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: 18
65
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: pale5218

Sure, in many instances this would have a huge affect but this is so close to the radar main bang it couldn't get low enough to hide.

Case in point , AAL77 had transponder off and was tracked so primary was being picked up.

The red dots around the DCA is ground clutter so in this scenario going low would not be low enough.



It seems that in all cases anomalies are always found with so much investigation...not to have anomalies would be an anomaly in itself. In the end, one needs to decide if that is enough information to conclude a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. I would say that the overwhelming evidence concludes it was a plane compared to the minuscule amount that says otherwise...




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CajunMetal
Of course the pilot of a Military aircraft in what could've been a govt operation said he saw what supports the official story.


That doesn't make any sense. There are so many variables that would put that flight in conflict with AAL77 or in a position to be able to see the aircraft to identify the type. The GOFER06 C130 was 3 miles from the AAL77 aircraft as it crossed left to right in clear view of the C130.

There are two reasons this target was called out to the GOFER,

1) because of a fast moving target displayed on the radar and it drew concern by the controllers and supervisors in the Ops room. These controllers were aware of what transpired in NY, a primary target in controlled airspace would be a significant concern on any day.

2) One of the controllers responsibility is to call out traffic (traffic advisories) to pilots that are under their control. This includes situations when there is unknown traffic (targets) or even known traffic. The controllers would have called out this target regardless of who was in the controlled airplane i.e. military, commercial, general aviation, cargo etc.

Any aircraft that came within close vicinity to the primary target would have been the recipient of the traffic advisory, it just so happened it was military.

Back to my original point, the control actions of both pilot and controller resulted in putting this aircraft (GOFER) in the position he was and at the time. Now you have to add one more, he was aware of the unfolding event, he knew that he would get a traffic advisory and when he did, he had to identify the traffic as the B757 in real time, not in an investigation. Too many variables.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: pale5218

Sure, in many instances this would have a huge affect but this is so close to the radar main bang it couldn't get low enough to hide.

Case in point , AAL77 had transponder off and was tracked so primary was being picked up.

The red dots around the DCA is ground clutter so in this scenario going low would not be low enough.



It seems that in all cases anomalies are always found with so much investigation...not to have anomalies would be an anomaly in itself. In the end, one needs to decide if that is enough information to conclude a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. I would say that the overwhelming evidence concludes it was a plane compared to the minuscule amount that says otherwise...


I agree.

One needs to absorb the information and make their own decision. You can't believe something if you don't accept it.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Overwhelming vertical stabilizer that just didn't even show a scratch.
That close picture up there not too far in the posts of the hole in the main facade......does it look smallish, idk



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: pale5218

I was under the impression that the air flowing under a jet that size would make it impossible to fly that low/angle.

They fly that low every time they take off and land.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   


They fly that low every time they take off and land.


They are not moving at 500+ mph though.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   


The 747 zipping past about 25' off the ground is the best.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
That would rip the wings off a 737

Then there's the size.....huge mistake tellin us that's a major airframe that hit there.

Common, just plain old timey... still got the good sense God gave ya common sense.

In a nutshell, the size of the hole, do you agree with " it looks smallish " what's the tape measure say....
edit on 13-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

The 747 zipping past about 25' off the ground is the best.


That is a good view of the height with the B747.

Surely low enough to hit light post and ground effect not apparent.


edit on 3/13/2017 by pale5218 because: remove vid from repost



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

It's all fake, planes cannot fly that low. Air doesn't work at that altitude.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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...


Of course the vanes in the high pressure end are titanium...They've been using titanium vanes for more than 60 years...They are stronger and lighter than steel...

And actually there weren't many plane parts there at all...I just came across this info which gives quite a twist on the operation and it is pretty compelling...

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...




edit on 1322017-03-13T20:50:32-05:0020172017Monday by Iscool because: (no reason given)


when you get to the page scroll down and watch the video...
edit on 1272017-03-13T20:51:27-05:0020172017Monday by Iscool because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   
You crushed getting us a video

Awesome , thank you sira reply to: Iscool



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I think he means the "ground effect" as a wave builds against the ground. This is what I was talking about, the use of a horizontal approach verses a top attack at a 45 degree angle.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: 00018GE

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: pale5218

I was under the impression that the air flowing under a jet that size would make it impossible to fly that low/angle.

They fly that low every time they take off and land.


Missed the quote part.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   

edit on 14-3-2017 by wickd_waze because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: mersaultdies

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yeah, you definitely missed it. there's only one "I don't know" that you've gotten from me, and that's in reference to where the few pieces of supposed wreckage came from.

and unfortunately those photos that you're referring to don't prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that flight 77 crashed into the pentagon. why? because the nature of those photos, the 9/11 commission report, the NTSB, and the official pentagon report gives any common-sense adult the feeling that something's not quite right about this "plane crash."



Just regarding the photos of wreckage on the Pentagon lawn:

I was watching live news channels on the day of the 'attacks' (getting ready to go off to UNI!) and am fully aware that the initial reports from the Pentagon that I saw stated that there was no wreckage to be seen, disregarding flight path damage.

Later I saw the same channels showing obvious large pieces of wreckage debris that were NOT there immediately after the crash.

I cannot prove this obviously and it is the prerogative of everybody to disbelieve me but the lies of '9/11' were what originally got me involved in questioning things seriously rather than believing what I was told by the powers that be. If it wasn't for the lies around this topic I would probably still be a sheep. I don't know what happened but what we were fed definitely did not and this post is an excellent effort to explain specific things.

I remember helicopter shots minutes after Pentagon attacks and reporters saying something like the Pentagon impact doesn't look anything like a plane hit the building because of the lack of wreckage, debris and the hole created by impact was too small. The reporters were also saying that maybe it could be a missle or a bomb, with several military personnel witnessing a missle hitting the building and hearing explosions.

And how and why were the Washington Mall and State Department on fire at the same time the Pentagon attack reports were still coming in.
edit on 14-3-2017 by wickd_waze because: ASU

edit on 14-3-2017 by wickd_waze because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
They really want to hide the mall and state department fires

Did you know the state department is jewish

All the offices have Israel flags too,,,on their desks

edit on 14-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: CajunMetal
Of course the pilot of a Military aircraft in what could've been a govt operation said he saw what supports the official story.


That doesn't make any sense. There are so many variables that would put that flight in conflict with AAL77 or in a position to be able to see the aircraft to identify the type. The GOFER06 C130 was 3 miles from the AAL77 aircraft as it crossed left to right in clear view of the C130.

There are two reasons this target was called out to the GOFER,

1) because of a fast moving target displayed on the radar and it drew concern by the controllers and supervisors in the Ops room. These controllers were aware of what transpired in NY, a primary target in controlled airspace would be a significant concern on any day.

2) One of the controllers responsibility is to call out traffic (traffic advisories) to pilots that are under their control. This includes situations when there is unknown traffic (targets) or even known traffic. The controllers would have called out this target regardless of who was in the controlled airplane i.e. military, commercial, general aviation, cargo etc.

Any aircraft that came within close vicinity to the primary target would have been the recipient of the traffic advisory, it just so happened it was military.

Back to my original point, the control actions of both pilot and controller resulted in putting this aircraft (GOFER) in the position he was and at the time. Now you have to add one more, he was aware of the unfolding event, he knew that he would get a traffic advisory and when he did, he had to identify the traffic as the B757 in real time, not in an investigation. Too many variables.


If he was in on the operation and he knew, as you say, that he would have to ID the thing headed for the Pentagon, you think he'd tell them something contrary to the official narrative?
Yes in real time. Its the verbal equivalent of either looking the other way or laying the groundwork to support a lie. A planted witness.
You've got a radar screen confirming what we all know, something flew into that area. And visual confirmation is the only thing identifying what it was? Confirmation from a military craft that happened to be in visual range of what was coming. Most likely in the area as part of the 'war games' designed to confuse air traffic control in the first place.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY



Did you know the state department is jewish

Didn't know that, do you have any proof?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: pale5218

I was under the impression that the air flowing under a jet that size would make it impossible to fly that low/angle.



Not impossible, especially if the intent is to crash...



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
65
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join