Confessions of khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Oklahoma City, PanAm 800 and American 587

[synchro1]

Clearly, neither are all those pilots who flew all those aircraft, fighters, airliners and sailplanes, in the low pass videos I posted and dozens, perhaps even hundreds more that are viewable on YouTube. They are all faked, aren't they. 

Are you going to claim that an F/A18A or F14 that _leaves a wake in the water_ as it flies past at 0.9 Mach isn't in ground effect? Or that a 25-meter wingspan sailplane, skimming the ground at 3 meters altitude at redline airspeed, isn't in ground effect?  If you are really the aviator you claim to be... I hope you flew for some other country than mine, because your training, skills and knowledge of this matter are clearly deficient. As are your observing skills. And we all know from your past posts how you like to misrepresent the facts.

@Tinselkoala,

F/A18A or F14 fighter aircraft are not 757's Bub! Jet fighters have completely different flight characteristics then wide wing aircraft. The low pass video of the larger Jet you posted was at least 100 feet off the runway.

Additionally, I posted a link to the FDR information. Here it is again:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12519

One could argue the "Fire House" clock was running slow too. What's your political agenda involve?

I didin't trash pick my flight credentials from an alleyway dumpster like you.

[TinselKoala]

@Tinselkoala,

F/A18A or F14 fighter aircraft are not 757's Bub! Jet fighters have completely different flight characteristics then wide wing aircraft. The low pass video of the larger Jet you posted was at least 100 feet off the runway.

Additionally, I posted a link to the FDR information. One could argue the "Fire House" clock was running slow too. What's your political agenda involve?

BUB.... you are once again betraying your ignorance.

When an aircraft is flying at an altitude that is approximately at or below the same distance as the aircraft's wingspan or helicopter's rotor diameter, there is, depending on airfoil and aircraft design, an often noticeable ground effect. This is caused primarily by the ground interrupting the wingtip vortices and downwash behind the wing. When a wing is flown very close to the ground, wingtip vortices are unable to form effectively due to the obstruction of the ground. The result is lower induced drag, which increases the speed and lift of the aircraft.^[3][4] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29 
There is nothing preventing a large heavy aircraft from flying at cruise speed or even faster when in ground effect.  Fighter jets, high-aspect ratio sailplanes and even heavy jet airliners can do it. The reason that the airliners aren't going lower is because they don't want to take the chance of contacting the ground! They don't have ejection seats and their pilots are generally a lot more conservative than jet jockies. The difficulty of the Pentagon flight lies in the fact that the 270 degree descending turn is not that easy and it's improbable that a novice pilot could do it accurately.... NOT in the final run in ground effect.  As a "naval aviator" you should know what a 270 overhead approach looks like. But maybe not...
My agenda is Truth, and we already know how many times you've misrepresented and distorted the Truth when talking about other topics.

A hundred feet? I laugh at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6s0pBqIriw

[synchro1]

BUB.... you are once again betraying your ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29 
There is nothing preventing a large heavy aircraft from flying at cruise speed or even faster when in ground effect.  Fighter jets, high-aspect ratio sailplanes and even heavy jet airliners can do it. The reason that the airliners aren't going lower is because they don't want to take the chance of contacting the ground! They don't have ejection seats and their pilots are generally a lot more conservative than jet jockies. The difficulty of the Pentagon flight lies in the fact that the 270 degree descending turn is not that easy and it's improbable that a novice pilot could do it accurately.... NOT in the final run in ground effect.  As a "naval aviator" you should know what a 270 overhead approach looks like. But maybe not...
My agenda is Truth, and we already know how many times you've misrepresented and distorted the Truth when talking about other topics.

A hundred feet? I laugh at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858

@Tinselkoala,

All you did was copy and paste some superfluous malarkey above. You don't have any idea what your talking about; "Flying inside Ground Effect"! Where'd you come up with that from? The aircraft flys over ground effect. You're shameless. You've been branded a degenerate alcoholic by people who know you on this forum! Try and sober up for a change.

[Pirate88179]

@Tinselkoala,

All you did was copy and paste some superfluous malarkey above. You don't have any idea what your talking about; "Flying inside Ground Effect"! Where'd you come up with that from? The aircraft flys over ground effect. You're shameless. You've been branded a degenerate alcoholic by people who know you on this forum! Try and sober up for a change.

Hey, come on, lighten up a bit will you?

I have no idea if you are a real pilot or not but if you are...you know nothing about ground effect, at least as it was taught to me in flight school and, what I learned proved to be correct while flying.

Back in 1947 Chuck Yeager made some high speed passes after taking the X-1 off from the ground instead of being dropped by the B-29.  He was going over 1,000 mph about 10 feet off of the deck so...according to you he could not have done that yet...he did do it.

I have no idea what happened at the Pentagon that day...I do find it curious that it was not covered as much as the other 911 sites but...blaming the impossibility of the scenario claimed based upon ground effect is not going to hold up.

Bill

[synchro1]

@Pirate88718,

Every particular aircraft has it's unique flight characteristics. The ones for the 757 are radically different from the X-1. Given the level flight indicated by downed light poles, an FDR air speed of 300 knots, and mild approach trajectory, the only way to cut through the "Ground Effect Cushion" would be to slip the aircraft, which most likely would have left a large skid mark in the lawn, because one wing would need to be tilted sharply to one side. Righting the plane would cause it to Jolt up in the air with alot of force. Ski boats have a planing speed. Pushing the hull back down to it's berth depth while on sking plane would be impossible. Lastly, a window above the entry point remained unbroken where the "Vertical Stabilizer" was supposed to make contact.     

There's no way a pilot could make the 757 aircraft get on ground level with just the cockpit controls alone on that glide path above cruise speed.