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.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 34
286
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Ok, flight 77 is lossing altitude and cannot flight that low. Where is it going to fly to? To the vector of its crash.

I think most aircraft crashes involving the ground are caused by loss of altitude. Is that a false statement?

It's also been proven from the flight data, and by ground effect, the flight controls were set so the jet would make it nose first to the pentagon.

Why do you think it wouldn't crash into the pentagon?
edit on 22-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed nose




posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

G force doesn't have anything to do with it. A G is the feeling of force on the body when an aircraft maneuvers. Commercial aircraft are designed to take several positive and a couple negative.

The only thing that would come into play is ground effect, which would actually help somewhat, as the aircraft would balloon up slightly when it got into ground effect.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Ever going to prove the DNA evidence does not confirm a passenger jet hit the pentagon?

You can play your games, not posting any facts, or not posting requested evidence just highlights how weak your arguments are.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Show where I ever used the photos as part of my argument.

Like to tackle remains released to the families of passengers and crew of flight 77 being fabricated?
edit on 22-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed ever



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

G force doesn't have anything to do with it. A G is the feeling of force on the body when an aircraft maneuvers. Commercial aircraft are designed to take several positive and a couple negative.

The only thing that would come into play is ground effect, which would actually help somewhat, as the aircraft would balloon up slightly when it got into ground effect.


So the part where people say the airliner could not have flown just above the ground is patently false?



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes. It's not easy to fly low, at high speed, but yes, it can be done. There are some great videos of New Zealand Air Force 757s coming in low and fast past an airshow crowd, before climbing at a ridiculously steep angle.

There's another of a French C-135 in Algeria (the C-135 is based off a commercial design) that comes by the camera less than 100 feet it looks like, at high speed. Great video.
edit on 2/22/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Most people say the jet could fly that low.

There are a few associated with AE911TRUTH (Truth movement) that say no.

Again, what if you cannot? Is it going to crash.....

Use this to help decide?

Thread title: Flight 77 maneuver
www.internationalskeptics.com...



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes. It's not easy to fly low, at high speed, but yes, it can be done. There are some great videos of New Zealand Air Force 757s coming in low and fast past an airshow crowd, before climbing at a ridiculously steep angle.
"

please source that here so we can all take a look at the maneuvers you're describing.

i bet none of them show planes flying less than 10 feet above the ground at 500+mph speeds.

i'd love to be wrong about that.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

They didn't fly at 10 feet until just before impact. The FDR data shows them descending through the light poles, then there's a slight G effect about the point where they're into ground effect, and at 4 feet immediately before impact.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

They didn't fly at 10 feet until just before impact. The FDR data shows them descending through the light poles, then there's a slight G effect about the point where they're into ground effect, and at 4 feet immediately before impact.


Yes, thats the info I had been looking at as well.
Why do people keep saying the plane struck the ground before impacting the pentagon?
edit on 22-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee


Why do people keep saying the plane struck the ground before impacting the pentagon?


So then the crash scene photos can all be compared exclusively to all the other plane crash scenes where they inherently hit the soil during their impact.


edit on 22-2-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Apparently DNC driven Russian paranoia of late is now spilling over into the 9/11 Forum?

So much to be said of how Democrat's so many were Truther's during Bush. And then Obama got in and immediately they all started worshiping the government again, and all withdrew from the Movement (which rapidly collapsed about this time, although also factoring the No Planers Movement).

9/11 Forum has been in the pariah, but all the sudden Obama is out and the thread about a piece of old Russian munition as the backdrop in a No Plane rehash tale is worthy of hundreds of Flags (despite hard arguments against it)???

Reality stranger than fiction!!!



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

So moving the goal posts again.....

Gone from your contention that there were multiple reinforced concrete walls in the Pentagon

That an aircraft could not penetrate those walls to leave the hole in the C Ring wall

Now you are babbling about how far the plane flew before hitting the Pentagon

STICK TO THE POINT

Have shown that there were only 2 walls - Exterior E Ring and C Ring wall - in addition were concrete support
columns along path through building

Hole in C Rig was left by section of landing gear which travelled through building

Do you agree ?? YES OR NO Explain otherwise ......



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Salander

fairy tale? How so? Is there proof somewhere that I'm missing? Not likely...but I'll bite.

A2D


The entire story is false because all its required elements are false.

No airliner at the pentagon makes it false. No airliner in PA makes it false. Controlled demolition at WTC, not a natural collapse, makes it false. Impossible cell phone calls make it false. A Dog & Pony Show "set up to fail" Commission makes it false.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

They didn't fly at 10 feet until just before impact. The FDR data shows them descending through the light poles, then there's a slight G effect about the point where they're into ground effect, and at 4 feet immediately before impact.


Bad news here. The FDR for AA77 was not assigned to an airframe, as delivered by the NTSB and analyzed by Dennis Cimino. Not only was the FDR not assigned to an airframe, it contained all sorts of silly details showing it to be fabricated. FYI Cimino worked in the electronics field, including Navy Combat Systems, radar, ECM. He was an FDR specialist working for Smiths Aerospace.

All the facts show there was no airliner, no AA77, at the pentagon.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes. It's not easy to fly low, at high speed, but yes, it can be done. There are some great videos of New Zealand Air Force 757s coming in low and fast past an airshow crowd, before climbing at a ridiculously steep angle.

There's another of a French C-135 in Algeria (the C-135 is based off a commercial design) that comes by the camera less than 100 feet it looks like, at high speed. Great video.


weren't these 9 11 pilots, barely trained pilots. One would think they wouldn't attempt to perform a difficult almost directly horizontal crash, but a more angled crash.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xenogears

What does any of that do to explain the problem of something massive was required to take them all out in one fell swoop, and still jive with the impact situation on the building?

And we don't need any more what if's. I've laid out teh specific requirements to pull off such a job, and somebody now needs to one up all that with a methodology that circumnavigates that real world model, in detail.


Here's the thing, a specially designed material-assembly-construction lightpole can be remotely triggered by a small easily removable or self destructible device. You can topple as many as you like in one fell swoop, if foul play is at play, anything goes.

You assume that modern tech is not capable of designing realistic feeling and looking light poles capable of tumbling and even deforming at a moment's notice remotely if the situation calls for it. It is not a physical impossibility, and I do not think it is beyond our modern technological capabilities.

Again a careful analysis of either the history of the poles prior to the event or their composition, say the presence of any sort of residue, after the event could shed light.

Again playing devil's advocate, but it isn't impossible.


edit on 22-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears




weren't these 9 11 pilots, barely trained pilots. One would think they wouldn't attempt to perform a difficult almost directly horizontal crash, but a more angled crash.


75 years ago barely trained Japanese pilots were able to hit moving ships - Ships there were shooting back !!



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Xenogears




weren't these 9 11 pilots, barely trained pilots. One would think they wouldn't attempt to perform a difficult almost directly horizontal crash, but a more angled crash.


75 years ago barely trained Japanese pilots were able to hit moving ships - Ships there were shooting back !!



Not a very strong comparison if you think about it a little more.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes. It's not easy to fly low, at high speed, but yes, it can be done. There are some great videos of New Zealand Air Force 757s coming in low and fast past an airshow crowd, before climbing at a ridiculously steep angle.

There's another of a French C-135 in Algeria (the C-135 is based off a commercial design) that comes by the camera less than 100 feet it looks like, at high speed. Great video.


weren't these 9 11 pilots, barely trained pilots. One would think they wouldn't attempt to perform a difficult almost directly horizontal crash, but a more angled crash.


What angle would satisfy you? Approximately



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

No, they all had commercial pilot ratings and several were doing the transition program to get type rated for 737s.

A more angled crash is harder. Diving on a target requires all kinds of changes to the aircraft to compensate for forces on the aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join