near enough. You get the idea. If not, there is nothing more I can do.

 

[Clayton Moore]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

 

[FatFreddy88]

That picture is a pretty lame attempt at obfuscation. Look at the original.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

Those colors aren't there and there's nothing blocking the trees in the background. A blurry 757 would block the trees. Also, there's no shadow of the craft under the spot where you claim there is a 757. The silver object on the right of the picture is the nose of an aircraft and your picture ignores it. That nose is not the nose of a 757.

 

[jaydeehess]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

oh do please flesh that contention out

 

[George 152]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

Rubbish.
There's a little thing called Ground Effect you might care to look up !

 

[332nd]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

Why?

 

[Bell]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

Could you explain why?

 

[Animal]

That picture is a pretty lame attempt at obfuscation. Look at the original.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

Those colors aren't there and there's nothing blocking the trees in the background. A blurry 757 would block the trees. Also, there's no shadow of the craft under the spot where you claim there is a 757. The silver object on the right of the picture is the nose of an aircraft and your picture ignores it. That nose is not the nose of a 757.

You don't know much about camera imagery, shutter speed, Fstop, field of view and motion do you?

 

[cjnewson88]

That picture is a pretty lame attempt at obfuscation. Look at the original.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

Those colors aren't there and there's nothing blocking the trees in the background. A blurry 757 would block the trees. Also, there's no shadow of the craft under the spot where you claim there is a 757. The silver object on the right of the picture is the nose of an aircraft and your picture ignores it. That nose is not the nose of a 757.

Wrong. This picture I am using is the original. You are using a blurry internet knock off. The original which I am using shows a 757. You are lying to yourself and this forum.

 

[Crazytimes]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

We all know whats coming.....again.

 

[beachnut]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

561.580 mph! Not 500 mph. Please try to get a fact right about 911. You have no clue what happen on 911, you post proof in all your posts. Your game, fact free fantasy posts, based on nothing.

All planes flying close to the ground would crash? How do planes land?

Why would a plane crash flying low?

That picture is a pretty lame attempt at obfuscation. Look at the original.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

Those colors aren't there and there's nothing blocking the trees in the background. A blurry 757 would block the trees. Also, there's no shadow of the craft under the spot where you claim there is a 757. The silver object on the right of the picture is the nose of an aircraft and your picture ignores it. That nose is not the nose of a 757.

You have no idea what a 757 would look like with the low resolution "fish-eye" lens parking camera. You posted nonsense, believing lies about 911 without the benefit of evidence, or scientific study.

 

[twinstead]

Simple ignorant incredulity

 

[frenat]

Rubbish.
There's a little thing called Ground Effect you might care to look up !

Ground effect should not be an issue.

Ground effect is greatest at low speeds and high angles of attack. At high speeds and low or even negative angles of attack it is negligible.

To clarify, there are two types of ground effect. The normal ground effect increases at low speed and high angles of attack, exactly the conditions one would find in a landing saituation but definitely the opposite of the situation at the Pentagon.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

A second factor that influences the impact of trailing vortices on an aircraft is the speed at which it travels. A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong.

First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

Ram ground effect (the other type) does increase at high speeds but only takes effect "where the wing is at an altitude of h/c=0.1 or less."
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/51083/1/51083.pdf

h is the height and c is the chord or distance from the front of the wing to the back of the wing.

From here http://www.b757.info/database/boeing757200specifications.html we can see the maximum chord of the 757 wing is 8.2 meters or almost 27 feet. This means that the plane would have to be flying with the wings at less than 3 feet off the ground for ram ground effect to have any effect. Actually less as the chord of the 757 wing decreases along its length and the average chord would be even less. So the only type of ground effect that comes into play in this situation is the normal type (there are two, normal and ram as described in the pdf linked above) and we already know that normal ground effect decreases with speed and lower angle of attack

 

[cjnewson88]

 

[A W Smith]

You don't know much about camera imagery, shutter speed, Fstop, field of view and motion do you?

Wrong. This picture I am using is the original. You are using a blurry internet knock off. The original which I am using shows a 757. You are lying to yourself and this forum.

That picture is a pretty lame attempt at obfuscation. Look at the original.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

Those colors aren't there and there's nothing blocking the trees in the background. A blurry 757 would block the trees. Also, there's no shadow of the craft under the spot where you claim there is a 757. The silver object on the right of the picture is the nose of an aircraft and your picture ignores it. That nose is not the nose of a 757.

I am pretty sure there's actually two sets of almost identical photos from both lanes of the security gate, Its been a few years since i examined them.

camera 1


camera 2

 

[cjnewson88]

The first one shows the aircraft in full (the one I've been using), the second one has the aircraft mostly hidden behind the gate box.

However both are very poor quality compared to the ones which were released in 2009, and can be watched here;

 

[dafydd]

If flight 77 was flying that low to the ground at about 500 mph it would have crashed before it hit the Pentagon.

So you've never taken off or landed in a plane?

 

[FatFreddy88]

The first one shows the aircraft in full (the one I've been using),

No it doesn't. If there were a blurry image of a 757 where you say there is, it would block the trees in the background. The shadow of the 757 would be under the spot where you claim the 757 is.


I tried to post a comment on this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00

I brought up the issue of the lack of a shadow under the spot where the plane is claimed to be. A note came up saying the comment would have to be approved before it would appear. Let's see if it appears. I'll bet it doesn't.

 

[twinstead]

Why would the shadow be under the spot? It wasn't noon you know