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: 16
64
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the response Zaphod, i have to run for a bit but will pm you about this later if you don't mind. I'd very much like to continue this exchange.






posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:05 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.


The thing to remember about this audio here is you can hear the controllers instruct the pilot to follow it. It's not like he volunteered knowing he could interject his own story line.

This is exactly what happened in PA with the Cleveland Center controllers, they solicited from the pilot the report.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Absolutely. I actually enjoy these.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: DickBrisket


So , the Public was Made to Believe this Aircraft Made this Impact Hole in the Side of the Pentagon ? ...Hmm...











I Guess the Wings of this Aircraft were made out of Tissue Paper ?
And the engines out of cardboard...12,000 lbs. of metal traveling over 400 mph hits a brick wall and there's no evidence??? No holes??? Naw....



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: DickBrisket


So , the Public was Made to Believe this Aircraft Made this Impact Hole in the Side of the Pentagon ? ...Hmm...



So where's the landing gear??? The back wall is still intact and a window is visible??? Where's that massive piece of metal that created the hole???







I Guess the Wings of this Aircraft were made out of Tissue Paper ?


That is a hole in the inner rings of the Pentagon where at least one of the landing gear went through. Landing gear are some of the heaviest and strongest parts of the airframe so one of them making it that far is not that shocking.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: darkstar57

Those engines weigh 6 tons, but are mostly hollow, with a very small core. The thrust is irrelevant.

The tail height is on the ground with the gear down, but like most of the aircraft is hollow and fragile.
Those engines are 12,000 pounds of titanium blades...They didn't disintegrate...Should have been hundreds of turbine blades laying all over the place...



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
This is a overview of the third person account of the missing missile. Quotes and links follow.

Official line


Driver Thinks Borgstrom Shot Down Flight 93 - One of the alert pilots, Major Brad Derrig, will later recall, “Confusion arose because Borgstrom had no missiles when he took off and that was noticed when he landed.” [9/11 Commission, 12/1/2003] The driver of a refueling truck, who is unaware that Borgstrom had taken off without any missiles, now notices that Borgstrom’s plane has no missiles hanging from its wings. According to author Lynn Spencer, the driver “knows that United 93 has gone down and now he surmises who took it down.” The following day, the driver will voice his suspicion to Borgstrom, and Borgstrom will clarify to him what actually happened. But, according to Spencer, “in the interim, a rumor is started that makes its way onto the Internet and will haunt the pilots for years to come,” that Flight 93 was shot down.

Link



Borgstrom joining them as a pilot will mean that, in the middle of this unprecedented crisis, their unit will be left without a commanding officer.


The third party, story uploaded to a blog.



Because of my position as a ground equipment mechanic, I had access to the flightline operations that day. My friends were Crew Cheifs and Weapons Loaders, among other professions on the flightline that day. One of my [unusual] duties that day was to drive a Loader (personal friend) along with a rack of live missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) across the active runway to the Alert Squadron and drop them off. I was towing equipment to the flightline, so when it was time to go back and pick up the Loader (and our missile trailer) I was unable to do so, but another member of my Flight (a good friend, and later roommate) did go. According to my roommate (and I later confirmed with the Loader) the Loader was completely silent most of the trip back to our side of the base, after they crossed the active, he spoke. "They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with" That was all. As they pulled back in to the squadron area, The loader was whisked away by his commanders for debriefing. I didn't see him for a few days, but when I did, he said he couldn't talk about it, but he confirmed that what my roommate had told me was true.

Link


The person who spoke to pilot Borgstrom would have to be JJ (position not stated, could be the driver). The other two are a loader and mechanic, unless mechanics drive fuel trucks also.

Two armed fighters and one unarmed are scambled.

Would an alert fighter be loaded with only one missile - Loader: "One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with". This seems to imply it was one of the armed fighters.

Borgstrom wasn't just a pilot, also a commanding officer, so this might be why he as asked. It may not have been because it was his plane without missiles.

Was it "one missile' or "no missiles".

It's hard to not be suspect of official accounts, given the track record. Haven't found anything else by the anonymous AF veteran yet.

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



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: pale5218

unless it went stealth


It's called flying low.....
If they turned off their transponder, TCAS etc, then it is pure radar and altitude will affect that.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Iscool

Ever opened the cowling on one? The core of the engine is actually tiny comparatively. And what is there is largely hollow,and extremely fragile. .



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Iscool

Those turbine blades will break quite easily. Having all that debris hit the engine, even for the tiny amount of time it was still spinning was going to wreak havoc with those blades.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iscool

Those engines are 12,000 pounds of titanium blades...They didn't disintegrate...Should have been hundreds of turbine blades laying all over the place...


How hard is it to Google...lol BTW the blades are not titanium... How can you avoid all the data, eyewitness reports, tons of other things and just say got to have blades all over the place to be a plane that crashed there... There were all kinds of plane parts there...







edit on 12-3-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
What about flight 800 that was more than likely hit by an errant missile. They retrieved the parts from the bottom of the ocean and reconstructed it. It was in National Geographic. Speed at which the sections of the plane hit the water unknown to me but they sure retrieved a lot to the plane to reconstruct. And again in my original post I asked a captain at the airport if the plane could be maneuvered as such. His reply was no.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Yes, a news crew in a brand new Jet Ranger with video live....

Correctamundo

reply to: mersaultdies



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ansuzrune

It also broke apart in midair. That tends to leave fairly large pieces of debris. High speed impacts don't.

I've found that trained personnel, such as an airline captain, tend to think of things in terms of their training. That's why the radar controllers at Dulles said that commercial aircraft don't maneuver like that, it's not safe or comfortable for the passengers. Trained airline pilots tend to think I'm terms of what's safe, and what is comfortable for the passengers on board. If you don't care about that, you're going to do things that aren't considered safe.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah anyone that's pulled apart a turbo would know that heavy parts are not conducive to spinning at 10s of thousands of rpm,they need to be lightweight so the unit doesn't self destruct under differing air pressure changes. Central shaft with vanes and a housing to direct the airflow.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah anyone that's pulled apart a turbo would know that heavy parts are not conducive to spinning at 10s of thousands of rpm,they need to be lightweight so the unit doesn't self destruct under differing air pressure changes. Central shaft with vanes and a housing to direct the airflow.


So in your imagination they dont weigh 6 tons each??

How can everything be so small and lightweight and also weigh 12,000 pounds



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

I don't know what they weigh mate,but I could guess and say a lot of it would be the central shaft,bearings,oil pumps and such. I know nothing of avionics to be honest,and I myself think the shafts would have caused some obvious damage to the outer facade since it was just limestone simulated marble, but again,I don't know. I just use way too much deductive reasoning.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

The weight is in the core engine. The weight of the RB211-535E4B that was used on Flight 77, without thrust reverser assembly, intake cowling, or exhaust section is just over 8,000 pounds. That's where all the weight is, but the fan blades and turbine disks in that engine are going to come apart when they eat debris, and they're going to cause a lot of damage to the engine. Jet engines might be heavy, but they're still incredibly fragile at the same time.
edit on 3/13/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/13/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah I've seen what a bird does to a turbo without an intercooler, not pretty. Anything spinning at those speeds with that much centrifugal force needs light parts which will make it fragile,but wouldn't the core have left significant damage zaphod,like 2noticable strikes on each side of the entrance hole?/again,just asking. Cheers



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: hiddenNZ

There was probably some damage from the engines, but once the turbines failed and the core lost structural integrity, that impact damage would have been lessened somewhat. The engine probably crushed at least some, due to the damage it suffered from the uncontained failure it almost certainly suffered.

Once the wall collapsed though, unless the area they hit was intact, it would have been almost impossible to find any impact marks left by them.
edit on 3/13/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join