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

[MarkE]

@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.

Really?  You're making an argument over prepositions now?

[MarkE]

@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.         

You offeed an argument premised on ground effect in general. That argument has collapsed and now you wish to argue a different argument that ground effect specific to a 757 prevented Flight 77 from hitting the building basically at ground level.  Feel free to offer any argument you like.  Just consider that the more that you have to amend your argument the weaker it gets.

[synchro1]

You offeed an argument premised on ground effect in general. That argument has collapsed and now you wish to argue a different argument that ground effect specific to a 757 prevented Flight 77 from hitting the building basically at ground level.  Feel free to offer any argument you like.  Just consider that the more that you have to amend your argument the weaker it gets.

@MarkE,

The X-1 is more of a missile than an airliner. There's a video of what's clearly a missile impacting the Pentagon, but no clear video evidence of a plane. The aerodynamic formulas are the "General" area all aircraft conform to.

[Pirate88179]

@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.         

OK, you mentioned downed light poles...why would a missile hit the light poles in the first place?  If someone launched a missile, there would be no need for such a low level flat trajectory right?  If one were to argue that they wanted it to look like an aircraft, then why use such a flat flight path which would look suspicious to folks like yourself?

Bill

[MarkE]

@MarkE,

The X-1 is more of a missile than an airliner. There's a video of what's clearly a missile impacting the Pentagon, but no clear video evidence of a plane. The aerodynamic formulas are the "General" area all aircraft conform to.

I did not make any argument concerning the X-1.  If you wish to argue using aerodynamic formulae then present your analysis using those formulae.  Otherwise you are just throwing words around.  If you wish to concede your ground effect contention, then we can move on to a different contention.