Non mi piace fare sarcasmo sulle cose tragiche. I complottisti affermano che fù una demolizione controllata, ebbene chi ha fatto questo lavoro era un dilettante. Oppure le tesi dei complottisti sono tutte sbagliate.
In the aftermath of 9/11, I have heard many claims that a 757 could not possible have hit the Pentagon because the plane cannot fly so low to the ground at speeds of 500 mph or more. The primary reason given is that ground effect prevents this from happening. Is there any truth to this claim? – Eric I am researching Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. The aircraft was a Boeing 757-200 traveling 345 mph according to the flight data recorder. Because of damage to light poles about 1500 feet from the building, the leading edge of the wing was about 15-18 feet off the ground at this location. The impact damage at the building is contained below the slab of the second floor, which is 14 feet high. Nothing hit the lawn prior to the building facade. How would ground effect have been overcome for this scenario? – Russell Pickering
- Your article on ground effect says that it comes into play at a height equivalent to the wingspan of the aircraft, or about 125 ft for a 757. If a 757 tried to fly at low altitude at 500 mph, wouldn't ground effect force it up to at least 125 ft? And if the pilot tried to force the nose down at that speed, wouldn't the aircraft become unstable? I don't think any pilot could control an aircraft like that and hit the Pentagon. No 757 could fly like that, especially the terrorist supposedly flying Flight 11 who was an unskilled amateur pilot yet magically flew with total perfection. – S. R.
We have previously explored one of the most common questions about the attack on the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 in an article about engine wreckage photographed at the site. Another popular question raised by many who doubt the official story of what happened that day concerns the aerodynamic phenomenon known as ground effect. Continua a leggere qui
- I've seen pictures of engine wreckage at the Pentagon after 9/11. Your site says the engine of a 757 is over 6 feet across but this piece is way smaller than that. Does it prove that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a 757 and the government is lying about it? – Leroy Mulligan
The page you refer to discusses the diameter of the engines used aboard the Boeing 757. What is not explicitly stated in that article is that the dimensions discussed refer only to the maximum diameter of the engine and not the widths of the various components within. Continua a leggere qui e qui e qui
- What is Storm Shadow? Is it more effective and more accurate than the Tomahawk missile? – Rushad
I assume you must be referring to the Storm Shadow cruise missile that has received some press attention during the recent Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Storm Shadow was designed to meet a British and French requirement for an air-launched long-range precision-guided cruise missile incorporating stealth characteristics and able to penetrate hardened targets. The British requirement was issued by the Royal Air Force under the name Conventionally Armed Stand Off Missile (CASOM), and the contract was awarded to Matra BAe Dynamics (MBD) in 1997. The French version, called SCALP EG, is essentially the same missile but uses a different interface to attach to the parent aircraft. Both missiles were largely based on the earlier French Apache anti-runway weapon but incorporate new guidance systems and warheads. Continua a leggere qui
… One of the most interesting quotes comes from Afework Hagos who commented on the plane see-sawing back and forth, suggesting that the pilot was struggling to keep the plane level in either pitch or roll or perhaps both. Hagos was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when the 757 passed overhead. He reported, "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance." Another eyewitness named Penny Elgas also referred to the plane rocking back and forth while Albert Hemphill commented that, "He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just 'jinked' to avoid something." These observations were further confirmed by Mary Ann Owens, James Ryan, and David Marra who described the plane's wings as "wobbly" when it "rolled left and then rolled right" and the pilot "tilted his wings, this way and in this way." This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian (he asked that his last name be withheld) agreed with the above statements about the fly-by-wire control systems used aboard airliners. He went on to say, "The control systems used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high-speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure…and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into flight software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much." Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airliner pilots who decided to try out this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown, but the aircraft is built to high enough safety margins to survive these extremes nonetheless. Perhaps the most insightful quote from one of the pilots was, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" Parte tratta dal sito Aerospaceweb Aggiornamento, queste sono riprese satellitari del luogo dell'attentato. Nella cartella dei media potete scaricarvi le immagini ad alta risoluzione
Pentagono visto dall'alto. La macchia scura è l'eliporto : il punto dell'impatto. Notate l'aeroporto che si trova immediatamente sopra la rosa dei venti. Punto di vista del pilota. L'altezza è riportata direttamente nell'elevazione. Avete tutte le coordinate. Considerate che il Pentagono è più basso dell'autostrada e quindi il volo è necessariamente leggermente inclinato verso il basso e non orizzontale come qualcuno vuole far credere.