six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter T.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
ozeco41
Philosopher
To what purpose? Why is it of any interest?
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Before getting into that it would be best to establish agreement that at the 0;07 mark the fuselage is level which shows a flat trajectory at the moment of impact. Here's the video again so that you can double-check before committing .
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9Nm15WjJIbHB4TFE=&b=13
Last edited:
Strawman much? Where does the official story argue that UA 175 dived into the building?
Besides, your little "anomaly" makes about as much sense as a football bat. We agree that a plane did actually hit the building yes? If that's the case - conspiracy or no conspiracy, what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Try actually thinking things through logically and/or making sense, it'll do wonders for your credibility here. You truthers make my head hurt.
A decent at 590 mph would be very shallow looking. It looks like it was going about 5 to 10 feet down per 207 feet. At 800 feet per second that is 20 to 40 feet per second down, and that in VVI would be 1200 to 2400.
That is a descent! I don't think people have a understanding for flying and what a descent looks likes.
Normal landings are a dive of 2.5 degrees or so until the flare and landing.
That would be 500 to 750 on the VVI; so the what looks like level on 911 could be a dive 2 to 4 times greater than descent for landing.
We have been spammed again by BS.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Jeez...did I hold up a Crusifix or something ?
I stopped the video at the 0:07 mark, and noticed once I had done so that not only was the plane not descending, it was not moving forward either. It was completely motionless!
So that raises the troublesome question: how could a plane that was completely motionless at 0:07 have crashed at high speed into a building one second later?
Respectfully,
Myriad
So that raises the troublesome question: how could a plane that was completely motionless at 0:07 have crashed at high speed into a building one second later?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Source for the claim that "the plane is supposed to have dived into the building" rather than dived to gain speed but levelled out just before hitting the building? And are you familiar with the concept of angle of attack? (Google may help here.) My thoughts are that (a) there's no reason why the plane flying level at impact is inconsistent with the generally accepted view of events, and (b) the attitude of the fuselage doesn't unambiguously establish the rate of descent of the plane anyway.
Incidentally, have you ever seen an airliner landing? Was the fuselage pointing downwards when the main wheels hit the runway?
Dave
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Thanks Myriad. The main thing to extract from your comment is that the plane was not descending. It was in a level attitude. It seems we are reaching consensus on this point.
Last edited:
Why link through a proxy site?
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,977
I was listening to a Truther radio show yesterday and heard two Troofers claiming that not only is nano-thermite explosive (per the latest "peer-reviewed" paper), but that it's also a quiet explosive. Anybody know if they made that particular claim?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I am simply at a loss to understand how anyone can make such a post as this and ever expect to be taken seriously by anybody.
Dave
A W Smith
Philosopher
The main thing to extract from my comment is that a single frame shows neither how fast it's moving forward nor how fast it's descending. That's a fail.
That the single frame is clear enough to determine whether or not it's in a level attitude (a single degree of descent is not a level attitude, as has been pointed out) is debatable. You might make a better case for that point by showing step by step how you measured the plane's attitude from the video frame. (Be sure to establish how level the camera is, and account for any optical distortion that would be expected from the upward viewing angle.)
But even if the plane is indeed level to within a part of a degree, the attitude by itself doesn't indicate the vertical climb or descent rate. As I learned the first time I tried canoeing down a narrow winding river with a strong current in the New Jersey pine barrens, the direction a vehicle is pointing is not necessarily the same as the direction it's moving.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
bill,
.
Replies to your "observation":
.
In other words:
six7s: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
ozeco41: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
apathoid: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
beachnut: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
Myriad: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
Dave Rogers: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
To which, I would add my observation that: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
Your conclusion from a careful reading of the feedback provided??
Bill, we ARE reaching a consensus.
It appears that it is not exactly the same consensus that you have in mind.
tk
.
.
Replies to your "observation":
.
In other words:
six7s: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
ozeco41: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
apathoid: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
beachnut: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
Myriad: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
Dave Rogers: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
To which, I would add my observation that: "Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about."
Your conclusion from a careful reading of the feedback provided??
Bill, we ARE reaching a consensus.
It appears that it is not exactly the same consensus that you have in mind.
tk
.
Bill is lost in any technical discussion. Also in any discussion that requires research or logic.
But he feels better when there are "others" around the periphery, jeering at his opponents and saying "bill, you sure whipped 'em in that argument".
tom
They make it and imply it.
Aircraft can change their attitudes but that does not mean that they aren't still rising or descending though that probably bleeds off (gravity in the case of rising and drag in the case of falling). If one wants an example of a plane in essentially horizontal flight that is still descending one might look at the Thunderbird crash at Mountain Home, Idaho airshow back in 2003.
A Readers Digest article about what the pilot had to contend with in his fight to survive includes the fact that his initial sink rate was 8,400 fpm -- it was the fact he didn't have enough altitude to complete the loop that caused the crash. If he ejected at that point the sink rate would have slammed him into the ground despite the ejection seat and parachute.
In the moments before he ejected he got the F-16 flying horizontal at 280 mph about 140 feet off the ground. By the time, a fraction of a second, the ejection system got him out of the plane, it had fallen another 100 feet. A fraction of a second later, the plane hit the ground.
I am not implying that the airliners were doing that kind of dive (or acrobatics), but merely pointing out that flying essentially level after a dive does not necessarily mean the plane is not descending, at least for awhile. Since the question was the airliner was level so it couldn't be descending though "everyone" says it had been in a dive.
If the issue is why would the hijacker level the airliner, one way to look at it -- the hijacker pilot had a point of the building he wanted to hit and if he thought that he was going to miss it he might try and correct where the plane was headed. Speculative, of course, but not unreasonable.
A Readers Digest article about what the pilot had to contend with in his fight to survive includes the fact that his initial sink rate was 8,400 fpm -- it was the fact he didn't have enough altitude to complete the loop that caused the crash. If he ejected at that point the sink rate would have slammed him into the ground despite the ejection seat and parachute.
In the moments before he ejected he got the F-16 flying horizontal at 280 mph about 140 feet off the ground. By the time, a fraction of a second, the ejection system got him out of the plane, it had fallen another 100 feet. A fraction of a second later, the plane hit the ground.
I am not implying that the airliners were doing that kind of dive (or acrobatics), but merely pointing out that flying essentially level after a dive does not necessarily mean the plane is not descending, at least for awhile. Since the question was the airliner was level so it couldn't be descending though "everyone" says it had been in a dive.
If the issue is why would the hijacker level the airliner, one way to look at it -- the hijacker pilot had a point of the building he wanted to hit and if he thought that he was going to miss it he might try and correct where the plane was headed. Speculative, of course, but not unreasonable.
.
This is one of bill_smith's adamant assertions.
He even has a video that he claims "proves" the point.
If you ask him nicely, I'm sure that he'll be happy to debate the issue. If I were you, tho, I'd be prepared to be run "from pillar to post" with his penetrating logic.
tom
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
How does something explode and not make a shock wave in the air? (sound)
- Status