RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked?

RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

thornhappy -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 7:32:10 PM)
I fixed that after finding a mach calculator, 0.8m at sea level's 500 mph. that would be a hell of a ride! as a bit of trivia.... a DC-8 broke the sound barrier out at Edwards AFB in 1961. They did it at 40,350 feet and the true airspeed was over 660 mph. http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

Thadius -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 7:32:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Come on. There's no such thing as "sea level speed." If the damn thing is in the air, and can fly fast, it can fly that fast at sea level. And, as Thadius noted, aided by gravity, quite a bit faster--like any other falling object. I guess that would depend on where you were on the planet, Trying to fly at 500mph through Colorado would definitely limit ones speed.[;)]

Musicmystery -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 7:32:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: rachel529 im fairly sure that in a jetliner, if you go too far nose down it isnt recoverable... but the pentagon plane was supposed to have flown level close to the ground for a minute there- it didnt dive in It is more about speed and altitude when it comes to recovery. Speed and altitude for the obvious reason of inertia continuing the path into the ground before the aircraft regains horizontal flight. Also, at a given speed for each aircraft the control surfaces are unable to overcome the forces. That being said it is common for gliders to trade altitude for speed, that speed carries over for awhile in the horizontal glide. Same principal applies here. Not that they were trying to gain speed, but perhaps trying to get a better view of the target (this of course is speculation on my part). I noticed that Tim looked up the speed ratings for the 757, and 500 mph is right in the sweet spot for that particular plane. Not to mention that the intent wasn't to recover control.

Aneirin -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 7:38:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rachel529 im fairly sure that in a jetliner, if you go too far nose down it isnt recoverable... but the pentagon plane was supposed to have flown level close to the ground for a minute there- it didnt dive in To fly level at that altitude with an airliner for a few seconds never mind a minute before hitting something has got to be an outstanding piece of airmanship, it strikes me as something not many if any airline pilots can do from normal high altitude and travel. The pilot that managed to belly land an airliner in a river recently was doing it from low level and low airspeed devoid of built up areas which pose as obstacles to level and low flight.

Thadius -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 7:47:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin quote: ORIGINAL: rachel529 im fairly sure that in a jetliner, if you go too far nose down it isnt recoverable... but the pentagon plane was supposed to have flown level close to the ground for a minute there- it didnt dive in To fly level at that altitude with an airliner for a few seconds never mind a minute before hitting something has got to be an outstanding piece of airmanship, it strikes me as something not many if any airline pilots can do from normal high altitude and travel. The pilot that managed to belly land an airliner in a river recently was doing it from low level and low airspeed devoid of built up areas which pose as obstacles to level and low flight. You would be surprised at what autopilot is capable of. One amazing feat is the complete hands off landing of F-18s on a carrier deck. Keeping an aircraft at a constant altitude is old hat. Reports suggest these guys did get some flight training, so setting the autopilot to maintain altitude isn't out of the realm of possibilities. Even if it wasn't flown by the computer, these guys weren't all that worried about landing safely.

Raiikun -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 7:53:37 PM)
I knew someone who was in the area (about a mile and a half away IIRC). Haven't kept in touch with him for years (We just played Everquest together at the time). He missed the first plane hitting, but after hearing about it, he was standing outside grabbing pictures when the second plane came. He did show us his photos he'd taken, including photos of the second plane incoming. I think we've all seen the videos of the second plane hitting the tower (same one that I'm assuming the tinfoil hat group are claiming is faked). The photos this guy had very much matched what the video showed. And even without that, there's pretty much nothing about the whole event that day that hasn't quite been adequately explained by experts as having been caused by planes.

Aneirin -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 7:58:36 PM)
With experience of autopilot both from a flying point of view and maintenance point of view, they aren't all that reliable and the pilots I have known would not trust it at low altitude due to the lack of room to manoeuvre if the tits up scenario came into play.

Musicmystery -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:01:18 PM)
Gosh. A plane flown like that could crash....into a tower, or a building, or a field....

Thadius -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:02:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin With experience of autopilot both from a flying point of view and maintenance point of view, they aren't all that reliable and the pilots I have known would not trust it at low altitude due to the lack of room to manoeuvre if the tits up scenario came into play. How much maneuvering do you think they planned on doing? For that matter do you think they were worried about being in a tits up scenario (they were on their way to cause that precisely). Which aircraft do you have experience with and which autopilot system have you worked on? Oh and how long ago?

AnimusRex -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin With experience of autopilot both from a flying point of view and maintenance point of view, they aren't all that reliable and the pilots I have known would not trust it at low altitude due to the lack of room to manoeuvre if the tits up scenario came into play. Yeah, if they weren't careful, they might crash into a building, or two.

rachel529 -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:02:41 PM)
i know altitude affects maximum airspeed, because of how thick the air is. and planes cant fly as fast close to the ground as they can at altitude- thornhappys link showed that in a simulator it could be done.however, an experienced pilot in a simulator is different than a poorly trained pilot who went to cessna schoolflying a jumbo jet at sea level at top speed. i highly doubt that plane could go so fast at sea level even with running room to get up to speed(which it didnt have). a fighter with a max speed of mach 2 can barely go mach 1 at sea level. also, since we have now come to the acceptance that plane bodies are beercan flimsy, how did one punch that big of a hole through three layers of reinforced concrete?

Musicmystery -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:06:25 PM)
Don't they teach physics in school anymore? How does a running dog take down someone four times its weight....

Thadius -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:06:54 PM)
Ever step on one of them flimsy pieces of plastic accesories that come with a doll? Lets try this another way. The speed of the plane times the mass of the plane = enough energy to penetrate the wall of the pentagon.

Aneirin -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin With experience of autopilot both from a flying point of view and maintenance point of view, they aren't all that reliable and the pilots I have known would not trust it at low altitude due to the lack of room to manoeuvre if the tits up scenario came into play. How much maneuvering do you think they planned on doing? For that matter do you think they were worried about being in a tits up scenario (they were on their way to cause that precisely). Which aircraft do you have experience with and which autopilot system have you worked on? Oh and how long ago? With regards to the reported aircraft that punched such a deep hole in the Pentagon, it is obvious the target was the Pentagon, to fly low and level for a time to strike the building as it seemed at ground level, anything other than a direct hit would have been a tits up scenario as regards to the terrorist intentions, unless they had really planned to bellypan the plane into the grass outside the Pentagon. And another thing, I saw a video on the youtube where an F4 Phantom was piled ito reinforced concrete to see what would happen in if the scenario came into being that someone wished to pile an aircraft into a nucler powerstation. The video demonstrated the Aluminium aircraft atomised on contact with the reinforced concrete block made to simulate the outer skin of a nuclear reactor building. What was the Pentagon made out of, plaster or reinforced concrete ? Aircraft, Vickers VC10

thornhappy -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:18:51 PM)
The velocity for a given mach number varies with altitude, since the speed of sound varies with altitude. For instance, 500mph at sea level is 0.656m. 500mph at 30000 feet is 0.736m. Doing high mach at low altitudes puts a lot of aerodynamic stress on the airframe. Do you remember when the shuttle launches, and at a certain point they do "throttle back", fly for a bit, and then go "throttle up"? That's because they were going through a stretch of atmosphere that induces high aerodynamic stress ("high q"). Generally you're limited to mach 1 at sea level. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Come on. There's no such thing as "sea level speed." If the damn thing is in the air, and can fly fast, it can fly that fast at sea level. And, as Thadius noted, aided by gravity, quite a bit faster--like any other falling object.

thornhappy -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:21:16 PM)
hunk, why do you say it was a missile? Was that due to the small size of the engine disk/blade assembly? Some folks thought that, but didn't realize that the disk/blade assembly size changes throughout the engine.

thornhappy -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:26:19 PM)
Planes are not beercans. They've got beams and spars in there to provide strength. The load's not born by the skin. A plane has a shitload of mass, and since kinetic energy goes by velocity squared, it had a shitload of kinetic energy (K.E. = 0.5massvelocity_squared). It also has a lot of momentum (M = massvelocity). You'll get through a lot of stuff with high enough KE. Besides, you saw that there were eye witnesses, right? quote:* ORIGINAL: rachel529 i know altitude affects maximum airspeed, because of how thick the air is. and planes cant fly as fast close to the ground as they can at altitude- thornhappys link showed that in a simulator it could be done.however, an experienced pilot in a simulator is different than a poorly trained pilot who went to cessna schoolflying a jumbo jet at sea level at top speed. i highly doubt that plane could go so fast at sea level even with running room to get up to speed(which it didnt have). a fighter with a max speed of mach 2 can barely go mach 1 at sea level. also, since we have now come to the acceptance that plane bodies are beercan flimsy, how did one punch that big of a hole through three layers of reinforced concrete?

AnimusRex -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:27:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rachel529 i know altitude affects maximum airspeed, because of how thick the air is. and planes cant fly as fast close to the ground as they can at altitude- thornhappys link showed that in a simulator it could be done.however, an experienced pilot in a simulator is different than a poorly trained pilot who went to cessna schoolflying a jumbo jet at sea level at top speed. i highly doubt that plane could go so fast at sea level even with running room to get up to speed(which it didnt have). a fighter with a max speed of mach 2 can barely go mach 1 at sea level. also, since we have now come to the acceptance that plane bodies are beercan flimsy, how did one punch that big of a hole through three layers of reinforced concrete? I am too fucking lazy but you can find out for yourself: How much does a fully loaded and fueld jet weight? about 300 tons, maybe as much as 330 tons. What is the area in square feet of the fuselage? (the area of the profile, looking straight on) My estimate- about 400 sf. how fast was all this mass traveling? 350 mph give or take. Knowing that, one can calculate exactly how much force was being exerted on the wall of the Pentagon. How much force could the wall resist before collapsing? The walls are 24 inches deep, of limestone, brick and concrete. An engineer can calculate exactly how much force it would take to push through a 24 inch deep wall. Basically, you have 300 tons of steel and aluminum moving at 350 miles per hour, all of which is concentrated in a small profile of maybe a couple hundred square feet. Yeah, that does sound pretty reasonable that it would cause that much damage. Its like a tiny one ounce bullet traveling at 1200 feet per second, smashing a hole in a wall. Not surprising at all. Here is a good graphic by the Seattle PI by way of Snopes that shows the damage and wall construction. But see, rachel, here is the thing- you don't know how much force was in that plane, and you don't know how much was needed; but instead of using logic and calculation, you are basing you entire thinking on your vague suspicion that the government must be lying, must be trying to hide something. Right now, the government's version of events seems the most plausible. If you have a better one, lets hear it. vague suspicions and questions that you cant answer aren't good enough.

AnimusRex -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy A plane has a shitload of mass, and since kinetic energy goes by velocity squared, it had a shitload of kinetic energy (K.E. = 0.5massvelocity_squared). It also has a lot of momentum (M = mass*velocity). You'll get through a lot of stuff with high enough KE. Stop talking like that, missy...you are making me hard.

Jeffff -> RE: 911----All those People! Why Hasnt Anyone Talked? (2/17/2010 8:32:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy A plane has a shitload of mass, and since kinetic energy goes by velocity squared, it had a shitload of kinetic energy (K.E. = 0.5massvelocity_squared). It also has a lot of momentum (M = mass*velocity). You'll get through a lot of stuff with high enough KE. Stop talking like that, missy...you are making me hard. "shitload", it's those technical terms that arouse me!

Page: << < prev 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875