I think people are falling for it

Absolutely agree! I've read that the only power the government and those with the "power" would truly fear is all of us, uniting, and finally pointing the finger where it belongs...

Adder wrote:

Rick D wrote: I'm not even sure if it could have flown at that low of an altitude at that speed because of down-draft.

What do you mean by down draft? Do you mean wind shear?

Down Draft is a new concept that is not being studied at this time because it can't be replicated in the wind tunnel without major changes, and even the wind tunnel here at Boeing is in constant use for regular R&D; and the FAA will not allow planes to fly at ground level at full speed.

The basics of aeronautical lift are that because the top surface of the wing is curved, and the bottom surface is flat, that air traveling under the wing has to slow down to meet up with the air going over the top. This slow down creates a cushion of air that pushes the wing up, thus achieving flight. The theory of Down Draft is that the size of this cushion of air under the wing is dependent on the size of the wing, and the speed of the airplane. If a 757 was traveling at full speed, at ground level (or just above the ground enough for the engines not to drag), the force of the air going under the wing would have caused a significant cushion of air that would have physically pushed the airplane up, like two magnets pushing away from each other.

Again, this is a theory that is too impractical and dangerous to test, so it's a bunch of aerospace geeks wondering "what if".

Aside from the holes in stories you notice much of the media tries to make everyone who questions the official story nuts. Even Bush himself said "Let us not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories, concering the attacks on 9/11" Doesn't this sound strange to anyone? How there's some sort of event that happens, you see some trying to cover it up and try to call anyone nuts who questions them. If what some of them spoke was true, why try to cover it up?

With all the racial tension and the whole Muslim hating thing, there's some serious divide and conqeur mentality going on and pretty soon people all over might be fighting each other.

Rick D wrote:

Adder wrote:

Rick D wrote: I'm not even sure if it could have flown at that low of an altitude at that speed because of down-draft.

What do you mean by down draft? Do you mean wind shear?

Down Draft is a new concept that is not being studied at this time because it can't be replicated in the wind tunnel without major changes, and even the wind tunnel here at Boeing is in constant use for regular R&D; and the FAA will not allow planes to fly at ground level at full speed.

The basics of aeronautical lift are that because the top surface of the wing is curved, and the bottom surface is flat, that air traveling under the wing has to slow down to meet up with the air going over the top. This slow down creates a cushion of air that pushes the wing up, thus achieving flight. The theory of Down Draft is that the size of this cushion of air under the wing is dependent on the size of the wing, and the speed of the airplane. If a 757 was traveling at full speed, at ground level (or just above the ground enough for the engines not to drag), the force of the air going under the wing would have caused a significant cushion of air that would have physically pushed the airplane up, like two magnets pushing away from each other.

Again, this is a theory that is too impractical and dangerous to test, so it's a bunch of aerospace geeks wondering "what if".

Oh so not a weather phenomena. Ya got any links? Pressure differential occurs between both the top and bottom of wings AFAIK but I get that the higher pressure experienced on the lower surface of the wing could be indicative of some body of higher pressure air beneath the wing. I'm not sure it would extend very far though, especially at speed.... now I really want to see pressure diagrams to find out
:lol:
Edit; perhaps they had to research this when designing the B1B bomber, as it was designed to operate at low level and most of the body itself appears to be a lifting surface! Might be a place to look if declassified.

I've liked reading about aerodynamics in the past so its not completely foreign to me, but I don't know enough about it... and AFAIK most of the non-weather related risks at low level are at airports were things like helicopters next to runway thresholds can cause turbulence, and of course wake turbulence from previous traffic. Otherwise the military spend a lot of time flying very low and also in formations, and in various sized aircraft - but I don't have any first hand experience and am not 'in the business'.

Or do you just mean ground effect? I've never heard ground effect stopping an aircraft from flying lower, just changing the trim required to maintain level flight down there... or as the terrorists flying would have done, just pitched into it.

Doesn't anyone think that the plane that hit the building should have been shot down immediatly by invading airspace? Why wasn't it shot down? This happens when there's a plane going through certain areas, but this plane just passed through without getting shot downed. No one finds that strange?

Some say some opan to wipe out all religious groups and organizations and make it somewhat like communism. They might look at the Jedi and it would make sense because Jedi believe in a republic but usually don't trust politicians, many are open minded and also stry to stay fit to. As far as getting rid of religions, communists of the past did that so people would be loyal to the government instead of their beliefs and creeds.

Has anyone thought it's strange many politicians keep talking about a NWO over and over? They keep using those words. And I find it strange that some people would think it's all a fantasy when you see politicians saying it out loud and admitting it. I imagine the Muslims are being used as just a scapegoat as well. Remember in Star Wars, Palpatine blamed the Jedi for what was going wrong at the time. Who's to say some didn't just use the Muslims as someone to blame so people won't look at the real enemy?

Yabuturtle wrote: Doesn't anyone think that the plane that hit the building should have been shot down immediatly by invading airspace? Why wasn't it shot down? This happens when there's a plane going through certain areas, but this plane just passed through without getting shot downed. No one finds that strange?

At the time no such policy existed because, with the exception of the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945, a large aircraft had never struck a NYC skyscraper in such a way. Also, it takes time to deploy fighter aircraft and even longer for them to get to their target. Remember that while they travel at high speeds, so do airliners.

Also, shooting an aircraft down over a densely populated city like NYC would end *very* badly for people on the ground. Unlike in video games, an aircraft that is shot down does not simply disappear. It has to hit something sooner or later, and if it has been hit by a missile, it usually does not do so in one piece.

Adi Vas wrote:

Yabuturtle wrote: Doesn't anyone think that the plane that hit the building should have been shot down immediatly by invading airspace? Why wasn't it shot down? This happens when there's a plane going through certain areas, but this plane just passed through without getting shot downed. No one finds that strange?

At the time no such policy existed because, with the exception of the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945, a large aircraft had never struck a NYC skyscraper in such a way. Also, it takes time to deploy fighter aircraft and even longer for them to get to their target. Remember that while they travel at high speeds, so do airliners.

Also, shooting an aircraft down over a densely populated city like NYC would end *very* badly for people on the ground. Unlike in video games, an aircraft that is shot down does not simply disappear. It has to hit something sooner or later, and if it has been hit by a missile, it usually does not do so in one piece.

They would have shot it down before it got into the densely populated area. No action was taken which is what makes it strange. This was not the first building that had a plane crash through it. And I still can't find a single building that collapsed the way the Twin Towers did due to a plane hitting it.. At worst, the building would fall in pieces, not in a neat stack which looks like something out of a demolition. Buildings that weren't built nearly as well as the twin towers were hit and they never collapsed like that.

Yabuturtle wrote: ... Has anyone thought it's strange many politicians keep talking about a NWO over and over? They keep using those words. And I find it strange that some people would think it's all a fantasy when you see politicians saying it out loud and admitting it. I imagine the Muslims are being used as just a scapegoat as well. Remember in Star Wars, Palpatine blamed the Jedi for what was going wrong at the time. Who's to say some didn't just use the Muslims as someone to blame so people won't look at the real enemy?

Yabuturtle, in response to this post I have to show the flip side of my psyche from the moderate "no proof of a conspiracy" messages I've placed in this thread so far.

I think it was in one of your posts that the difference between proof and evidence was mentioned. And I have to admit that yes, based on evidence there are things like you've mentioned that I do think are strange.

The constant reference to the New World Order by leaders throughout the Western developed nations - using the same term with never any alteration in phrasing - does unsettle me. I think it's strange how quite a number of terrorists have been identified by passports which, unlike the buildings and office furniture and bodies and vehicles which have been blown up, keep managing to survive explosions intact. I think it's strange that focal point of the original logo for the Total Information Awareness office - John Poindexter's agency created for mass surveillance - was a pyramid topped with the "all-seeing eye" that so many conspiracy theorists find threatening. I think it's strange that NORAD had scrambled our air defenses on 9/11 in a drill, simulating hijacked planes crashing into a big building. I think it's strange that the identity of the person(s) purchasing huge numbers of put options against United and American Airlines stock just before 9/11 has never been revealed, though the financial houses must have records of who it was. While it's not beyond belief, I find it odd that 200 to 300 people on a plane can all be intimidated into cooperating with their murderers by a few guys with box cutters. I think it's strange that even as America's longest war persists, shifting from nation to nation, the global wealth gap grows so extreme that six or seven dozen people now control the same resources as the poorest half of humanity. Tolerant as I am of religions other than my own, I think it's strange that a significant number of American's influential leaders meet in private once a year at least in part to participate in a ritual before a statue of a giant owl. And having lived through the cold war, I think it's strange that now I trust a media outlet from Russia to give me a more authentic review of international news than at least the publicly-owned media houses of my own culture.

I've yet to encounter a credible explanation of how all these things are tied together, if indeed they are. But when I think about such issues, I am uncomfortable, and yes I think it's strange.

Omhu Cuspor wrote:

Yabuturtle wrote: ... Has anyone thought it's strange many politicians keep talking about a NWO over and over? They keep using those words. And I find it strange that some people would think it's all a fantasy when you see politicians saying it out loud and admitting it. I imagine the Muslims are being used as just a scapegoat as well. Remember in Star Wars, Palpatine blamed the Jedi for what was going wrong at the time. Who's to say some didn't just use the Muslims as someone to blame so people won't look at the real enemy?

Yabuturtle, in response to this post I have to show the flip side of my psyche from the moderate "no proof of a conspiracy" messages I've placed in this thread so far.

I think it was in one of your posts that the difference between proof and evidence was mentioned. And I have to admit that yes, based on evidence there are things like you've mentioned that I do think are strange.

The constant reference to the New World Order by leaders throughout the Western developed nations - using the same term with never any alteration in phrasing - does unsettle me. I think it's strange how quite a number of terrorists have been identified by passports which, unlike the buildings and office furniture and bodies and vehicles which have been blown up, keep managing to survive explosions intact. I think it's strange that focal point of the original logo for the Total Information Awareness office - John Poindexter's agency created for mass surveillance - was a pyramid topped with the "all-seeing eye" that so many conspiracy theorists find threatening. I think it's strange that NORAD had scrambled our air defenses on 9/11 in a drill, simulating hijacked planes crashing into a big building. I think it's strange that the identity of the person(s) purchasing huge numbers of put options against United and American Airlines stock just before 9/11 has never been revealed, though the financial houses must have records of who it was. While it's not beyond belief, I find it odd that 200 to 300 people on a plane can all be intimidated into cooperating with their murderers by a few guys with box cutters. I think it's strange that even as America's longest war persists, shifting from nation to nation, the global wealth gap grows so extreme that six or seven dozen people now control the same resources as the poorest half of humanity. Tolerant as I am of religions other than my own, I think it's strange that a significant number of American's influential leaders meet in private once a year at least in part to participate in a ritual before a statue of a giant owl. And having lived through the cold war, I think it's strange that now I trust a media outlet from Russia to give me a more authentic review of international news than at least the publicly-owned media houses of my own culture.

I've yet to encounter a credible explanation of how all these things are tied together, if indeed they are. But when I think about such issues, I am uncomfortable, and yes I think it's strange.

Thank you. I do realize lots of strange things happened and have been happening. When they talk of a new world order, they make it sound like it's a peaceful new world that will emerge. But then that can be interpreted in different ways. For example in the book Brave New World, it was "peaceful" but look how oppressive it was. I'm not sure why I'm making lots of comparisons to Star Wars, I guess I just have Star Wars on my mind or something. But with the whole rituals and the giant owl thing, it makes me think of Palpatine, who was publicly an emperor and very few people knew he was actually a sith lord so who's to say some of those guys are politicians on the outside but are dark sorcerers in secret as well We don't have proof but there is some evidence and things hinting that. And like with the shootings that's been happening recently it seems they take advantage of it and call out for gun restriction which is what many tyrants have done in the past. Palpatine did all this to have a safe and secure society but knew it was just to control the population easier.

There's most definitely some weird things going on and I think it will involve every single one of us.