-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Come on dude, I really hope you are taking the *smile*. You think the terrorist hijackers were trying to LAND and taxi up neatly to the side of the Pentagon.....then what, roll down the window and order a halal cheeseburger?Harry said:
KnightersRevenge said:
you and tigersnake said it's quite easy to land a plane (150mph) and thus quite possible for the hijackers to hit their target. So were they travelling at 150 or 530 when they hit? would think it'll be a tad harder to hit your target at 530 than at 150.
Harry said:
In the interests of accuracy, I didn't say that. I quoted a pilot trainer, someone with a better idea than you or I.
Having flown planes, I can tell you it's very difficult to judge your air speed without looking at your instruments.
In the air, and in the small planes I flew, providing you're above stall speed, it's hard to know whether you're doing 100 knots or 150 knots.
Then there's the difference between air speed and speed over the ground, which can be different depending on wind speed and direction.
I see little problem in lining up a building at maximum throttle and aiming at a building on the ground.
You may have to reduce throttle if you think you're going to overshoot the target, then once you're back on track increase throttle to hit at maximum throttle.
It's a lot harder IMO to land a plane at a fixed point - the piano keys on the runway - at a specific speed, than it is to go flat knacker, aim and point.
In the air, and in the small planes I flew, providing you're above stall speed, it's hard to know whether you're doing 100 knots or 150 knots.
Then there's the difference between air speed and speed over the ground, which can be different depending on wind speed and direction.
I see little problem in lining up a building at maximum throttle and aiming at a building on the ground.
You may have to reduce throttle if you think you're going to overshoot the target, then once you're back on track increase throttle to hit at maximum throttle.
It's a lot harder IMO to land a plane at a fixed point - the piano keys on the runway - at a specific speed, than it is to go flat knacker, aim and point.
Harry said:
To be fair what I am actually doing is questioning your reasoning that it is near impossible simply because you think it is. You haven't provided any reason why you think this I quoted a person who flies planes and trains other people to fly planes for a living.
Azza said:
Yes it is at landing speeds, which is just above what is known as stall speed, meaning the speed at which flight is no longer possible because the air flow over the wings is insufficient to maintain lift. This means when landing, the effect of any wind makes the buffeting of the plane more pronounced due to the slow air speed - both up and down and side to side. As speed increases the wind effect is minimised.
So summing up, flying from say 3,000 feet at close to maximum speed you are less effected by wind, and you simply line up the target by pushing the steering column forward to go down. This has the effect of further increasing speed. Of course from several miles away you'd be guessing that you've correctly aimed at the target. As you get closer, your guess may be proven wrong and you'd have to make small adjustments, with both the throttle and steering column to better line up your target. Once you're sure your aim is correct you'd maintain the steering column in its current position (so you don't go up or down) and then return to full throttle. I've no doubt this was done because witnesses report the plane accelerating as it hit.
Harry said:
Nuh not Dimma. It was Wallace.
8/11 Richmond Truth Movement: Inside Job
We want answers!! ;D
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/10/1092102452215.html
Does anyone believe the following from the CNN website is a crock, a govt plant, a fabrication? The eye witness account was given soon after the attack before the witness had time to check out all of the conspiracy theories which evolved over time...and are probably still evolving
CNN BREAKING NEWS
America Under Attack: Eyewitness Discusses Pentagon Plane Crash
Aired September 11, 2001 - 13:46 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Now to our correspondent at the Pentagon, Bob Franken, who is, I believe, at a safe distance there from what's been going on.
Bob, please bring us up to date.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are on the east side of the Pentagon, as can you see, Judy. And see, over my shoulder, that smoke continues to billow, smoke that is sometimes thick, sometimes a little dissipated. But we're talking about about 4 1/2 hours after a plane -- it's described as probably being a jumbo-jet-sided plane -- crashed into the Pentagon, at about 9:20 this morning.
We now want to show you what it looks like on the west side. This is video that was shot by Vito Magiola (ph), who is an assignment editor and producer for CNN. He was able to get video. You can see that firefighters there are fighting in an area, rings four, five, and six, on the west side of the Pentagon. Vito says that it was an area, in his estimation, that was about 30 yards wide and about 10 yards deep into the building. The firefighting was hampered, he says, because inside the building sprinklers, pipes, and other forms of hydrants were damaged.
There's an estimate that several hundred firefighters and emergency workers at the Pentagon. We're also told, of course, that there has been evacuation efforts throughout the day. We can see those. We do not have an estimate on the number of casualties. I can tell you that, from our vantage point, we have seen a constant parade of casualty units -- military casualty units, civilian ambulances, fire engines, and the like -- going to the Pentagon.
There have been casualties, but as we said, we don't have any sort of estimate about that now.
We do also have somebody to talk with us who was an eyewitness to the actual crash. He was watch from Arlington, Virginia, which is a suburb. His name is Tim Timmerman.
Mr. Timmerman, are you with us right now?
TIM TIMMERMAN, EYEWITNESS: I sure am.
FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw. TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.
And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?
TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.
FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?
TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.
FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...
TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.
FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.
TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.
FRANKEN: We were told that it was flying so low that it clipped off a couple of light poles as it was coming in.
TIMMERMAN: That might have happened behind the apartments that occluded my view.
And when it reappeared, it was right before impact, and like I said, it was right before impact, and I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames.
FRANKEN: So there was a fireball that you saw?
TIMMERMAN: Absolutely. And the building shook, and it was quite a tremendous explosion.
FRANKEN: What did you see after that?
TIMMERMAN: Nothing but the flames. I sat here, and I took a few pictures out of my window, and I noticed the fire trucks and the responses was just wonderful. Fire trucks were there quickly. I saw the area; the building didn't look very damaged initially, but I do see now, looking out my window, there's quite a chunk in it. But I think the blessing here might have been that the airplane hit before it hit the building, it hit the ground, and a lot of energy might have gone that way. That's what it appeared like.
FRANKEN: There is, of course -- we heard some discussion about the fact that it could have been worse had it actually gone a little bit higher and gone into what is the called the ring, the center ring...
(CROSSTALK)
FRANKEN: This is a five-sided building.
TIMMERMAN: As you know, the rings are A, B, C, D, E. It is just across the E ring on the outside, and that's why I felt it didn't look as damaged as it could be. It looked like on the helipad, which is on that side.
FRANKEN: Did you see any people being removed, any injured being removed, that type of thing?
TIMMERMAN: No, sir. I am up about a quarter a mile -- it may be a little bit closer -- and at that point, I saw nothing like that.
FRANKEN: Tim Timmerman, thank you very much -- an eyewitness, Judy, to the crash.
We still have no idea about the number of casualties. We know that there is a gaping hole on the west side of the Pentagon. As you can see, the smoke continues to billow -- Judy.
WOODRUFF: Bob Franken.
To our audience, no surprise. Hospitals in the Washington area are dealing with casualties from the plane crash at the Pentagon. We were told a few hours ago there's a blood shortage in the Washington area, hospitals wanting to people to know if you are in a position to donate blood, it would very much be needed and appreciated.
CNN BREAKING NEWS
America Under Attack: Eyewitness Discusses Pentagon Plane Crash
Aired September 11, 2001 - 13:46 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Now to our correspondent at the Pentagon, Bob Franken, who is, I believe, at a safe distance there from what's been going on.
Bob, please bring us up to date.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are on the east side of the Pentagon, as can you see, Judy. And see, over my shoulder, that smoke continues to billow, smoke that is sometimes thick, sometimes a little dissipated. But we're talking about about 4 1/2 hours after a plane -- it's described as probably being a jumbo-jet-sided plane -- crashed into the Pentagon, at about 9:20 this morning.
We now want to show you what it looks like on the west side. This is video that was shot by Vito Magiola (ph), who is an assignment editor and producer for CNN. He was able to get video. You can see that firefighters there are fighting in an area, rings four, five, and six, on the west side of the Pentagon. Vito says that it was an area, in his estimation, that was about 30 yards wide and about 10 yards deep into the building. The firefighting was hampered, he says, because inside the building sprinklers, pipes, and other forms of hydrants were damaged.
There's an estimate that several hundred firefighters and emergency workers at the Pentagon. We're also told, of course, that there has been evacuation efforts throughout the day. We can see those. We do not have an estimate on the number of casualties. I can tell you that, from our vantage point, we have seen a constant parade of casualty units -- military casualty units, civilian ambulances, fire engines, and the like -- going to the Pentagon.
There have been casualties, but as we said, we don't have any sort of estimate about that now.
We do also have somebody to talk with us who was an eyewitness to the actual crash. He was watch from Arlington, Virginia, which is a suburb. His name is Tim Timmerman.
Mr. Timmerman, are you with us right now?
TIM TIMMERMAN, EYEWITNESS: I sure am.
FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw. TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.
And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?
TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.
FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?
TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.
FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...
TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.
FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.
TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.
FRANKEN: We were told that it was flying so low that it clipped off a couple of light poles as it was coming in.
TIMMERMAN: That might have happened behind the apartments that occluded my view.
And when it reappeared, it was right before impact, and like I said, it was right before impact, and I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames.
FRANKEN: So there was a fireball that you saw?
TIMMERMAN: Absolutely. And the building shook, and it was quite a tremendous explosion.
FRANKEN: What did you see after that?
TIMMERMAN: Nothing but the flames. I sat here, and I took a few pictures out of my window, and I noticed the fire trucks and the responses was just wonderful. Fire trucks were there quickly. I saw the area; the building didn't look very damaged initially, but I do see now, looking out my window, there's quite a chunk in it. But I think the blessing here might have been that the airplane hit before it hit the building, it hit the ground, and a lot of energy might have gone that way. That's what it appeared like.
FRANKEN: There is, of course -- we heard some discussion about the fact that it could have been worse had it actually gone a little bit higher and gone into what is the called the ring, the center ring...
(CROSSTALK)
FRANKEN: This is a five-sided building.
TIMMERMAN: As you know, the rings are A, B, C, D, E. It is just across the E ring on the outside, and that's why I felt it didn't look as damaged as it could be. It looked like on the helipad, which is on that side.
FRANKEN: Did you see any people being removed, any injured being removed, that type of thing?
TIMMERMAN: No, sir. I am up about a quarter a mile -- it may be a little bit closer -- and at that point, I saw nothing like that.
FRANKEN: Tim Timmerman, thank you very much -- an eyewitness, Judy, to the crash.
We still have no idea about the number of casualties. We know that there is a gaping hole on the west side of the Pentagon. As you can see, the smoke continues to billow -- Judy.
WOODRUFF: Bob Franken.
To our audience, no surprise. Hospitals in the Washington area are dealing with casualties from the plane crash at the Pentagon. We were told a few hours ago there's a blood shortage in the Washington area, hospitals wanting to people to know if you are in a position to donate blood, it would very much be needed and appreciated.
Tim Timmerman is on the left ;D
Weird as the crash site looks, there are actually a lot of eye witness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1fi97_pentagon-eyewitness-dawn-vignola_news#.UQC6Val8aEA
Baloo said:
I'm not against being labelled at all. Do your worst. All I've done is point out the (many) flaws in your analogy.
If you want to take offense at a word that has no derogatory meaning that's up to you. By any normal definition it isn't derogatory and I don't mean it to be derogatory here.
