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: 19
64
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Not saying it can't happen but comparing planes flying low at those speeds isn't a very validate comparison to 500+ mph.




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

It does wonders for the whole "They can't fly that low at any kind of speed" debate though.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

True. I have seen articles on commercial pilots mentioning that flying and handling the aircraft at the high speed in the heavy air of lower altitudes is much different then at high altitudes.

It sure seems like the Pentagon pilot has much luck on his side that day. But it is about crashing an aircraft, not landing it.
edit on 3/14/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

For airplanes operating at higher altitudes, including jets and turboprops, Vne becomes Vmo. Though Vmo varies with altitude, Vne does not. For jets and turboprops, there is no published Vne.

For all practical purposes, Vmo IS Vne.

With the important point being that according to data provided to Stutt & Legge by the government, their story is the aircraft was about 90knots over Vmo.

It's all a contrived story of course, as there was no crashed airliner at the pentagon. But this just shows how absurd the official story is.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CajunMetal

I can see that if the C130 pilot was in on it but the chances are still very slim, for all these things to occur for the C130 pilot to be in that position.

This is the part of your discussion, where I don't think it's plausible.

Let's just say for the discussion that the pilot of the C130 was aware of the plan and was instructed to ID the the target as a B757. I certainly don't believe for several reasons but let's say ok he knew.

The plan would have to entail logistical elements that needed to be met in order for this chance encounter to occur.

This includes the unidentified target in this vicinity at that specific time.

There was no specific deterants in this part that would prevent this, other than fighters intercepting and we know that didn't occur, so this is acceptable.

The next thing we have to consider is the departure of the C130. This pilot had to depart at the correct moment to be in the vicinity. Aircraft don't always get to depart when they want, there are many times when tower controllers have to call to get a "release" from the radar departure controller. A possible delay.

The departure of this C130 flight just made it off within minutes of a national ground stop being implemented.

The pilot has a route of flight that included navaids and airways. In airspace that serves a busy area, these departures routinely get headings and vectors by the departure controller to get to their route of flight. This is to move them safely while they are climbing through altitudes that are in use by other aircraft. This is normally away from congestion. The flight could have easily been vectored north or south of DCA to get through this airspace. Another reason this was s chance meeting.

The next variable is the need for the controller to call out the target. Much of this is judgement on the controller, under normal circumstances it probably would not have occurred. It was a primary target, the flight and terrorist were actually trying to get to their target without being noticed because by being noticed, it could have resulted in prevention. The controllers in the adjacent area (IAD) spotted the target as it was going throuh their airspace and called over to DCA controllers and pointed it out.

Another possibility is that along the eastbound track a controller could have spotted the target and pointed it out to some other flight, an arbitrary commercial, or general aviation pilot that would have not been in on the plan. A pilot could have flown by this traffic and questioned the controllers who it was. Just like the response of the DCA controller, it would have immediate attention from every one. This would have also derailed the planted witness part.

I went into detail on just this piece but to me is a main part of what I was trying to point out here. It's not just the radar replay that show a target flying a pattern that was reported. The pilot of the C130 identifying this as the B757 is important and this to me is a chance convergance of targets. It just would have been extremely difficult to intentionally make this happen.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: pale5218
a reply to: pale5218

Additional evidence can be gleaned from this data.

There is suspicion that an aircraft was in the vicinity of the Pentagon, possibly an aircraft used for surveillance or control. This data doesn't show any unknown aircraft and I would even say it's proof that there was no flight in this immediate area except the C130 GOFER06

....

The replay doesn't show any traffic in the area that could potentially be suspected or lingering in the area. The only aircraft in the area immediately after the impact is the C130 GOFER06.



At the end of the second video, C130 GOFER06 requests to circle around the Pentagon. The air traffic controller approves the request but follows a few seconds later with the instruction that "they want him to move away from the area to the west."

You seem to be suggesting that C130 GOFER06 is the "mystery" plane that people spotted directly over the Pentagon approximately two minutes after it was hit. Link to video of the C130 here

Is there any radar available of the two minutes following the impact? How did C130 GOFER06 end up directly over the Pentagon after it was told to move away from the area?

If you already covered this, let me know. I skimmed through but didn't see it covered.


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



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: roadgravel

It does wonders for the whole "They can't fly that low at any kind of speed" debate though.


Well, isn't the real debate whether they can fly that low at 530 mph?

(I do not claim to know the answer, but let's not reframe the debate as a strawman.)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Zaphod58

True. I have seen articles on commercial pilots mentioning that flying and handling the aircraft at the high speed in the heavy air of lower altitudes is much different then at high altitudes.

It sure seems like the Pentagon pilot has much luck on his side that day. But it is about crashing an aircraft, not landing it.


Simply crashing it requires no skill....Flight 77 had to crash 'on a dime.' The hijacker-pilot had to skillfully fly the plane up until the moment of impact.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

GOFER06 departed Andrews heading west. He was already near the Pentagon, which is why he was steered to that area. He was over the Pentagon when they steered him west, back to his base course.

The mystery plane was an E-4B that was launched out of Andrews as NAOC Tertiary. It was operating as the third backup airborne command post.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

That's one argument. The other, more common one is that large aircraft can't fly in ground effect at high speed. That's the one I'm talking about.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

GOFER06 departed Andrews heading west. He was already near the Pentagon, which is why he was steered to that area. He was over the Pentagon when they steered him west, back to his base course.

The mystery plane was an E-4B that was launched out of Andrews as NAOC Tertiary. It was operating as the third backup airborne command post.



Do you have any links I could read? The mystery plane is new to me.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

That's one argument. The other, more common one is that large aircraft can't fly in ground effect at high speed. That's the one I'm talking about.


You wrote: "...the whole "They can't fly that low at any kind of speed" debate."

Not "high speed."

And that is a strawman.

If you can settle the debate of whether AA77 could fly that low at 530 mph, just do that. No need for strawman debunking.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

911review.com...

An ATS member made a video and audio recordings of the two E-4s that departed Andrews that morning.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

WORD31 departed about 0930, and VENUS77 which was seen over the Pentagon, departed around 0945.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Any kind of speed, as in with speed higher than landing speed. But just for you:

It does wonders for the argument that they can't fly in ground effect at high speed.

Satisfied?

If it had started straight and level and pushed the throttles forward, then there's no way it would have reached that speed. But it didn't. It dove from higher altitude, and then leveled off as they advanced the throttles to the firewall. It still had some downward momentum to push the speed higher. If they had flown level long enough they would have slowed down.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess I was thinking you had video of a similar aircraft flying that low at 530 mph.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There are no videos of similar aircraft flying low that fast. You don't fly aircraft like that that low and that fast. It's not safe for the aircraft or crew.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Top Gun commander questions pentagon maneuver. Says no way could beginners do this.

Understanding actual jet maneuvers for us that are ignorant, why not ask an expert veteran with 23,000 plus hours?



Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”


www.opednews.com...

Let's take a look at his credentials and flight time.



September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. “It just didn’t make any sense to me,” he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.”

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy’s ‘Top Gun’ air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, “Top Gun” reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school.

Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a ‘Top Gun’ adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings. Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers.

He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career. Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”

Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”


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



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There are no videos of similar aircraft flying low that fast. You don't fly aircraft like that that low and that fast. It's not safe for the aircraft or crew.





posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

MME what I see happen in the video is it stops just about a minute after the C130 pilot reports the crash. I see that the flight is still descending out of 2,500 ft, he was given a clearance to 2,000 ft after he turned behind the B757 to follow.

Next listen the end of the audio again and repeats the crash into the west side of the pentagon. He asked the controller if he wanted him to stay at 2,000 ft. The controller cleared him back to 3,000 ft and turned him westbound, heading 270.
The pilot asked to circle around the pentagon in his turn to head back to the west. Shortly after approving the circle around the Pentagon, the controller instructs the C130 that they wanted he out of there to turn to the west.

If we consider the position in the replay and the very end and the audio transaction, this C130 is between two miles from the Pentagon climbing back to 3,000 ft.

I have not seen this video before but I would say the position and altitude is consistent with with is in the replay and audio.

I don't see any targets anywhere at the end of the replay that could be suspect or possibly an unidentified aircraft. I did pull a few more videos off the 911dataset site that I have played yet so let see if the data goes past that two 1-1:30 we already have.
edit on 3/14/2017 by pale5218 because: more better english



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

911review.com...

An ATS member made a video and audio recordings of the two E-4s that departed Andrews that morning.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

WORD31 departed about 0930, and VENUS77 which was seen over the Pentagon, departed around 0945.


Your right Zaphod, WORD31 departed at 09:27 and is about 18 miles west of IAD at the time of impact.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join