The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Without addressing all the other assumptions of flying it becomes apparent
to me ( a lifelong northern Virginian ) that he has never been to the
Pentagon. It does not sit at the end of a long straight area of any kind. As
I read the reports and saw the area involved he approached parallel to the
Columbia Pike roadway, this road undulates through its entire length prior
to approaching the Pentagon and reaches its highest point just several
football lengths prior to the Pentagon. All the garbage about flying within
20 feet of the ground would be almost impossible with a light plane and
impossible with a heavy aircraft.


"Immanuel Goldstein" wrote in message
...
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
aircraft.

[...]

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've
heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseum, on the
Internet and the TV networks-invariably by people who know nothing
substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it
is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the
objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky".
But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least
bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the
aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles
away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the
challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a
Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton,
high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a
modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and
disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even
remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even
the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one
has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled
instrument-rated one to boot - and be thoroughly familiar with the actual
aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary
between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to
approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight
simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these
phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out
ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past.
Take-offs-even landings, to a certain degree-are relatively "easy",
because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the
cockpit.

But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a
simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant
destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the
situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external
visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of
complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues
(altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS
(Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large
multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard" instruments.
These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an
integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not
only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time
and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference
cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this
data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly,
precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do
so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't
have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such
conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that's
all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick,
smooth, disciplined, scan, you're as good as dead. Accident records from
around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots -
I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots - who 'bought the farm' because
they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men
were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 - an
elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around
the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple
circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a
landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary
exercise by himself.

In fact, here's what their flight instructors had to say about the
aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our
standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and
incompetence at the controls."

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were
even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to
this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not
fly at all."

Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker
Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously
fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain
Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow
manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to
achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke
and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that
this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box
cutter-Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had
flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather
than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly
rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck
when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost natural reaction
expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes
them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat.
Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour
was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility
Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or
off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7
miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually
devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was
moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH
(about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that
day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the
ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness",
Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan-he
wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there's
little point in looking outside-there's nothing there to give him any real
visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas,
following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting
presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily
unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his
attention to his instrument panel, where he'd be faced with a bewildering
array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his
heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays
before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where
the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the
target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground
reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these
incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a
daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have
known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all
plausibility and say that Hanjour-whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't
fly at all"-somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the
American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed
the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by
themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out
where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing
position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot
see with his eyes-remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be
very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a
navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information
into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation
automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was
supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500
MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex
methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these
men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This
still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's assume
Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the
aircraft to its intended-and invisible-target on instruments alone until
such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him
to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This
portion of Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar
evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly
disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that
little point.)

According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over
Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of
360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which
"Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He
also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of
this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented
the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his life depended on
it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the
maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room,
all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military
plane."

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon
sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most
densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied by top military
brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order
to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and
approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself
with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to
extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians
construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included
blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).

I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion
on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction,
wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article
(the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the
roads.)

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb
airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the
world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low
wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400
MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one
mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light
poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by
the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the
final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft
impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757
were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as
in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo,
for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would
have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the
Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically
impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash
sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices,
simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than
approximately one half the distance of its wingspan-until speed is
drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal
landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not
have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a
maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high
wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise
missiles-and the Global Hawk.)

The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the
pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too,
would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too,
miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their "final
approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have
been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the
flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers "took control"
of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in
their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that
these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the
buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the
official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at
altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they'd realize the
absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into
a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away
and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500
MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

Complete text:
http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of
an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

Dan wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:

Richard Lamb wrote:

"How does a wing generate lift?"
Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
they
do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.

This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.

He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html

Bowman is also running for Congress
http://www.rmbowman.com/

As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
with
the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down in
time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
response to all of them?

Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
takes
2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and ready
to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and holidays
it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.

On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
genning
up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.

Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
action
would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?

"cjcampbell" wrote:
in message oups.com...

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
aircraft.

Actually, he is not. Not in the US, anyway. There is no one by the name
of Sagadevan currently holding a pilot certificate of any kind in the
US, not even a private pilot certificate, or even a student pilot
certificate. He does not appear anywhere in the FAA database.

That might explain why he does not have the faintest idea of what he is
talking about.

100% of the pilots posting here have met these allegations with
absolute derision. What does that tell you about the likelihood of
Sagadevan's claims?

That everyone who doesn't believe in it is a fool or in on the conspiracy.
Everything that he hears or sees will tell him that. He is a kook; that is
how kooks "think."

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:

Richard Lamb wrote:

"How does a wing generate lift?"
Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
they
do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.

This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.

He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html

Bowman is also running for Congress
http://www.rmbowman.com/
As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
with
the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down in
time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
response to all of them?

Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
takes
2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and ready
to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and holidays
it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.

On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
genning
up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.

Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
action
would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?

NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or since
9/11 tend to make the news?

Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:

Richard Lamb wrote:

"How does a wing generate lift?"
Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
they
do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.

This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.

He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html

Bowman is also running for Congress
http://www.rmbowman.com/
As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
with
the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down
in
time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
response to all of them?

Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
takes
2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and
ready
to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and
holidays
it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.

On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
genning
up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.

Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
action
would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?

NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or
since
9/11 tend to make the news?

Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired





According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before
9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first
plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked?

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
ink.net...
TRUTH wrote:


Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific
evidence....

Grim. Ok, I think we should "start at the very beginning".


Machine
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

In mechanics, a machine is a technological device that is designed to do
something cool. Technologists throughout the ages have identified seven
(7)
basic machines from which all other machines can be constructed.

The Seven (7) Basic Machines from which All Other Machines Can be
Constructed

1. the screw
2. the wing nut
3. the wheel and hubcap
4. the big heavy rock
5. the pointed stick
6. the VLSI integrated circuit
7. duct tape


Chronology

The first compound machine, a big heavy rock covered with duct tape, was
invented by Og the Cave Person in 500,000 BCE. Later that evening, he
figured
out a practical use for this peculiar contraption: clubbing baby
proto-kittens
for fun and profit.

The next important innovation was the Rube Goldberg Machine,
coincidentally
invented and patented by none other than Leonard Bernstein in 1903. Using
a
mere 3,141,592,653 parts (note: some authorities say 3,141,592,655), it
was
the first machine ever built that could successfully peel a tangerine by
the
power of thought alone.

See Also

* Creationism
* Intelligent Design
* Telekinesis
* l33t


Coincidentally, the number of parts in it was also its patent number.

Tim Ward

"kd5sak" wrote in message
news

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
nk.net...
TRUTH wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:

Bernoulli theory:

So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
again at
the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the
bottom
is
relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when
air
passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a
smaller
area
than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation
tells
us
that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the
Bernoulli
equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower
pressure.

I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller area". I Understood
that the flow over the top surface had to travel further (thus faster)
over
the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to the back of the
airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an aeronautical
engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.

Harold

All those theories have been discredited anyway. It's invisible magic lift
fairies that do all the real work.

Tim Ward

Stop replying to this idiot.

If a (compressible) fluid flows from a fat tube into a thin tube and
back into a fat tube, it is being "squeezed into a smaller area" when
it's in the thin tube.

The Bernoulli equation only applies to *incompressible* flow.

This is required by the way the trailing edge of the wing is angled.


What about reflexed airfoils?

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:

Richard Lamb wrote:

"How does a wing generate lift?"
Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
they
do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.

This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.

He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html

Bowman is also running for Congress
http://www.rmbowman.com/
As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
with
the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down
in
time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
response to all of them?

Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
takes
2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and
ready
to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and
holidays
it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.

On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
genning
up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.

Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
action
would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?
NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or
since
9/11 tend to make the news?

Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired





According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before
9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first
plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked?

FAA has no authority over NORAD. Maybe FAA hadn't been too worried
before then. I have never had scrambled jets, do they taste anything
like scrambled eggs?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired