Matthew Lewis

A few questions. How is asking you to conform to the same rules you demand everyone else to follow petty? Perhaps you are correct that everyone here knows who you are. Perhaps not. How does it look to outside observers or new members when all are required to post a current link to their bio and you do not? Why should they have to search harder for your bio (which is not always automatically available at the bottom of each post) than for anyone else's (which by rule is available at the bottom of each post)? How do you think you look by constantly refusing to follow a less than 30 second procedure to fix this problem that any other member would be expected to do in the same situation?

Jack,

You have been asked several times to correct the link to your biography. Please do so within 24 hours or your posts will be made invisible until you have corrected the oversight.

To in put a link to your biography:

1. Near the top of the page, on the right hand side, there is a link labeled MY CONTROLS. Click on that.

2. A new page will appear. Go to the left hand side, and look for the heading PERSONAL PROFILE. Under that heading will be a selection labeled EDIT SIGNATURE. Click on it.

3. A text box will appear. Simply paste the URL for your biography into that box, then click on UPDATE MY SIGNATURE at the bottom of the box.

We CANNOT do this for you; you have to do it yourself.

Thank you.

Jack,

I looked at every one of the Biographies and yours is not there.

I did find it, however, in the Introduce Yourself thread.

Here is the link to use in your signature:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...post&p=4141

Kathy

You could also add this information on the Bio thread.

Continual threats of banishment over a triviality is nonsense. I am here

at the invitation of Mr. Simkin. He registered me and posted my photo.

He posted my bio link himself, but the university has since changed it.

I have several times sent the correction, but it is ignored. The

correct link is:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Continued threat of banishment is harassment. Everybody here knows

who I am. I am well known. I am hiding nothing. Such threats over a

technicality are aimed ONLY at me. My photo is IDENTIFIABLE. Many others

are not. Some biographies are a JOKE. "Miller's" bio simply says "I am

a long-time JFK researcher, etc..." My bio is my entire life history and

can be accessed at the above site if anyone is interested. If MR. SIMKIN

wants to revise the link he originally posted for me, it is

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

When I previously suggested this, Mr. Walker called me A SENILE OLD

MAN. I say it is harassment, and a matter of principle.

Jack

biography:

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp

Click on the link and you will find my biography. It is public information.

I am not withholding it from anyone.

After all Jack is not on other forums or web sites calling himself 'Jack Texas' or other such nom de alias is he? Or pretending to to be an 'advisor' of a 'peer reviewed journal' on a subject of which he knows nothing'

You may be with in the letter of the 'laws' of this forum but this is definitely persecution of a member and abuse by the moderator.

Is Jack White too special to follow the same rules he insists that others must follow? Do the same rules not apply to everyone? How many members has he harassed by insisting their bio was linked or their avatar was inadequate?

How hard is it really to just change the link yourself Jack? You've been given the instructions. Why must you be so stubborn?

Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive.

This is a bs non sequitur.

Jack

Whoever said he was one of the hijackers? He was presented as an expert's opinion. Seriously Jack, do you even read what is presented before you comment?

Your comprehension skills are inadequate.

I SAID: "Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers"....THEREFORE

HIS OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT.

From that you infer that I said he was one of the hijackers.

Get a grip.

Jack

So expert's opinions are not relevant? That's funny. I'm going to write that one down. You never said his opinion was not relevant. You simply said he was not listed as one of the hijackers and was alive. You then said, "This is a bs non sequitur."

From dictionary.com

non sequitur

1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

Since I presented no inference or conclusion, you incorrectly used "non sequitur". How is one supposed to infer that you mean an expert's opinion is not valid (an absurd proposition in and of itself) when you never say that and then use a term incorrectly? Perhaps you should brush up on your comprehension skills as well Jack. Or perhaps the "bs non sequitur" you were referring to was your own? Get a grip yourself Jack.

Yes Jack, they did spend time in a 737 simulator which is not unlike the 757 and 767. They also had cockpit diagrammes for the 757 and 767, flight manuals or handling notes for the aircraft, plus PC-based flight simulator programmes for those aircraft.

737 Cockpit

757 Cockpit

767 Cockpit

As Mr. Brazil might say, provide references for the arabs "spending time in a simulator";

I have studied this since 2001 and have never seen such a reference; I guess I missed it.

Jack

I already posted it in post number 4. You know, the post where you replied by saying "Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive" when it was never claimed that he was a hijacker. Apparently I was correct in wondering if you'd actually read it or not.

Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive.

This is a bs non sequitur.

Jack

Whoever said he was one of the hijackers? He was presented as an expert's opinion. Seriously Jack, do you even read what is presented before you comment?

All bolding mine

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

The three pilots in Florida continued with their training. Atta and Shehhifinished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA

in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html

cont here

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.

some other relevant info

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/0...askthepilot186/

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the xxxxty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

Chertoff of PM seems to paint a different picture.

http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html

Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I'd heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we'd already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only "Chris"), she said "they might be distant cousins." Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked "Were you the senior researcher on the story?" I said, "I guess so," -- that's not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story.

Quoting Colby....

"An Airbus 310 flying at over 400 MPH (700 KPH) can be seen here

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ"

Colby cannot do simple math:

~400 mph = ~460 knots per hour, NOT 700, I think.

As a refresher from my days in the navy, I googled

a conversion table, which confirmed the multiplier is 1.15,

about what I remembered.

Whom is he trying to fool?

Jack

kph is kilometers per hour, not knots. Knots are not correctly expressed with "per hour" as the definition of a knot is a nautical mile per hour.

I think you are correct. Someone earlier had mentioned "knots per hour, and that stuck with me.

I stand corrected.

It is an easy mistake to make. I applaud you for acknowledging your error.

Quoting Colby....

"An Airbus 310 flying at over 400 MPH (700 KPH) can be seen here

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ"

Colby cannot do simple math:

~400 mph = ~460 knots per hour, NOT 700, I think.

As a refresher from my days in the navy, I googled

a conversion table, which confirmed the multiplier is 1.15,

about what I remembered.

Whom is he trying to fool?

Jack

kph is kilometers per hour, not knots. Knots are not correctly expressed with "per hour" as the definition of a knot is a nautical mile per hour.

Did Bush say he actually saw the first plane crash into the towers? No. He said he saw a plane hit the towers. What tense was he speaking in? His wording could easily go either way. He could mean that he actually saw it on a closed circuit transmission or he could have meant that he saw a plane "had" hit the towers. Both are possible. For a man who used to have multiple websites (probably still does) devoted to his multiple humorous verbal mistakes I have trouble believing he ever says exactly what he means. But you want us to believe he spoke perfectly this time? I'll humour you. Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? What ever happened to plausible deniability? I think it is all the more likely that he is just an idiot that can't speak more than two words without saying something stupid but you go on believing he spoke perfectly this time.

You are wrong, sir...about your COMINCH.

Jack

EDITED TO ADD TRANSCRIPT:

At http://www.cnn.com/TRAN SCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of President Bush's comments regarding the day of the attacks on the World Trade Towers.

Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote.

STUDENT QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until days later.

Bush is lying through his teeth here.

Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. The only other known impact between an aircraft and a New York skyscraper was when a military airplane crashed into the Empire State Building in a heavy fog. Because of that incident, there are mandatory altitude minimums over the island. If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Towers, then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time.

And, it must be remembered that even after andy informed Bush of the second impact, and by his own admission Bush knew we were being attacked, he continued to read to the classsroom full of children.

Just think about that for a while.

Confirmation of Bush's comments is also at http://w ww.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/stor...,612354,00.html

How am I wrong? Is he not an idiot? Did he not have multiple websites that made fun of his numerous verbal errors? Notice the bolded red. Your transcripts says the same thing I said that he said. You still don't know the tense. Add the single word "had" as in "had hit the tower" and it could easily mean he saw the news footage of the smoking building. Or add the word "that" as in "saw that an airplane hit the tower" and it will have the same effect. Can you say with 100% surety that he said exactly what he meant? He still could have seen the same news footage that was on shortly after the first plane hit before the second hit that showed the first tower burning when they still didn't know what kind of plane hit the towers. Perhaps it is silly to assume that a plane hitting the WTC in clear weather was pilot error. But he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Plus, before the second plane hit, the various news stations didn't know what type of plane or the cause either.

And again there is this: Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? What ever happened to plausible deniability?

Do you really want to assert that he is a master orator? I still think he's an idiot with a speech impediment. Whether or not he is my commander in chief or not has nothing to do with it. As I've said multiple times before, my miltary status is unrelated to my posting.

Did Bush say he actually saw the first plane crash into the towers? No. He said he saw a plane hit the towers. What tense was he speaking in? His wording could easily go either way. He could mean that he actually saw it on a closed circuit transmission or he could have meant that he saw a plane "had" hit the towers. Both are possible. For a man who used to have multiple websites (probably still does) devoted to his multiple humorous verbal mistakes I have trouble believing he ever says exactly what he means. But you want us to believe he spoke perfectly this time? I'll humour you. Say he did see it on a secret feed in his limo. What purpose would it serve? Do you really believe he is such a mastermind that he had to see it happen live? Perhaps he steered it in himself? What ever happened to plausible deniability? I think it is all the more likely that he is just an idiot that can't speak more than two words without saying something stupid but you go on believing he spoke perfectly this time.

There is an FAA imposed speed limit of 250 knots (~288 mph) below 10,000 feet. Why impose such a speed limit when aircraft would supposedly break up 60+ mph below that?

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...49?OpenDocument

Further, from my time in JSTARS, which is based on a 707 but slightly (only slightly and not really noticeable) less structurally sound due to how they had to attach the radar, the pilots often request high speed on approach. This means they ask to go faster than the imposed speed limit. This request is often granted meaning that the aircraft is going in excess of 250 knots (again ~288 mph). I have seen this both in the US and in the middle east and in both locations have heard regular airline traffic make the same request. It would seem that normal airline aircraft can and DO travel in excess of the 220 mph limit that Keith says would cause an aircraft to shake themselves apart and that they do so at low altitude on approach. Notice in the link above that there is also a 200 knot (~230 mph) speed limit near various airports. Still higher than the 220 mph that Keith says will cause an airliner to break up and still often waived when asked.

By running the cloud models with and without solar absorption by the aerosols, scientists can determine the semi-direct effect of aerosols on clouds.

Sounds like a computer simulation. Any evidence it is not?

CHEMTRAILS = aerosols.

Persistent or nonpersistent contrails are also aerosols. As are volcanic ashes, industrial pollution and even dust kicked up in sand storms. Again, where do they say anywhere that they are purposely spraying or spreading anything? The website repeatedly mentions "observing". Can you show ANYWHERE on that site where they say they are spraying anything especially on the scale proposed? I think you're seeing what you want to see and unfortunately there is no evidence on that site for your mythical "chemtrails". That is a nice picture of contrails though. Very pretty. Oh, and the hostility in your reply is noted. It is sad that you can't seem to reply without it.

The website is...

http://www.arm.gov/about/

Quotation from the website about the mission of the program:

An intensive cloud and aerosol observing system obtained airborne measurements during the Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC) at the ACRF North Slope of Alaska locale in April 2008. Taking place during the International Polar Year, many ancillary observing systems collected data to allow synergistic interpretation of ISDAC data. This period also provides an important contrast with the October 2004 Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE). Cloud property measurements obtained during ISDAC can be used to evaluate cloud simulations and evaluate cloud retrievals from M-PACE, and the aerosol measurements can be used to evaluate the aerosol retrievals. By running the cloud models with and without solar absorption by the aerosols, scientists can determine the semi-direct effect of aerosols on clouds.

The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program was created in 1989 with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Sponsored by DOE's Office of Science and managed by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, ARM is a multi-laboratory, interagency program, and is a key contributor to national and international research efforts related to global climate change. A primary objective of the program is improved scientific understanding of the fundamental physics related to interactions between clouds and radiative feedback processes in the atmosphere. ARM focuses on obtaining continuous field measurements and providing data products that promote the advancement of climate models.

Jack

(Bolding mine)

Oh no! How dare they OBSERVE the effects of aerosols to better understand the environment and climate change! I see nothing about a massive program to release aerosols into the environment. What is wrong with OBSERVING what is already there? Or do you not believe there are other sources of aerosols? (pollution, volcanic, in addition to car and airplane exhaust) Where is the sinister massive program the "chemtrail" believers say exists?

Here is their page on capabilities

http://www.arm.gov/acrf/capabilities.stm

Still more stuff on observing and measuring? How dare they try to learn? String them up!

I want to believe you here but the more I review that site, the more I see that it really has nothing to do with the proposed "chemtrail" conspiracy. I do however see that they have taken samples of airborne aerosols "in situ", something that "chemtrail" believers still have yet to do. Why is that again?

I still think it should be possible. Especially on a self-proclaimed "Education" forum. Just the fact that we have to talk about whether or not we can have a reasoned discussion is bad enough. Why can't we just HAVE IT?

eta: I hate typing and spelling errors (my own). I'm sure there are probably more that I have missed.

I'm not sure anything IS missing from one photo to the next. It appears that the wheel may be rotated about 180 degrees thus accounting for why it looks different. Not sure why it matters though. This seems like such a minor issue as to just be "noise". I had been hesitating to say anything though as it usually seems like any opposing comments are met with hostility (no matter how well thought out). One sometimes wonders if this board can exist without the near constant hostility (from both parties). Just my opinion of what I see. I could be wrong. It seems detrimental to any real discussion though.

Is "real" discussion about this issue possible? We have one side who is guided by worldview and another guided by evidence. These two will never meet.

I believe it is. However, on this forum, in the last few years that I've been here I have yet to see it. More time is spent on "who started what", near constant insults, or petty things like worrying about other people's avatars. Again, I believe both sides are responsible.

I'm not sure anything IS missing from one photo to the next. It appears that the wheel may be rotated about 180 degrees thus accounting for why it looks different. Not sure why it matters though. This seems like such a minor issue as to just be "noise". I had been hesitating to say anything though as it usually seems like any opposing comments are met with hostility (no matter how well thought out). One sometimes wonders if this board can exist without the near constant hostility (from both parties). Just my opinion of what I see. I could be wrong. It seems detrimental to any real discussion though.

The last one appears to be some sort of tent or temporary structure. There are other pictures that appear to show the same thing here

http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html

The truth is...NOBODY KNOWS what is under the blue tarp. It is not

convincing that it is a tent. Tents are erected, not picked up and

carried around. The site referenced has no convincing evidence of

anything, although I agree with them that it looks lightweight.

Jack

If they needed it to be moved after it was erected wouldn't they just pick it up and move it? It looks like the tent/temporary shelters seen on that page to me. The light weight would seem to support the empty tent/shelter theory.

The last one appears to be some sort of tent or temporary structure. There are other pictures that appear to show the same thing here

http://www.911myths.com/html/blue_box.html

Bet you never heard that hurricane ERIN, bigger than Katrina, was headed

toward NYC on November 11, 1991. That is because there was a seeming

blackout of news of the hurricane for some reason. Wonder why.

Jack

Jack

Can I ask what is the point of this study? Are you seriously suggesting that there was some kind of conspiracy to cover up Hurricane Erin on 9/11? (I'm assuming you meant Sept 11th 2001, not Nov 11th 1991). Why?

Whatever your motives for posting this "study", it's yet another that's well wide of the mark. Check out this weather forecast from around 8:30am on the morning of Sept 11th 2001.

http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912

"To the east of the country, no problems except... <snip>, North East will see a little rough seas along the New England coastline, from that hurricane that's going away."

Why do you say there was a news blackout of the hurricane?

Interesting website...but totally irrelevant. I read it with interest for 15 minutes and FOUND

NO MENTION OF HURRICANE ERIN.

Macbeth V,V

Jack

Emphasis mine. Perhaps there is the problem. If you only read it you wouldn't see much. There is a video linked on that page to a CBS newscast from the morning of 11 September 2001. Only 35 seconds in they mention the hurricane. Another question comes to mind. How often do you hear about hurricanes that aren't headed toward the US? On September 11th, hurricane Erin was headed away as mentioned in the newscast. Perhaps on the days before when it looked like it might head towards the continental US they may have mentioned it more but not much reason to on the 11th.

To clarify, there are two types of ground effect. The normal ground effect increases at low speed and high angles of attack, exactly the conditions one would find in a landing saituation.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

A second factor that influences the impact of trailing vortices on an aircraft is the speed at which it travels. A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong.

First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

Ram ground effect (the other type) does increase at high speeds but only takes effect "where the wing is at an altitude of h/c=0.1 or less."

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/51083/01/51083.pdf

h is the height and c is the chord or distance from the front of the wing to the back of the wing.

From here http://www.757.org.uk/spec/spec1.html we can see the maximum chord of the 757 wing is 8.2 meters or almost 27 feet. This means that the plane would have to be flying with the wings at less than 3 feet off the ground for ram ground effect to have any effect. Actually less as the chord of the 757 wing decreases along its length and the average chord would be even less. So the only type of ground effect that comes into play in this situation is the normal type (there are two, normal and ram as described in the pdf linked above) and we already know that normal ground effect decreases with speed and lower angle of attack.

Ground effect would definitely NOT keep a 757 from hitting the Pentagon at the speed and trajectory it is supposed to have been at on 911.

Smoke and mirrors designed to confuse the unwary.

What Lewis says only applies to a plane in a dive...not one flying parallel to the ground.

Several Pentagon witnesses said THEY THOUGHT THE PLANE WAS COMING IN FOR A LANDING.

A plane in a dive would not have clipped lightpoles.

On the Pilots for Truth website, one pilot mentioned that he COULD NOT HAVE DONE the

Pentagon approach because of the lift effect.

I had not ever heard of GROUND LIFT EFFECT till several years ago when I looked it up

and read extensively. What Lewis says DOES NOT APPLY to the Pentagon approach.

Macbeth V, V.

Jack

Of course Jack, with his vast aviation and piloting experience can show exactly where what I posted (with references) was wrong. Simple fact, ground effect decreases with increased speed. Simple fact, the airplane was descending and not in a landing configuration and therefore had negative angle of attack. Simple fact, aviation literature for decades will say that ground effect decreases with increased speed. Simple fact, Jack is wrong.

ETA: I like Craig Lamson's explanation better.

No. Jetliners carry only enough fuel to reach their destination. No use transporting the weight of extra unneeded fuel.

Not always. There is the practice of tankering, carrying extra fuel to offest the price difference at the next location. While it may not apply here (I don't know and don't really care), it is definitely not right to say they carry only enough fuel to reach their destination as that is not always true.

Though 757 and 767s are designed to carry 24,000 gallons of jet fuel, a transcontinental flight as these were scheduled only requires about 10,000 gallons.

Partly wrong. The 757 only holds about 11,000 gallons so it is wrong to say 757 and 767.

Lewis is wrong here. The website I consulted said that both the 757 and 767 essentially have the same fuel capacity.

The website you consulted was wrong. From Boeing themselves (the manufacturer of the 757)

757 technical characteristics

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family...pf_300tech.html

767 technical characteristics

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family...pf_400prod.html

His speculation about refueling is bs guesswork.

Jack

Tankering is a long established aviation concept that many pilots are aware of.

http://www.iata.org/NR/ContentConnector/CS...on_Material.pdf

page 50

Fuel tankering is the practice of carrying more fuel than required for a particular sector in order to reduce the quantity of fuel loaded at the destination airport for the following sector (or sectors)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_planning

Tankering fuel

When fuel prices differ between airports, it might be worth putting in more fuel where it is cheap, even taking into account the cost of extra trip fuel needed to carry the extra weight. A flight planning system can work out how much extra fuel can profitably be carried. Note that discontinuities due to changes in flight levels can mean that a difference of as little as 100 kg (one passenger with luggage) in zero fuel weight or tankering fuel can make the difference between profit and loss.

Jack would have noticed if he had bothered to respond without hostility that I admitted that it may not apply in this situation or in other words, I didn't speculate about anything. Therefore it changes nothing about how much fuel the planes would have had (again I don't know and don't care) and therefore doesn't change his point about the amount of fuel in the explosion, but still means that it is incorrect to say conclusively they "carry only enough fuel to reach their destination".

You just can't stand being wrong can you?

To clarify, there are two types of ground effect. The normal ground effect increases at low speed and high angles of attack, exactly the conditions one would find in a landing saituation.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

A second factor that influences the impact of trailing vortices on an aircraft is the speed at which it travels. A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong.

First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

Ram ground effect (the other type) does increase at high speeds but only takes effect "where the wing is at an altitude of h/c=0.1 or less."

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/51083/01/51083.pdf

h is the height and c is the chord or distance from the front of the wing to the back of the wing.

From here http://www.757.org.uk/spec/spec1.html we can see the maximum chord of the 757 wing is 8.2 meters or almost 27 feet. This means that the plane would have to be flying with the wings at less than 3 feet off the ground for ram ground effect to have any effect. Actually less as the chord of the 757 wing decreases along its length and the average chord would be even less. So the only type of ground effect that comes into play in this situation is the normal type (there are two, normal and ram as described in the pdf linked above) and we already know that normal ground effect decreases with speed and lower angle of attack.

Ground effect would definitely NOT keep a 757 from hitting the Pentagon at the speed and trajectory it is supposed to have been at on 911.

An airliner cannot fly AT HIGH SPEED close enough to the ground to clip light poles.

That is why jetliners SLOW DOWN to land.

This is because of what is called GROUND LIFT EFFECT at high speed. The moving plane

compresses the air as it passes thru it, pushing it aside. The air pushed toward the ground

presses against the bottom of the plane, causing IT TO RISE. The higher the speed, the

farther from the ground the plane IS LIFTED. At 500 mph, ground lift effect would cause

the plane, flying parallel to the ground according to reports, to be unable to hit the Pentagon,

much less the light poles.

Look it up.

Jack

Wrong. Ground effect is present when close to the ground at LOW SPEEDS and at a postive angle of attack. As speed increases, ground effect decreases. At high speeds it is negligible especially at the negative angle of attack the plane at the Pentagon would have had. Look it up.

No. Jetliners carry only enough fuel to reach their destination. No use transporting the weight of extra unneeded fuel.

Not always. There is the practice of tankering, carrying extra fuel to offest the price difference at the next location. While it may not apply here (I don't know and don't really care), it is definitely not right to say they carry only enough fuel to reach their destination as that is not always true.

Though 757 and 767s are designed to carry 24,000 gallons of jet fuel, a transcontinental flight as these were scheduled only requires about 10,000 gallons.

Partly wrong. The 757 only holds about 11,000 gallons so it is wrong to say 757 and 767.