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

MarkE · May 28, 2015, 07:59:07 AM

Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 06:47:21 AM
Sure, it is all speculation !
What is of interest to observe how the Bush government was well prepared to make the most out of the event.
And what reflects back to the probability of being a controlling participant was the apparent 'blindness' to the event about to take place by the CIA & FBI. Not many people believe that Osama could have pulled this off unaided. It was a project of mutual interest and with only one to take the blame
Sure, its all speculation
We can only speculate on what events that occurred were within the plan and on what occurred outside the plan
But of one thing I am fairly sure, there was a plan.

The problem is identifying what was planned and what was executed. If you believe it was a military black op then you are way short in the evidence department.

Quote

When it comes to a flying plane into the WTC, it played over and over again.
What would be the resistance not to show the Pentagon surveillance video's, I heard several view angles exist but were confiscated. At the same time it is no problem to show video footage of the military operation to capture Osama.

I don't go by "I have heard." I go by what evidence is actually shown.

Quote
They could have confiscated /forbidden all footage of the plane attack on the WTC, What judgement would have been used to show or not to show the pentagon attack ?
Red

Lots of people could have done lots of things. Get evidence to show that they did a particular thing.

synchro1 · May 28, 2015, 12:08:17 PM

Quote from: MarkE on May 28, 2015, 07:59:07 AM
The problem is identifying what was planned and what was executed. If you believe it was a military black op then you are way short in the evidence department.I don't go by "I have heard." I go by what evidence is actually shown.Lots of people could have done lots of things. Get evidence to show that they did a particular thing.

@MarkE,

I'm a former Navy Pilot with thousands of successful landings under all kinds of conditions. Let me repeat that it's physically impossible for an aircraft to fly as close to the ground, as flight 77 was supposed to have, above cruise speed due to "Ground Effect". The best it could do is impact the second story. The aircraft would need to slow down to landing speed and lower it's flaps before it could descend to that low an altitude. No qualified pilot would disagree with me. Don't try and tell me how little I know about it. You have a history of acting like a "know it all" about things you're totally wrong about. I'm right about this fact, don't continue to try and contradict me about it!

MarkE · May 28, 2015, 02:04:32 PM

Quote from: synchro1 on May 28, 2015, 12:08:17 PM
@MarkE,

I'm a former Navy Pilot with thousands of successful landings under all kinds of conditions. Let me repeat that it's physically impossible for an aircraft to fly as close to the ground, as flight 77 was supposed to have, above cruise speed due to "Ground Effect". The best it could do is impact the second story. The aircraft would need to slow down to landing speed and lower it's flaps before it could descend to that low an altitude. No qualified pilot would disagree with me. Don't try and tell me how little I know about it. You have a history of acting like a "know it all" about things you're totally wrong about. I'm right about this fact, don't continue to try and contradict me about it!

When you say things like it would need to extend flaps because of excess lift from ground effect, it makes me question that you understand the physical principles involved independent of what your flying experience may or may not be. Extending flaps increases lift which is important during slow flight. As TK's linked videos showed it is not only possible, it is demonstrated that passenger craft can cruise the runway doing touch and gos. If your idea of fact is mere declaration then it is you who refuse to discuss.

synchro1 · May 28, 2015, 03:36:25 PM

@MalarkE,

Flaps not only increase lift, they help reduce airspeed. A "No Flap" landing requires a longer runway because "Ground Effect" prevents the aircraft from touching down until it approaches stall speed. I don't care to be tutored by you in basic aeronautics. You need to stop acting too smart.

MarkE · May 28, 2015, 03:45:51 PM

Quote from: synchro1 on May 28, 2015, 03:36:25 PM
@MalarkE,

Flaps not only increase lift, they help reduce airspeed. A "No Flap" landing requires a longer runway because "Ground Effect" prevents the aircraft from touching down until it approaches stall speed. I don't care to be tutored by you in basic aeronautics. You need to stop acting too smart.

Are you sure you used to be a pilot? Yes, flaps increase drag, but their primary purpose is to increase lift which is critical at low air speed conditions: take off and landing. IOW they prevent stall at low air speed. A "no flap" landing requires a long runway because the aircraft has a higher stall speed than with flaps. Stall at take off or landing is spelled: P L O P.