It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plane shredded to pieces

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Diving any aircraft ..... is a lot harder to do than a spiraling descent with a flat approach.
Really?? That is your opinion.

The professionals, experts, pilots all disagree with you. That is where my knowledge and information is based on as well as experience.

Listen to the expert here www.youtube.com...
When I posted this Zaphod you didnt mention what you thought of the experts that refute your claims.

You said it was easier to cork screw at high speed skimming the ground taking out pole then it would of been to just come down at 45 degree on the roof of the pentagon. Instead of the newly reinforced blast wall. How about hitting the white house? Why wasnt that a target?
edit on 16-5-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder




The professionals, experts, pilots all disagree with you. That is where my knowledge and information is based on as well as experience.


If a kid can do it . . .



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Shadow Herder




The professionals, experts, pilots all disagree with you. That is where my knowledge and information is based on as well as experience.


If a kid can do it . . .
Too bad we're not talking about landing. We are talking about a high speed corkscrew skimming the ground aiming for the newly and only reinforced blast resistant wall.

youtu.be... watch the video... again.
edit on 16-5-2015 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder




We are talking about a high speed corkscrew skimming the ground aiming for the newly and only reinforced blast resistant wall.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Your contention is even experienced pilots could not fly the plane into the Pentagon.
Right?

Others say no way [SNIPPED] could fly an airliner.
And yet there is no ground swell of pilots saying it couldn't be done.
And I post a video of a kid landing a B737.
You don't have to be a good pilot to crash a plane.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I am going to guess that the German pilots were actively trying to keep the nose up and not nose dive into the ground..... That does make a bit of a difference.



You guessed wrong. Suicide by pilot on account that the eyesight condition he was hiding would cost him his job. Also when a flight instructor says he couldnt fly one has to look at what he means by that. There is more to flying than on flight simulatOr. You have to respect the traffic rules deal with malfunctions etc. .
edit on 17-5-2015 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
REMINDER!!!!!

Please refrain from posting hateful material and spamming the same info/videos....
You are responsible for your own posts.

**ALL MEMBERS** The recent surge in Hatred, Racism, and Sheer Stupidity STOPS NOW

Community Announcement re: Decorum

and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

edit on Sun May 17 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder




www.youtube.com...

You stand corrected.

Your link starts off by saying they were total amateur pilots.
Which is totally false.
They were licensed pilots one with a commercial rating.
They requested (and received) practice flight down the Hudson river.

That's what happens when you watch these YT videos produced by noname people.
You get misquotes and half truths.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Shadow Herder




www.youtube.com...

You stand corrected.

.


The link shows professional pilots and it speaks for itself.

How about the Israelis that were living next to and shadowing the hijackers as they trained in U.s Flight schools. All very suspect. So the point is that what ever crashed into the Pentagon was aiming for the newly reinforced blast wall. It hit low and hit the only blast resistant area that was just completed in late 2001 to minimize casualties and damage.

If it were a real terrorist attack they would of hit the white house which would of decimated it.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder




If it were a real terrorist attack they would of hit the white house which would of decimated it.

That was the destination of flight 93.

And it doesn't matter which section of the Pentagon was hit.
They were making a statement. And they made it.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Shadow Herder




If it were a real terrorist attack they would of hit the white house which would of decimated it.

That was the destination of flight 93.

And it doesn't matter which section of the Pentagon was hit.
They were making a statement. And they made it.


Yes to convince the American public that this was a terrorist attack that will eventually lead the u.s to war with Afghanistan and Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of civilians which was proven to have nothing to do with 911 or WmDs.
We all know the official story has been proven false in many aspects. Therefore the whole premise of the attacks is evident that it was used to sway the public into war. It worked.

Now people like you sit hear and ignore evidence of that fact while no one is being swayed by these lies.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

I'll say this again as it's been completely ignored every other time I've said it on here,but what if he wasn't aiming for that exact spot on that side wall? How about if his mission was just to fly a plane into any part of the Pentagon,or maybe even less specific than that and his intention (or orders) were to fly it into an occupied district of Washington,and he hit the Pentagon by chance?


This is a point that can't be ignored. I would think it likely that a group who is already in the states and spent years planning this attack would know that upgrades were being done on this target. If this truly was their planned point of impact then it is one of the worst plans ever laid out. I also wonder at if the approach was so hard as some say then why was this one wedge singled out as the first section to be upgraded? You would think they would do the most vulnerable part first. On the other hand, you might also think hey would protect the walls closer to high ranking offices first, so I don't know what to make of that.
As far as whether or not the pentagon was the specific target, the other crashes were an aft of terrorism, but the pentagon strike alone (as stated by bush and others) turned this into an act of war. So to say that it may have been by chance is a critical statement.

a reply to: Imagewerx




posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

While Bin Laden wanted to attack White House, Atta realized it was too hard a target to pick out from air and hit

Target of Flight 93 was Capital Building

As with all the other targets (WTC 1&2, Pentagon) was a large building separate from other structures in the area

Thus easy to spot from air and attack without interference



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Attack on this section of Pentagon was simply matter of being first one in path of plane as it made the turn

Reason for the 270 deg turn was that American 77 came in too high to properly line up

Turn was needed to bleed off altitude so plane was low enough for terminal dive at target



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


Germanwings crash site had plane debris up to 6 m long. Engines. Landing gear. Physical evidence of a plane hitting the place was everywhere. As well as body parts, fingers and limbs - memorabilia of human existence.

Shanksville had a dent in the ground.

Pentagon had a hole in and a hole out.
edit on 17-5-2015 by deckdel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: deckdel

It was also, yet again, a totally different type of crash.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Given the plethora of video cameras surrounding the Pentagon, I won't be satisfied it was a plane until they release footage of the plane flying in.

I drove by the Lockerbie plan crash site two days afterwards. There were LARGE pieces of airplane and an enormous impact gouge across the ground (the plane took out an entire row of houses on impact).

The impact crater was definitely missing at the Pentagon crash site.

The hole in the side of the building was a lot smaller than a plane fuselage, and the building didn't collapse in a manner consistent to having a big, fast moving weight drop on top of it.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

Why would there be a crater at the Pentagon? It flew into the building intact.

The hole in the building was consistent with the diameter of a 757 fuselage.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: fireladdie

Point taken. Well said.

However if you use the Washington monument as a guide you could still pick it out.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Still have problem with buildings around White House making an approach (at least for a 757) difficult



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join