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: 42
285
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

What i said was that the speed of the aircraft in the video is irrelevant when compared to 9/11. Which it is. The video isn't being used to show large aircraft can go that fast at low altitude, but to show that they can fly in ground effect.

First, the aircraft in the video is a 747, which makes it much larger, with different flying characteristics .

Second, the aircraft starts the pass from level flight,which is totally different how it was done on 9/11.

Third, the pilot in the video actually cares about being safe, as the aircraft will be used again. So he's absolutely not going to do anything to risk his license.

As i said, the only comparison relevant between that video and 9/11 is that he dealt with ground effect.

Unless it's a recreation of 9/11, and flies a similar flight path, including building speed by descending, any video of a low pass of an aircraft is comparing apples and oranges. It can, however, be used, as here, to ddispute claims such as large commercial aircraft can't fly in ground effect.

As for Hani Hanjour, he wasn't as inexperienced as people think. He had his commercial license, and was working on his 737 type rating. The 737 cockpit and handling, depending on model, is similar to a 757.
edit on 2/27/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/27/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Has there been pentagon recreations done in flight simulators?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I haven't followed 9/11 in years, so I'm not sure. I walked away when it got so ugly, and hardly ever get into the debates anymore.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: evc1shop

I have seen such scaling as you mention in your post. I think it is called orthographic projection, and you're right that if several dimensions are known then very accurate scaling can be done.

With the known dimensions of the distance from the camera to the impact point, and the known dimensions of a Boeing 757, and the known dimensions of the building itself, an accurate picture can be drawn of what a 757 would look like in perspective.

When that is done, it becomes painfully clear that whatever craft was captured by the parking lot camera, it was definitely NOT a 757 airliner.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

thank you for clarifying, I now see where you're coming from.

still, the idea that someone who is not a seasoned pilot can fly a 757 that low at 530mph after a "dive" from 2,200 feet is absurd to me. dare I say, it's not logical based on all the evidence we currently have.

out of curiosity, have you ever seen a flight path simulation of flight 77 that hits all 5 light poles and descends from 2,200 feet to fly a few meters off of the ground before hitting the pentagon?

every single one I've seen never follows the plane's course through the pentagon lawn. it's always specifically left out of the simulation.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

The last one I remember showed a classic descent, flown by an inexperienced pilot, that was all over the place with the controls as he descended. I don't remember how far it went though. Like i said, i haven't kept up in recent years. There have been too many other things catching my interest, and the discussions, with the exception of this one, for the most part have been way too nasty to get dragged into.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

There was no in place air defense system in Washington, even around the Pentagon.
There are Man portable SAMs at the White-house, IIRC they were brought in when Clinton was president due to the attempt to crash a small GA aircraft into the building.

Yes, NORAD could have potentially scrambled aircraft and got them in place to knock out flight 77. It has been pointed out however that NORAD is tasked with and trained for knocking out INCOMING aircraft. Flights outside of the CONUS airspace.
The people of the US are not and were not willing to live with Air defense installations ringing their cities, especially when the most likely military threat would be detected well before it reached those cities and engaged by NORAD missiles and interceptors. There were instillation's in the '50s and '60s that had long range nuclear tipped air defense missiles near Washington. New York and other coastal cities. They got closed down when the threat of Russian bombers was replaced by Russian ICBM's. There was no need.
So no Air defense was not in a position to deal with hijacked commercial aircraft crashing into buildings.
I am however still open to the idea that they did indeed shoot down flight 93. That was the last flight and its entirely possible that NORAD got itself adjusted to the threat and got permission to down that plane in time.
I do not blame the government for doing that if they did nor do I blame them for keeping that a secret if they did that as well.

Regarding "controlled" demolitions.
The WTC's were anything but controlled. They damaged buildings for several blocks around them

Again however no truther can explain how this vast (and it would indeed have to be vast) conspiracy could be carried out and kept secret for 15 years. No one with any credibility has come forward to say "I worked on the plan"...well actually I take that back Khalid Shek Muhammad specifically said that he worked on the plan.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Seems unlikely that a granit 700 missile would work after weeks under salt water pressure...any electronic circuit exposed to salt dies quickly. likely same for flight controls in the tail. so recover and fire..not likely at all.
now a review of the overhead shots of the pentagon right after..within hours.. show holes at 45 degrees from the face. but they are too round, and suggest, especially the first, demolition charges. recall the 12 foot round hole photo in the first 30 minutes after the hit, that disappeared when a likely demo charge brought the roof down. seems to me, any missile is meant to penetrate then explode...not penetrate 3 wings then not explode. Also, there is a strange burn on the inner ring of the pentagon at 90 degrees to entrance of the "plane", or rather at 45 degrees to the alleged path, or straight in as your point of view.
also, the pic of the nose of the Krusk with the circled hole not likely a torpedo, because an explosion would show steel bent outward from the location....
now about demo charges. likely the real target in the pentagon was the accountants and security people working on Rumsfelds 2.3 trillion dollars missing....they had to die, and who would trust a salt water soaked granit missile to hit that office target. only preplanted charges could be certain.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Wow!
How the heck did I miss this Post?!
Excellent work OP.
Not only do you have excellent explanations, but back up facts...which have been rare lately!
Great job, and looking forward to digging into this one!



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   
A reply to: Zaphod58

Nice to see you pop-in, once and a while again.!

My remarks on your 2 videos :

1. See the 42 to 44 secs position in your 747 video, he clearly flies with full landing flaps out, thus, in landing configuration, while Flight 77 flew fully clean.

2. The KC-135 has in my opinion also its flaps out, and also flies distinctively slower than Flight 77 flew over the lawn, which the "recovered" DFDR indicated as 534 MPH, about 850 or so KMH.

3. Both your examples indeed flew for at least 100 meters within ground effect, which is btw stronger at lower speeds than at higher speeds, where it however still is of importance for a manually flying pilot handling a 850 KMH flying wide wing 757-200 at 9 to 3 meters high.
I've studied a lot of YouTube videos and found an awful lot of jet fighter pilots who flew their planes really fast at ridiculous low heights (smile). So, why do wide body/wide wing pilots fly much slower, in landing configuration (flaps fully out) and not so extremely low above soil.? The price of those planes do not differ that much...so it's not that they are less daring because of a too expensive toy.
It's something to do with that half-wingspan physics flight rule, I'm sure. The bigger the wing, the higher you must stay from soil, or you get in serious trouble.

4. Especially the French KC-135 goes really low. And flew a lowest part of a parabola flight path, to be able to ascend again, gaining speed in the downward part of it, levels out and go full throttle upwards again.
This could also have been done by Flight 77 without going up again, but the DFDR indicates that the pilot flew all the way from the top of the Navy Annex down to the first floor slab's column 14, manually, without any assistance of the safety precautions/settings of the three autopilot settings (1st officer, center and 2nd officer AP settings) and with no flaps at all (would have been ripped off at that speed) at 850 KMH in dense air.
Which AP settings seem to me, logically to be used by the 747 and KC-135 pilots, I assume even at those lower speeds. Their superiors will not be pleased if they crash, and their DFDR shows they flew manually.

5. Especially that diagram of the last 5 secs of Flight 77, I posted 2 pages back or so, makes me wonder, if in case the last part of that DFDR was altered by someone, if he was a tad bit too laborious by adding all those fluctuations in the last 4.5 secs. A human pilot can not correct such strong bumping fluctuations fast enough at 850 KMH, software + hardware (AP) can, however.
It indicates thus IMOP, probably very fast CORRECTED bumping up and down, or as the author of that diagram thinks, fluttering of measuring equipment.
Look at the placement of the Pitot tubes on the hull of a 757 in my post above my diagram post, they are too sturdy IMHOP, just as the hull there, also is.
Normally an accelerometer will measure proper-acceleration, not the Pitot tubes, which measure coordinate-acceleration (rate of change of velocity). And how could an accelerometer flutter? It's placed inside the cockpit in the instrument panel and measures acceleration in G, just as is indicated at the Y-axis in that diagram.!
References: en.wikipedia.org...
www.aircraftspruce.com...

6. There's another thing which already many years make me wonder if logic is absent in most OS trusters.
Why do most of them post all the time that it's obvious that Hani Hanjour did not need to learn to LAND, only to fly to a distinct way point.
While it's as clear as crystal, that he INDEED planned and performed a damn near perfect LANDING.! He ended up at 3 meters high with that 757 its nose cone, into the second floor slab.! Whoever flew that plane remotely was an ACE.! And the name was for sure not Hani...His instructors at the last Flight School he attended send a complaint to the FAA, telling them that the guy had very poor English and flying skills, and that they therefor thought that his license papers must have been falsified. No reaction back....Strange indeed.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop


Whoever flew that plane remotely was an ACE.! And the name was for sure not Hani

On April 15, 1999, Hanjour earned a ''satisfactory'' rating by an examiner from the Federal Aviation Administration and was awarded a commercial license with a multiengine rating. You don't get those in a crackerjacks box. The guy was capable of flying.

One thing that I have questions about, there were a lot of ex military on the plane, if I remember right the pilot himself had been in the airforce. I just don't get how some guys with boxcutters could take control of the plane and not have a fight on their hands.
edit on 27-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Excellent post!

It does raise some interesting possibilities. One thing I want to mention is a CNN video that was shown on cable that clearly showed a missile come in streak towards the pentagon, and then a few minutes later that video was never shown anywhere again, and when people mentioned this video days later on national TV, they were treated as if they were delusional and nuts for suggesting such a thing. The ridicule was poured on heavy to anyone mentioning it. When a caller a week later on coast to coast radio with Art Bell mentioned this CNN video, he scoffed and hung up on the caller immediately.

I know quite a few folks who clearly remember this video being shown on CNN and maybe ABC news but only one time and never again. When asked about it they pretended not to know what the person asking were talking about.



Now this is something I would be incredibly interested to see! Any video of this anywhere?



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: GlassToTheArson

I never saw it again after seeing it on TV. Not even on the internet so far. The reporter was saying "We just received this exclusive footage", "a missile has just struck the pentagon".. Then poof, the channel cuts to a commercial, then back on and no discussion or anything further about it. Complete subject matter change afterwards, and nothing about it ever again.

I do remember someone saying something about missile footage a few days later and they were dismissed without much ado.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Prior to 2001, flight crews were trained to give hijackers the aircraft, keep passengers in their seats, and get the aircraft on the ground where they could negotiate with the hijackers. It's not like today, where they'd actually fight back. The crews would actually stop people from fighting back.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

He was far from an ace. During the descent the aircraft was all over the place. The flight controls were constantly moving around, and the aircraft was up and down and constantly maneuvering. If he was an "ACE" as you put it, it would have been a perfectly smooth descent, and there would have been no extra maneuvering.

As for "landing", no, that wasn't anything like a landing, except that it was at low altitude. Flying a plane at high speed isn't as difficult as doing a landing actually. Landing is the hardest maneuver to make in any aircraft. What he did was continue flying it, just at a very low altitude.

Hani Hanjour was training at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa, and had completed initial training on the 737. He also didn't have any trouble flying a plane around the New York area when he flew with an instructor there.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Boing 757 low pass, high speed, steady as a rock, straight line.



And another one.




posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 01:12 AM
link   
A reply to: D8Tee

Please, link to article.
Because at the last flight school two instructors saw that license and thought it was false, after he performed so poor that they forbid him to fly.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   
A reply to: GlassToTheArson

Don't get your knickers in a knot about that video, that's the one already posted once in this thread, and nobody here seems to notice that "the missile" streaks to and impacts at the wrong side of the Pentagon, the South Parking side.....thus not at the right, Heli-pad side.

It was a hoax.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 01:19 AM
link   


Again however no truther can explain how this vast (and it would indeed have to be vast) conspiracy could be carried out and kept secret for 15 years. No one with any credibility has come forward to say "I worked on the plan"...well actually I take that back Khalid Shek Muhammad specifically said that he worked on the plan.

Two things, first in the real world a pedo sharing network with 70,000 members operated in secret for years, iirc. So even the most horrible of things can be kept secret. Those with knowledge might be far less than 70,000, also they could've been chosen cultists or member of some secret order... we know cultists are capable of self torture, lying, murder and even suicide in the name of their beliefs. Also those who have patriotic reasons might do so too, I hear the nuke program had nearly a fifth of a million people involved, and it was kept secret during the war, and right now many if not most do not know how to make a nuke in fine detail.

Many, if not most, of the world religions are basically founded on make believe by many cultists keeping the secret of their fake leader for their entire lifetime.

Second, and more speculative, the simulation theory. Say this world was built for entertainment by a conspiracy nut, or fan, all manner of conspiracy could actually be real. You could have mind control, NPCs, etc all manner of things, could happen, designed to foster back and forth debates between conspiracists and anticonspiracists.


originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee

Prior to 2001, flight crews were trained to give hijackers the aircraft, keep passengers in their seats, and get the aircraft on the ground where they could negotiate with the hijackers. It's not like today, where they'd actually fight back. The crews would actually stop people from fighting back.


Didn't they fortify cockpit doors to ensure if the pilot is suicidal and crazy bye-bye you're not taking control of it.

BTW, is cockpit another of those weird 'manly' words like seminal?
edit on 28-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
A reply to: Zaphod58

Try to imagine a falsified DFDR....then things become not so complicated anymore.
For all we know by now, that day was one HUGE false flag operation.

Try to imagine TWO Hani Hanjours, one who did and could fly and got an "accident" or disappeared back to a cave, and his impersonator....who boarded Flight 77.
We all know about those "hijackers" who turned up alive and well after 9/11, ain't it so? One was a Tunisia Air pilot....
The father of Mohammed Hatta swore that he phoned him several times at his home in Cairo, after 9/11 .

REMEMBER : FALSE FLAG OP.
I'll try to find back for you in my browser's History, the article about the 2 instructors I read 3 days ago, be patient since I am now sleepy as hell.
edit on 28/2/17 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

edit on 28/2/17 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
285
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join