Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[tfk]

fez,

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.

Not quite.

He never got the plane "flying level". If he did, there would have been no reason to eject.

The point is that there is a difference between the attitude (the direction that the nose is pointed with respect to the ground) and the "velocity vector" (the direction that the c.g. of the plane is heading). The plane skids thru the air.

When you eject, you go out approximately 90° to the attitude. You combine the vertical component of the ejection seat at this angle to the ground to get the seat's vertical speed with respect to the plane. And then you add vertical component of the plane's velocity vector with respect to the ground to get the all-important vertical speed with respect to the ground.

You can see that, if you punch out with the nose pointing straight down, there is NO vertical component provided by the seat rockets. You'll carry all of the plane's descent speed. If you punch out with the same plane descent speed, but the plane happens to be level, then your seat carries ALL of the vertical component of the rockets, and your descent speed will be the descent speed of the plane MINUS the ascent speed of the rockets.

This pilot was getting his nose up to horizontal in order to gain all the speed of the seat rockets. The nose was horizontal (attitude) at 140' AGL even while the plane's CG was descending rapidly.

tom

 

[Hokulele]

For bill smith.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128186

 

[bill smith]

For bill smith.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128186

Thanks. That will be useful.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This makes me wonder about the fact that the plane is supposed to have dived into the building.

You're confused. The generally accepted account has the plane flying relatively low and descending relatively slowly in its final approach.

It's truthers who believe that this is a sign of an ace pilot, and that it would have been easier for an "amateur" pilot to simply dive the plane into the roof of the Pentagon.

How does something explode and not make a shock wave in the air? (sound)

Very carefully.

 

[bill smith]

You're confused. The generally accepted account has the plane flying relatively low and descending relatively slowly in its final approach.

It's truthers who believe that this is a sign of an ace pilot, and that it would have been easier for an "amateur" pilot to simply dive the plane into the roof of the Pentagon.




Very carefully.

When I think back to 9/11 my abiding mental image of the plane hitting TC2 is always of a plane diving into the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPR0hw-mqnk&feature=related 5-6 00:50-55 mark

 

[Reheat]

.......[not necessary to quote]

Your explanation is correct, tfk. The seats are all 0/0 now, but if there is a downward vector when leaving the aircraft then one must still have sufficient altitude remaining for chute opening etc.....

This is true for the F-16, but not always true for all aircraft. The B-58 Hustler had a clam shell that I believe was powered by a rocket motor with a directional nozzle. But, I'm not absolutely sure there was a separate rocket motor and I'm not inclined to research it now.

The F-111 was superb in this regard. The rocket motor powering the ejection of the capsule was directional and it also sensed speed. If the ejection was at low speed the trajectory of the capsule was nearly a % 100 upward trajectory. However, if the speed was fast the nozzle would direct the capsule in a near horizontal vector and deploy a drag shoot prior to opening the main parachute. Quite a neat system.

I didn't always work correctly. For example, an aircraft went into a HARD nose down attitude at traffic pattern altitude due to a malfunctioning pitch damper. Although the crew attempted to eject immediately, they did not survive because the nozzle on the capsule rocket motor separated and did not create the upward trajectory. They were at about 1000' when they ejected, but impacted into trees prior to chute opening.

The trajectory of the aircraft (the resultant vector) plays a huge role in this discussion.

I hope I've added something as this is a pleasant break from the stuff at ATS.....

ETA: Sorry, bill. You really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

When I think back to 9/11 my abiding mental image of the plane hitting TC2 is always of a plane diving into the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPR0hw-mqnk&feature=related 5-6 00:50-55 mark

Whoops. For some reason I thought you were referring to the Flight 77 and the Pentagon. Looks like I was the one confused.

/me sits in the corner for 10 minutes.

 

[fezzic]

I would defer to those who actually fly planes, which I do not (except in flight sims for us non-pilots who just want to have fun ).

I would point out that the plane was flying horizontal but had significant sink rate yet and he wasn't going to make it because the ground in the way. I can see how one might infer that I "meant" it was flying level without any sink rate but the rest of what I wrote there would have given notice that I did not mean that.

I will just point out that mentioning that incident was the only instance I could think of where how the aircraft was oriented didn't mean that it wasn't moving in the vertical axis as well. Which is what I thought Bill Smith was alluding to.

 

[tfk]

Whoops. For some reason I thought you were referring to the Flight 77 and the Pentagon. Looks like I was the one confused.

* Cl1mh4224rd sits in the corner for 10 minutes.

Don't feel bad.

Bill's just as wrong about Flight 77 as he is about Flight 175.

Give yourself ESP points for anticipating his next batch of silly statements.



tom

 

[tfk]

fez,

I would defer to those who actually fly planes, which I do not (except in flight sims for us non-pilots who just want to have fun ).

I would point out that the plane was flying horizontal but had significant sink rate yet and he wasn't going to make it because the ground in the way. I can see how one might infer that I "meant" it was flying level without any sink rate but the rest of what I wrote there would have given notice that I did not mean that.

I will just point out that mentioning that incident was the only instance I could think of where how the aircraft was oriented didn't mean that it wasn't moving in the vertical axis as well. Which is what I thought Bill Smith was alluding to.

No prob at all, fez.

It was clear that you got the gist of what was going on. I just thought I'd help clarify some of the terminology for other readers.

I also wanted to get across to you the critical importance of the velocity vector. In the "old" days (before Heads Up Displays & mongo computing power), the pilot's brain (or rather the seat of his pants) was constantly attempting to calculate this critical value in all risky flying near the ground or other planes. The ability of the computer to tell the pilot exactly what direction his plane is going take a boat load of the "pucker factor" out of a bunch of these maneuvers.

For example, if you're flying really low, you simply keep that VV dot just slightly above that approaching ridge line, and you'll clear it. People are also quite good at calculating "rates". In the case of a low pull out, like the crash you described, you'd look at the rate that your velocity vector is coming up to horizontal, and compare it to the rate at which you are losing altitude. As long as the vv is winning that race, you're OK. If not, you're gonna have some splainin' to do when you get back to the hanger.

In general, the more G's you're pulling, the greater the divergence between your "waterline" (the direction the nose is pointing, from the pilot's perspective) and your velocity vector.

I don't know which sim you use. X-planes is a good one, because it's got very realistic flight dynamics. Others (especially MS) have some very unrealistic dynamics. And these might get you into some bad habits.

A good way to check is to select a large commercial jet (e.g, 747), let the engines spool down to idle during final approach, let the plane get a little below the glide slope, and suddenly go to full power. If the plane quickly starts to gain speed, the the flight dyanamics suck. In real life, it'll take a couple seconds for the turbines to spool up and several more seconds for the plane to start gaining speed. A classic way to get behind the curve & put the plane into the ground. (A common occurance as pilots transitioned from props to jets.) This is exactly the reason that, in the old days, jets would land with the engines at high power. Quicker response if something went wrong. They don't have to do this with the new jets. Better computers.

Anyway, enjoy.

tk

 

[240-185]

I have updated my crackpot index. To get there, see my sig once again
One of you has noticed that the highest score possible is now at 800.

Now, you can enter the truther's nick after the evaluation. Doing so will add an entry in a file, so I can quickly see who is an hardcore truther

The log will be at http://gilou82.free.fr/CEC/log.txt
Only the four first letters of the nick will be kept.

You don't have to enter his/her nick if you don't want the result to be stored.

 

[Brainster]

The latest style in Troofer:

I get them all the time in the comments section now, and they usually go something like this:

"I'm not a Truther but I do have some questions and I'm very disappointed in the tone around here...."

They have a habit of posting in old comments sections on the blog, years after the posts that they are commenting on. Over here, it's a little more obvious when they do it because the threads float to the top.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yah it's their own kindergarten version of "psyops". Play the passive card, get in, get a feel, then show them where they are wrong.

We call it the "Mark of Woo" here, and I love watching it blossom.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

Yesterday we were talking about the flat trajectory in which flight 175 entered WTC2. Have a look at this slideshow and step it through to impact. Is this plane at a considerable angle to he building quite unlike a flat trajectory ?. In passing pay attenton to the smoke which appears to be completely static as in a photograph.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/

 

[BigAl]

Yesterday we were talking about the flat trajectory in which flight 175 entered WTC2. Have a look at this slideshow and step it through to impact. Is this plane at a considerable angle to he building quite unlike a flat trajectory ?. In passing pay attenton to the smoke which appears to be completely static as in a photograph.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/

What is this supposed to be evidence of?

All the occupants of Flight 77 and all the airplane body that wasn't consumed by fire were found inside the Pentagon.

What is your point?

 

[bill smith]

What is this supposed to be evidence of?

All the occupants of Flight 77 and all the airplane body that wasn't consumed by fire were found inside the Pentagon.

What is your point?

Well it's quite obvious that you missed the point by a mile Al. So I'll just expand a little on that post for your added convenience. Pay a little attention this time.

Yesterday we were talking about the flat trajectory in which flight 175 entered WTC2
. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6myZ2HlpxLQ Level plane

Have a look at this slideshow and step it through to impact. Is this plane at a considerable angle to he building quite unlike the flat trajectory ?. In passing pay attention to the smoke which appears to be completely static as in a photograph.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/ Angled plane (slideshow)

 

[BigAl]

Well it's quite obvious that you missed the point by a mile Al. So I'll just expand a little on that post for your added convenience. Pay a little attention this time.

Yesterday we were talking about the flat trajectory in which flight 175 entered WTC2
. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6myZ2HlpxLQ Level plane

Have a look at this slideshow and step it through to impact. Is this plane at a considerable angle to he building quite unlike the flat trajectory ?. In passing pay attenton to the smoke which appears to be completely static as in a photograph.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/ Angled plane (slideshow)

Given that Flight 77 and all the occupants were found inside the Pentagon, what hypothesis are you arguing for?

 

[Myriad]

Yesterday we were talking about the flat trajectory in which flight 175 entered WTC2. Have a look at this slideshow and step it through to impact. Is this plane at a considerable angle to he building quite unlike a flat trajectory ?. In passing pay attenton to the smoke which appears to be completely static as in a photograph.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/

Try this experiment. Get a camera and go to any city that has buildings more than a few stories tall. Look for buildings with walls that are vertical and roof lines that are horizontal. Once you get the hang of it, you should be able to spot quite a few.

Now, walk around near those buildings and take pictures from various places looking up toward their tops. (Safety first! Watch out for traffic. Also, best to go in the daytime, unless your camera has a really big flash gun.)

Examine your pictures. See all the crazy angles? Roof lines will not always be horizontal in the photos. Walls will not always be vertical in the photos.

There are two explanations.

1. The buildings just happened to start falling over just at the moment you photographed them, but you didn't notice them falling over and the news media covered it up.

2. The angle from which a photograph is taken affects the angle of the images of photographed objects in the frame.

Which explanation do you think is more likely?

Now, can you apply this lesson to your question about the airplane photo? I bet you can if you try. What is the answer?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Slayhamlet]

Well it's quite obvious that you missed the point by a mile Al. So I'll just expand a little on that post for your added convenience. Pay a little attention this time.

Yesterday we were talking about the flat trajectory in which flight 175 entered WTC2
. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6myZ2HlpxLQ Level plane

Have a look at this slideshow and step it through to impact. Is this plane at a considerable angle to he building quite unlike the flat trajectory ?. In passing pay attention to the smoke which appears to be completely static as in a photograph.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/ Angled plane (slideshow)

No, they're both relatively level in terms of trajectory. You just fail to understand perspective, as with most other things in life.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Bill, you could get a feeling of just how different the two cameras' perspectives are if you'd actually watch the videos for longer than the deranged lady from your twoof website wants you to.

Watch how far the camera zooms out at the 32 second mark:


Now pay attention to the location of the camera when zoomed out at the end of this video (from the same camera as webfairy's clip):


Now, with both videos paused, compare and contrast the position of each as relative to Two World Trade, and then perhaps actually think for once in your life.

Could you do that for us, Bill?