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.

 

A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

page: 14
64
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

Been around them many times. Not that impressed by their size, sorry. They're big, but most of that size is because of the length of their landing gear.

As for the engines, that's all fan that makes them that big, and the fan is so fragile a pebble will damage it.
edit on 3/12/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Ten four....the fan has no mass true....just that little suitcase size bundle that's behind the bypass couldn't have folded to the inboard on both sides.

I just realized that's the story in a nutshell.....could the wings fold and follow in.....vertical stabilizer too.....on hitting the ground effect

a reply to: Zaphod58


edit on 12-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

They also weren't going to be laying mostly intact on the ground beside the wall, or punch perfectly round holes in the wall.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

By our supposed national air defense system.

We've hashed this out in another thread or two before.

Intercept aircrafts as well as more than a few e4-bs were either already in the air or about to be, and most were engaged in "war game simulations" that became the real threats of that day.

The intercept capability was/is apparent, and we absolutely had/have the military capabilities to intercept these aircrafts in hijacking scenarios. Scenarios that were literally already being simulated that day.

You see it as a blundering failure. I don't.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Yes we did, and it doesn't change the fact that the E-4B is a command post, not an AWACS, or that the Alert Force wasn't involved in any exercise. And there were plenty of aircraft they could have called on if they wanted to launch unarmed aircraft that weren't involved in the exercises. As for the E-4s, they are designed to take over for NORAD, or one of the other command posts if they're knocked out or lose communications. That's why the tertiary aircraft landed long before the others. It wasn't needed.

The problem that day was that they were looking for aircraft that didn't want to be found, and had to use FAA radar. If there had been an E-3 in the area, I'll almost guarantee they would have found them. Using FAA radar, they were half blind with a hand behind their back.
edit on 3/12/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/12/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Air defense

Great in simulation, no so good in real life. Hopefully lesson learned.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Snarl

Now this is getting interesting


I'll throw something out there that might surprise you.

The GOFER06 flight was able to continue on his way after the Pentagon crash. It just so happens his route of flight took him northwest near through PA. He was asked by the Cleveland Center controllers to verify a reported crash area. He reported smoke over the crash site. UAL93 was the crash.


ETA This was a coincidence, I don't anyone going away with the idea there was something nefarious about this.


Are you serious, is that true...? ( Yes it is )

That is so 'convenient' that I actually believe this to be a coincidence - anyone planning a cover up would go "nah, nobody'll fall for that!" and decide to go with two different guys.

Still, though, the same Airforce officer used to lend credence to both crashes... I cannot that it does not make my conspiratorial heart beat a little faster!


He was quiet a ways from the site, I believe the distance was 25-30 miles away. Not part of the story other than a coincidence.


It was, according to the flight controller, 17 or 18 miles away, which yes, is quite a distance.

But the fact that he was the first one to confirm the Pentagon crash to flight control after they lost the plane on radar, and then went on to pass the Pennsylvania crash within 4 minutes after flight control lost THAT plane on radar .. and again was the first to report the crash to flight control .. that is just a mind boggling coincidence.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

They did an exercise in the late 80s or early 90s, where an air defense unit had to launch and defend their base from incoming attackers. One of the generals had been hearing all kinds of bragging about how no one could beat them, and how good they are. They were allowed four aircraft on cockpit alert, and as many as they wanted on Alert 10, with a 72 hour window for when the attack was coming.

They got the four cockpit alert aircraft airborne before the flightline and runway were "destroyed".

The problem with a force that doesn't have to train to defend their territory, is that they forget how to.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

i can see why you'd see it from that perspective.

however, from my perspective, it seems to be entirely futile to have an air defense system in place that cannot account for aircrafts that wouldn't want to be found.

it is ridiculous and rather unbelievable to me that we would have no measures in place to combat the strategy of "turning off a plane's transponder" and any other applicable triangulation devices.

i'm no military strategist, but if i was, i'd imagine one of my foremost concerns would be to identify weak spots in our air defense apparatus and plan accordingly.

you're making it seem like we absolutely had no plan b, and we were rendered as handicapped just because a hijacked plane's pilot didn't want to be located. it's a bit too backwards and illogical to me.


edit on 12-3-2017 by facedye because: grammar



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: JanetteDoeDoe
a reply to: pale5218

Great thread and information, thanks!

Personally I think missiles but this is still some good information. At the end of the day if it's plane or missile, does it really matter? I think the more important question is, real or false flag?


Your new, welcome !



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hiddenNZ

The aluminum used in aircraft has a stronger tensile strength than a lot of steel. And it hit the wall like a battering ram.


I look at the logistics side of this. If it was a missile then an airplane with a good number of passengers are missing. What kind of missile would it have been and fired from where? This would not have been an air to air missile. Where did the 757 parts come from like the gear and turbine pieces? A C-130 followed a plane that disappeared, if not into the Pentagon then where did it go? There are zero eyewitnesses that say they saw a missile in the air...
A whole bunch of witnesses that saw a plane hit, one guy whose truck was near by had aircraft rivets embedded in it. Here is a good list of reports...

Pentagon Eyewitnesses


There were two other facets of this that was looked at, not just the flight path and traffic call by GOFER06. There was no continued radar hit on a flight if it had continued past the Pentagon as some theory has it. There was no lingering traffic at the time of the crash of AAL77, the E4B flight.

unless it went stealth



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Snarl

Now this is getting interesting


I'll throw something out there that might surprise you.

The GOFER06 flight was able to continue on his way after the Pentagon crash. It just so happens his route of flight took him northwest near through PA. He was asked by the Cleveland Center controllers to verify a reported crash area. He reported smoke over the crash site. UAL93 was the crash.


ETA This was a coincidence, I don't anyone going away with the idea there was something nefarious about this.


Are you serious, is that true...? ( Yes it is )

That is so 'convenient' that I actually believe this to be a coincidence - anyone planning a cover up would go "nah, nobody'll fall for that!" and decide to go with two different guys.

Still, though, the same Airforce officer used to lend credence to both crashes... I cannot that it does not make my conspiratorial heart beat a little faster!


He was quiet a ways from the site, I believe the distance was 25-30 miles away. Not part of the story other than a coincidence.


It was, according to the flight controller, 17 or 18 miles away, which yes, is quite a distance.

But the fact that he was the first one to confirm the Pentagon crash to flight control after they lost the plane on radar, and then went on to pass the Pennsylvania crash within 4 minutes after flight control lost THAT plane on radar .. and again was the first to report the crash to flight control .. that is just a mind boggling coincidence.


It is mind boggling coincidence, I listened to the tapes in Cleveland Center and this was going on for some time before GOFER06 came into the airspace. The UAL flight was coming from the other direction and being tracked in another controllers airspace.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

The military IS backwards and illogical though. I can't even begin to tell you how many times my other half has threatened to take away my computer because I was so pissed over the latest completely idiotic decision made by the Pentagon. And that's just in the least year or so.

The leadership has been known to look at all possible threats, and rank them. The lower the threat, the less attention it gets. Getting attacked by hijacked airliners that changed or deactivated their transponder was somewhere way down the list, so it got the attention the Pentagon felt it deserved, which boiled down to almost none.

Building a separate radar net, made up of primary radar stations, to cover areas already covered by FAA radar was decided against many years ago, when the early warning radars were decommissioned. It probably never crossed their mind again after that decision was made then.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf



I always chuckle at the folks that point to unbroken windows...


There is reason why windows were not broken

They were BOMBPROOF!! Designated not to shatter when hit.......

Read accounts of firemen inside trying to bash out these windows to release heat and smoke

Were unable to smash them open with axes/sledge hammers or cut them open with saw



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



The leadership has been known to look at all possible threats, and rank them. The lower the threat, the less attention it gets. Getting attacked by hijacked airliners that changed or deactivated their transponder was somewhere way down the list, so it got the attention the Pentagon felt it deserved, which boiled down to almost none.


so then, in your opinion, why were there so many hijacked airplane war games happening that very morning?

a multitude of hijacking scenarios happening on the same day as a real hijacking scenario?

and you're comfortable with simply chalking that up to a low-priority, mass-simulation kind of coincidence?

THE 46 DRILLS, OPERATIONS, WAR GAMES, AND ACTIVITIES OF 9/11
edit on 12-3-2017 by facedye because: preventing unnecessary exaggeration



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
One possible issue was having most of the aircraft needed for defense in an exercise. That seemed to pose a problem when aircraft were requested to act on the actual threat.

But being the first real airborne attack, some issues are to be expected I suppose. Hopefully things were learned on that day which that will eliminate similar mistakes in the future, should the country see another threat of this type.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

They weren't though. The ones that would respond, and were already armed weren't involved, and the ones that weren't armed would take at least 90 minutes to be armed and launched at a minimum.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: facedye

Yes we did, and it doesn't change the fact that the E-4B is a command post, not an AWACS, or that the Alert Force wasn't involved in any exercise. And there were plenty of aircraft they could have called on if they wanted to launch unarmed aircraft that weren't involved in the exercises. As for the E-4s, they are designed to take over for NORAD, or one of the other command posts if they're knocked out or lose communications. That's why the tertiary aircraft landed long before the others. It wasn't needed.

The problem that day was that they were looking for aircraft that didn't want to be found, and had to use FAA radar. If there had been an E-3 in the area, I'll almost guarantee they would have found them. Using FAA radar, they were half blind with a hand behind their back.


Yea, this radar without secondary or active transponders is extremely hard to track and find. When Indianapolis Center first lost radar contact they were searching downstream in the flight plan. Radar systems also have a some logic, so when the radar contact is lost it tries extrapolate where the target should be over the next few sweeps.

The system tends to wait for another good hit and when that doesn't happen, the target data block goes into Coasting (CST) and then eventually drops of the radar. If it gets a good hit, it reacquires the tag. This is another reason the sometimes loss of transponder isn't immediately evident.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But had some of those aircraft had not been in the exercise, would they not have been armed and ready? Not saying training is not needed but maybe a plan to have more ready reserves should be reconsidered.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Many of those exercises didn't involve the military units that would respondthough. And it's a bit misleading to say they were all going on that day. They were spread throughout the year, and some weren't even being run in 2001 anymore. There are FBI, NYPD, DIA, etc. And Red Flag and other operations, such as the ones over Iraq didn't have any affect on readiness of the units that would have responded.
edit on 3/12/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/12/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
64
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join