peteweaver
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,006
Excellent comparison between landing speeds and low level high speed flight in that video Gravy.
A plane going 463 KIAS, over 700 feet per second. He hit the light post and all in less than 2 seconds. A 250,000 pound airplane would cut those lamppost off and not even feel it. The trailer a few feet from the building would only be felt for 0.05 second before your brain was against the windscreen as you blast into the Pentagon.
As if the plane somehow flew around carefully aiming at, and hitting, those objects.
The striking of light poles, a trailer, and a fence all occurred within a second, Swing.
Can anyone tell Swing the plane was moving 700 feet a second. Can the tell him a 70 pound pole will give up against a 250,000 pound aircraft.
This is a big line of dogs ----
And that is that on what Swing has posted on flying.
Last edited:
Magenta
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,305
Only the last link worked for me. The F-111s are based just west of here. For our spring Riverfire festival they do a dump-and-burn run down the river and across the city in the evening. It's a spectacular sight and sound experience.
Very little, it would appear. Grandpa should have informed you that in the U.S., civilian pilots don't have licenses. They hold certificates granted to them by the FAA, which allow them certain privileges under the Federal Aviation Regulations. A Commercial certificate holder is allowed different privileges under the FARs than a Private Pilot. One of these privileges is to get compensated monetarily for flying. So it would not be unreasonable to call someone who held a Commercial certificate a professional, rather than an amateur pilot.
Is a Commercial certificate holder who is not currently employed as a pilot an amateur or a professional?
While meeting the minimum standards does not necessarily make one a superior pilot, it does mean that on at least one flight, he was able to meet those standards, and this refutes any claim that he was completely unable to make simple turns.
I don't know. My grandfather was not a Japanese Ninja Examiner.
Yes, assuming that's a typo for turn. Some people are reluctant to even try, but my instruction was pretty much limited to "When I give the controls to you, I will say 'Your airplane', and if I don't like what you're doing, I'll take the controls back and say 'My airplane'. If you decide you don't like what's going on, say "Your airplane", and I'll take it back." Then I'd tell them to turn around, or go toward that mountain, or whatever. They were always able to do it. It wasn't always pretty. And of course they did it better after coaching. But being able to control the airplane without assistance was good for their confidence, both in themselves and the airplane.
Sorry, I made a quick post this morning just prior to leaving for the day and did not realize those links had gone bad. Upon my return I was past the edit time limit and couldn't modify them.
I actually was looking for the "Torch" display over Sydney for the Olympics, but couldn't locate it. Perhaps you know where it's located and can post it....
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Hani had his commercial licience PRIOR to being selected by Al Qaeda. He wasn't a part of the plan when he first trained to fly, he was trying to get a job as an airline pilot. His skills were average for a comercial pilot, his landings shakey, but the biggest issue he had wasn't his flying, it was his English. Pilots have to be able to speak good English so they can communicate with primarily ATC but also other planes. Hani's English was terrible, and THAT is what make his instructors worry he was a danger in the air, that is what resulted in him being unable to get a job as a pilot. Al Qaeda didn't care that he couldn't speak very good English, they didn't need him too, they needed him to switch the Autopilot to fly the plane to Reagan International and when he could see the Pentagon, fly the plane at it. That's what he did. period. As to the whole occupancy baloney. Firstly, Hani was a late inclusion anyway, but secondly, how exactly were they supposed to determine where the people inside the building were? It's not an open building you can wander about inside with a camera taking photos of where everyone sits. You need a security badge to get out of the public areas. Heck try to determine where the most people in my work building are. You couldn't do it, you need a card to get into the building and have to pass through two sercurity doors, and we're just a Gas field operator in small city New Zealand.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Magenta
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,305
Here you go:
Sydney Olympics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD2IOjKeyKs
Brisbane Riverfire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-_i5jQVWz8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzsMjhze1Ow
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I missed this somehow
At altitude? He was at 7,000 when he saw the Pentagon SD. I can recognize my 900 sq ft home from 7,000 feet.
As for getting to the vicinity of the Pentagon, using a VOR is not rocket science. Even an NDB would get you close enough to navigate visually at 7,000 feet.
At altitude? He was at 7,000 when he saw the Pentagon SD. I can recognize my 900 sq ft home from 7,000 feet.
As for getting to the vicinity of the Pentagon, using a VOR is not rocket science. Even an NDB would get you close enough to navigate visually at 7,000 feet.
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,050
Beachnut, are you going to clear this up or not??
Now I'm confused. Now he intentionally made the turn? Someone else stated it was a correction for a mistake! Which is it??
Source?
building were?
Public tour.
http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/tours.html
Ok, let me state it more clearly. Which is easier to hit with a 747? The roof of the Pentagon or a first floor segment at ground level?
'nuff said.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
Which is easier — diving an aircraft at a steep angle or diving it at a very shallow angle? Please explain why you think one of these maneuvers is easier than the other.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I was giving the condensed version Swing. I believe that when he saw the Pentagon he recognized that a steep dive at it would be very difficult to accomplish and therefore he instituted what is just outside the parameters of a standard desending turn.
Why do you insist that a steep dive at the Pentagon would be easy to accomplish swing. It just ain't true, admit that and move on.
It would be easier to aim for the side of the building. Especially a building vastly larger than the proverbial barn door. Furthermore you are again drawing the target on the bullet hole there swing. why do you continue to do that? For all you know he was aiming at a spot in the center (vertically) on the wall , and missed by 35 feet.
Last edited:
Clear what up. You are not able to read and understand. With some work you can be cured.
BOTH, you must understand things better. He intentionally made a turn to correct his being too high. WOW! EASY
So these idiots took a tour? Source?
Easier to hit the first floor, but I have over 4,000 hours flying big jets. Tell you what, you can draw a small target and I can hit it, and so can most pilots. Gee, we hit the exact center of 50 to 150 foot targets all the time! Runways. Dumb question.
Last edited:
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry McDermott. Good book and extremely well referenced and researched, perhaps you should get away from your conspriacy sites and read a real book once and a while.
You know you should really read your links Swing.
All guided tours of the Pentagon are free and are available to schools, educational organizations and other select groups by reservation only.
I'm sure they were perefectly willing to show a bunch of middle eastern guys around the Pentagon to take notes and pictures of where everyone works. NOT!
Zombie thread alert!
In the interests of showing that sceptics are interested in what's accurate, not what suits an agenda, and at the risk of doing truther homework for them, it seems that there is some doubt over the authenticity of the first video in Gravy's original video in the OP of this thread. The youtuber is the redoubtable and entertaining 'Captain Disillusion', as somewhat endorsed by Randi in the latest Swift.
Of course, this doesn't mean that that large multi-engined aircraft can't fly low and fast. You only have to look at all the other videos to see that they certainly can.
In the interests of showing that sceptics are interested in what's accurate, not what suits an agenda, and at the risk of doing truther homework for them, it seems that there is some doubt over the authenticity of the first video in Gravy's original video in the OP of this thread. The youtuber is the redoubtable and entertaining 'Captain Disillusion', as somewhat endorsed by Randi in the latest Swift.
Of course, this doesn't mean that that large multi-engined aircraft can't fly low and fast. You only have to look at all the other videos to see that they certainly can.
What a dolt. Unless he is trying to funny, if he is serious he is super stupid. I flew KC-135, and that video is real tanker with new engines.
It is real, so he covered all the bases kind of; and made many mistakes, he said it was an Air Force, if he meant USAF he missed it was a French Air Force tanker low pass in the desert. In addition the slow pass by a plane going slow with the gear down needs a lot of throttle (engine noise) to fly. Bad work.
Last edited:
cisco
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 709
Yeah, uh, thanks for pointing this out, but I don't know . . . I'm certainly not saying it's impossible to fake a video like that, but Occam's Razor says . . . why?
"Where are the internet videos from the other cameramen?" sounds like it was pulled directly from the troother manifesto. Seriously. Did he consider that not everybody posts everything on Youtube, even now in 2008?
I think Captain Disillusionment missed here. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I'd bet, say, my favorite shoes.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Not to mention that the gear-down shots were from nearly under the damn thing, while the airplane is trying to climb. He has no airspeed to trade for altitude.
in the high-speed low pass, why would you need much thrust at all at that altitude and airspeed? You probably built up a lot of airspeed getting down to that altitude, and have lots of energy to climb out. You also run the risk of FOD'ing the engine at high power settings at that altitude.
Airspeed=>altitude. You can trade one for the other. It works both directions, quite well.
While it is possible that the pass was doctored, it is certainly not an improbable scenario as-is.
I can give you 300 KIAS with the engines out at a 3 degree glide slope clean. No engines needed. Light weight at 500 feet I had my engines up to make noise for a flyby, I had to pull the throttles back to idle on the old engine KC-135A so I would not exceed well past the max speed. Not that real bad stuff happens past 355KCAS, but the lower wind skin starts to peel off, the crew chiefs would kill me! At altitude you can do .9 MACH in the old tanker, think it was flight tested to .95 MACH.
If you used a high power setting, in less than 15 seconds you would be well past your max speed just like on 9/11. Pilots do dumb things, and big jets have sadly (or whatever) been lower over the Ocean and inciting international problems when flying across the bow of Russian Ships.
The max speed in the KC-135 was 355KCAS, the new engines at idle are almost enough to fly the plane when it is clean and going 300 KIAS. If he had used the throttles earlier to get speed up, he had to have them back at some point to keep his speed down.
Any KC-135 could do the same thing at 355 KIAS.
If you used a high power setting, in less than 15 seconds you would be well past your max speed just like on 9/11. Pilots do dumb things, and big jets have sadly (or whatever) been lower over the Ocean and inciting international problems when flying across the bow of Russian Ships.
The max speed in the KC-135 was 355KCAS, the new engines at idle are almost enough to fly the plane when it is clean and going 300 KIAS. If he had used the throttles earlier to get speed up, he had to have them back at some point to keep his speed down.
Any KC-135 could do the same thing at 355 KIAS.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
I spent a lot of time from 1971-1975 on the dry lakebed at Edwards AFB, Beach.
I have seen the shock from a supersonic F-104 kick up dust in a beautiful "V" pattern, I have see the B-52 fly-by (low, indeed) after a drop of the X-24 (B & C), low passes from the YF-12/SR-71, and a whole lot more.
Preaching to the choir, me lad, preaching to the choir.