Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The engine exhaust would have to be pointed at the ground somehow and it would have little to do with airspeed...or rather it would have to be going ridiculously slow with the nose high to do that. |
Quote:
Okay, last post on this subject. The mathematically identical engines had something to do with flight simulator where both engines give the same amount of thrust. In R.L. no two engines give/generate the exact same amount of thrust which makes it a lot harder to keep a 757 on course What altitude? In order to hit the pentagon the way they did, they had to fly extremely low. It has little to do with airspeed? I take it we are talking about the airspeed of the aircraft right? In order to hit a building at great speeds I think both engines had to be up and running at full throttle wouldn’t you say ?? The jet wash will fan out in a conical shape and an 757 creates more than enough of it to knock a few cars over |
Quote:
Is that what passes as knowledge to you? People who actually know what they are talking about must puzzle you because you assume everyone has your level of understanding and just decide to have a different opinion. At what rate would you say the jet wash "fans out"? Some simple math tells you that doubling the size of a circle quadruples it's area so as the jet wash fans out it loses velocity at 4 times the rate of expansion. That's ignoring the large forward speed of the engine and the exhausts interaction with the surrounding (static) air. It goes down really quickly. Anyway, the woods I play in are an air national guard training area and I've watched their jets skim the treetops with little effect and once had an A-10 scream directly overhead at about 100 feet when I was on my mountain bike and just about shit myself and I didn't feel the slightest breeze. Never heard it coming either so it was moving fast. So that's the way I form my opinions, with actual knowledge, experience and reasoning and all the people who can't understand how to do that are just brainless parrots to me; squawking whatever the other parrots squawk. |
Last time i promise.
Primary Function A-10 -- close air support, OA-10 - airborne forward air control Contractor Fairchild Republic Co. Power Plant Two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans Thrust 9,065 pounds each engine Length 53 feet, 4 inches (16.16 meters) Height 14 feet, 8 inches (4.42 meters) Wingspan 57 feet, 6 inches (17.42 meters) Speed 420 miles per hour (Mach 0.56) Ceiling 45,000 feet (13,636 meters) Maximum Takeoff Weight 51,000 pounds (22,950 kilograms) Range 800 miles (695 nautical miles) 757 Passengers Typical 2-class configuration Typical 1-class configuration 243 280 Cargo 2,370 cu ft (67.1 cu m) Engines maximum thrust Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B 43,500 lb (193.5 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW2037 36,600 lb (162.8 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW2040 40,100 (178.4kN) Pratt & Whitney PW2043 42,600 lb (189.4 kN) Maximum Fuel Capacity 11,466 gal (43,400 l) Maximum Takeoff Weight 272,500 lb (123,600 kg) Maximum Range 3,395 nautical miles (6,287 km) Cruise Speed Mach 0.80 1) note the difference in thrust rate :p 2) you failed your last physical didn't you? if you don't hear an A10 coming you must have some sort of a hearing problem. Planes don't come more sub sonic than the A-10 |
• One 757, with a wingspan of 124 ft 10 in, a length of 178 ft 7 in, a height 44 ft 6 in and a weight of 255,000 pounds going 530 MPH about 20 feet off the ground: About $80 million.
• Punching a neat hole in the Pentagon with no visible sign of plane wreckage: priceless. • One A10, with a wingspan of 57 ft 6 in, a length of 53 ft 4 in, a height of 14 ft 8 in, and a weight of 47,400 pounds with a maximum speed of 449 MPH at sea level: About $13 million. • A deaf and learning impaired dirt biker playing in the woods with crap in his diaper claiming he can extrapolate the effects of a 757 twenty feet off the ground from a dubiously reckoned 100 foot encounter with an A10: worthless. About as worthless as the link you googled up to support your claim that there are "sworn eyewitness testimonies" in the 911 Commission Report, which turns out to be a link to nothing more than an outline anyway. Maybe you were too busy looking up "information" and "jet wash" on google to actually view and comprehend your own link. One has to wonder if you've ever actually read it at any time. Here's the full report (on its "official" website, not the random copy you googled up) and guess what? There's not a single sworn testimony by an eyewitness to the Pentagon attack in the entire document. In fact, sections 1.1 and 9.3, which are the only sections dealing with flight 77 and the attack on the Pentagon, are fairly cursory and paraphrased encapsulations (the least extensively analyzed of the flights in fact) utterly devoid of any mention of reports of anyone on the ground who saw the impact occur. There is one mention of a pilot attempting pursuit who said "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir." (page 25-26) In context this is in the form of a deduction, not the reporting of direct observation. And then on page 33 you'll clearly notice on the timeline a gap of more than an hour between losing track of the craft altogether and confirming that this lost craft was the same that hit the Pentagon. Guess you were just lying your way through yet another attempt to appear informed, bolstered by your excellent grasp of search engines to compensate for your abject lack of comprehension, throwing around numbers like "160 witnesses" to attempt to gloss over your preferential, emotionally invested position of choosing to believe the "official view"--which you deny even exists. (And again, if posting a link to the 911 Commission Report wasn't supposed to be an invocation of an "official view," then what is the point? You claim there's no such thing as an "official view" but refer to this document with the apparent belief that everyone who reads it should consider it absolute gospel truth, claiming it has sworn eyewitness accounts.) Maybe you should actually watch the link esteeaz provided which actually does have references from no less than 12 eyewitnesses which raise some interesting albeit vague and thoroughly inconclusive questions. On the basis of your emphasis of the importance of eyewitness testimony alone it would seem it might carry more weight to you than a document which you claimed included eyewitness accounts, but that in reality does not. At least it's an interesting trick that you were apparently able to reconstruct the entire event perfectly in your little head on the basis of eyewitness testimonies that don't even exist according to an official view that you deny exists but were able to link people to even though you didn't read it yourself... I'm thinking perhaps you only recently learned to read and understand English, this might account for your profound lack of understanding of the ordinary usage of words which deviate slightly from the rote dictionary definitions. For instance "sound" does not always indicate an audible vibration or voice. In practice, written material may "sound" intelligent or moronic. You see, people who are more interested in the larger meaning of things often use a kind of inferential language around other adults, it's simply more expedient than trying to explain everything as if you're talking to an ADD four-year-old, which can get awfully nauseating after a while. Perhaps you should get some friends and try going out on a Saturday night instead of hanging around your mom's house googling words like a pimply little geek, and you might learn something about normal human communications. Also, it's pretty funny that apparently you actually believed me when I said that I saved your picture, even though I was lying and I am a clearly disreputable 'crackpot source.' Just goes to show that you're not quite as good at detecting truth and lies as you claim to be, but then frankly we all already knew that. In this case, as in most others, it seems your vanity and enormous ego got in the way of your preternaturally acute detective abilities. At any rate, I'm sure this will all go 100 feet over your head like a squealing A10, but I really don't care, nor do I care what sounds you will subsequently make about it. The only reason I reply to your gurgling at all is that I admittedly get a bit of a sadistic kick out of watching you mock yourself with your hilarious little intellectual pretensions. Quote:
You're so Mensa. That reminds me a little of the Monty Python skit where the guy invents the joke that's so funny he dies laughing and they have to translate it into German one word at a time so as not to kill the translators so they can use it as a secret weapon against the Germans. Carry on. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ho-hum, eyewitness, eyewitness, eyewitness. A lie repeated often enough.... Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Common sense tells me the exhaust noise is heading rearward and fanning out, and with nothing to reflect it forward it won't be heard from the front. Anyone else have experience in this sort of thing? |
RAS
Don't even bother with this troll anymore, he lives on it, the attention span I ment. I'm done feeding it BTW, before putting you on my ignore list albed, you didn't even have the balls to put a name to the other user phrase you took as example. Why is that? Afraid that wolfie will bite your ass off like the time you trashed his favorite member? Anyway, have a nice life. |
Yeah, I'm terrified of something that never happened except in your imagination.
The important thing is YOU REMEMBERED. You actually have a functioning brain cell. |
1 Attachment(s)
hummm
|
Quote:
Ok - and Bomb-Proof Windows? I searched the net It seems they do not exsist. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
So they lied you are saying. What the hell is blast resistant? The wind shield in my car is blast resistant. How many windows are blast-resistant? All of them? One of them? I really doubt every window is, also this is a militaty building, i don't think the blue-prints or construction are public knowledge. Maybe they are, doesn't really matter, fact is the Doc is telling half-truths at best. |
If you ment that the geo channel lied, I don't think so, they used a different term or word. They could have also said laminated glass.
If you're referring testimony of some of the escapee, maybe they were lucky enough to pop out one of the dammaged window, but breaking it, I seriously doubt it. The dupont company is best suited to explain what is "blast resistant windows" http://www.dupont.com/safetyglass/lgn/stories/2111.html here is a snippet of info on how resistant those windows are Quote:
|
I admit to being almost totally ignorant about this. Can someone tell me please, if the plane did not hit the Pentagon, then what is supposed to have happened to the plane & the people in it? And what is supposed to have hit the Pentagon?
|
Heh-heh, they're not out to explain anything, just backstab the authority figures their twisted mentality drives them to hate. Many seem to have a touch of integrity and are reluctant to actually proclaim they really believe the rhetoric they're spouting; or more accurately, linking to. None I've seen actually have the intelligence to come up with alternate scenarios.
Plenty of websites if you search. Frankly google gives more of those stupid sites than reputable ones when you go looking for facts on your own. |
Quote:
Quote:
Couple other quotes from your links... From nationalgeographic.com ---On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by terrorists who flew the plane into the Pentagon's west wall, killing 189 people. Pentagon 9-11 follows the events that led to the worst day of terrorist attacks on American soil.--- architectureweek.com - Badly damaged by the impact of a hijacked 757 jet airplane on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 at 9:43am, in the same set of attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York. |
hummm
You know damn well that these are not my wiews on the subject. What you posted are the "official" views/truth according to the mainstream media. As to why you needed to post what I do not think in bold letters, only you, have the answer. But still, I really want one of those passport that are fireproof and building demolition proof. I wonder what type of magical paper could withstand fire, a crashed building and still be intact. See you tomorrow... Belle Click on malvachat link and try to draw your own conclusions. Once you get out of the mainstream media, you might not want to go back. malvachat's link http://911research.wtc7.net/contents.html The WTC 7 building, the last one who fell down, is quite an interesting topic. Like he said, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. BTW, Malvachat, I really enjoy your style of writing :) |
Quote:
Always eager to recruit new converts though. Don't think, don't criticize, just accept. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)