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: 49
64
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

B737-800

A different bird




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:09 AM
link   
KEEP ALWAYS in MIND that :

I, and any other logical thinking reader, of course can't believe for just one moment, that Sgts Lagasse and Brooks at the north canopy of the CITGO gas station, Mrs Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas on Route 27 in front of the Helipad, and Sean Boger in his Helipad Control Tower just 30 meters left/north of the impact, were all totally wrong and gave wrong SoC flight path indications.

So, for sure those 9/11 planners did plan their cut-light-poles part of their deceptions, nearly perfectly.

And we also still have the Cianca photo, with its time stamp printed on it by NIST themselves, which proves without doubt that there was a huge energy outburst, pictured as a huge seismic peak in WTC-7 its collapse seismogram, seconds before it's global collapse started, which resulted in a much smaller total seismic energy peak, than the first huge one.
(See for that, and the next remark, my signature its SEISMIC link)

And we have the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration, starting after that global WTC-7 collapse started, which is a dead sure indication for removing all resistance under the collapse initiation point(s) by explosives.
NIST even came closer to free fall acceleration during those 2.25 seconds, with their own calculations, after David Chandler pointed it out to them, during their first press conference after they published their WTC-7 draft report.

And we have the video interview with Mrs Susan McElwain, who saw that small white ultralight plane, that flew just a few meters over her van, which "drone" was not much wider than her van its length, then it hopped over the tree line that obscured her northerly view on the smoke rising, a few moments later, at the OS its designated UAL93 crash site.
That observation alone, proves foreknowledge and planning, for the right spot where UAL93 had to come down.
(See for that, and for my next remark : "Eyewitnesses Saw Military Aircraft at Scene of Flight 93".)

And we have the video interview with Mrs Viola Saylor and her sister, who both saw UAL93 fly not much higher than her 30 m high oak tree-tops in her backyard at Pompey Road, while its jet engines' slip stream moved the oak's top leafs.
While the NTSB decode of UAL93 puts that plane however at 3000+ ft / 1000 meter above Viola Sailor her house at Pompey Road.
Which observation, also seen by her neighbor Mr. Peterson at his house at the hundred meters further east, N - S going crossroads, is a sure sign that also the DFDR from UAL93 is manipulated, to cover up for the OS.
(Look up the the videos made by DiMaggio, by filling in these two ladies their names and his, in a YouTube Search)

And we have this :



files.abovetopsecret.com...



Thus, all of these above events prove to us, OS doubters, without a shimmer of doubt that we could not be wrong :
9/11 WAS a staged event.

By whom exactly, we are still not 100 % sure of.
But we come pretty damn close now.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by: D8Tee

Originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: D8Tee


The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick


Yes, I noticed that and tried to fix it at one point in time, for some reason the apostrophe's disappear.


ATS bugs, we seem to have to endure them for decades.

Did you also notice, that the ATS post-answer window, when you quote a quoted post, like above, will left out the second quoted text, in this case your 666 line?
Look, in Firefox, the only SAFE and really independent open source browser left, when not corrected first :


Originally posted by: D8Tee

Originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: D8Tee


The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick


Yes, I noticed that and tried to fix it at one point in time, for some reason the apostrophe's disappear.


Easily fixed by changing the quote and /quote in the first and last brackets, [ ] , to ex and /ex.
Why the admins here can't seem to fix that for ten years already, is beyond my understanding.

When they ever get to that, please change at last also the lower case letters to capital O and A from "originally posted" and "a reply to:" . Then it will appear as what I now excerpted at the top of this post.

Your problem with your signature line is easily fixed, when you make a screenshot of my correct line, import it in Paint, cut it so that only that line is left, color it to whatever favored color, and put it in your Profile as a link to that line in your ATS upload repository.
Easier, just type the correct text in whatever style and color in Paint, then upload to ATS :



and put it then in your Profile its signature box, this is the full link :
files.abovetopsecret.com...
The short one for your Profile's signature line : put pic and /pic inside those brackets [ ] , then copy/paste this : em590ad635.jpg in between them.

By the way, I'm moderately curious what MrBig comes up with.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: pale5218 and to D8Tee :

LT : Now, think a moment about two planes already, they lost primary tracks on, during the moments they were hijacked. I do not believe in coincidence regarding this subject.
The question rises then, how Middle Eastern hijackers at that time in 2001, could have known about these rare radar holes their exact positions and areas.? And how could they measure them from their plane seats, to know the best moment they had to overtake control.?
Why did they need the disappearance off radar at the begin of their hijacks.? Plane swaps.?
Or hiding their 180 degrees turns for main radars and get a time advantage before main radar would find them back.? Again, how did they knew then, about the right region to start their hijacking.???


I don't think this was not a calculated element to the plan. Only AAL77 was in an area that had poor radar coverage and that was most likely due to coincidence. The other three aircraft AAL11, UAL175 and UAL93 were all tracked in primary mode and they were even observed on radar the moments they were turning off the transponders.

Granted, there was some difficulty following the the primary targets but for the most part, they were in coverage.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by: CaptainBeno
A reply to: LaBTop

B737-800

A different bird


That's quite a big bird too.
All aerodynamic and physics laws will be applicable to a B757-200 too, with some very minor exceptions.
We need your expertise in the coming skirmish with the OS trusters. Could you be so kind to hop in when needed.?

Btw, best film ever, "One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest", for those of us that love the exceptional characters we can and will meet during a long life. On a side note, that huge Indian was fabulously personalized by that actor. Did he get an Oscar for that achievement.? By the way. All actors in that film were top class.!



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pale5218

If you mean the replay of the ATC radar information, I am skeptical. That because injects were in use that day, the radar was spoofed. So I'm skeptical of ALL radar data from that day. Maybe parts of it are accurate, and parts inaccurate, but in general I disregard the radar data as being unreliable.



Maybe the military radar was spoofed for the exercise they were holding. The FAA radar wasn't spoofed. The are several recreations for the AAL77 track with radar data from postmortem analysis but that was because they were able to extract the raw data from the system.

They used this data to show what the human was unable to see during the actual real time. The aircraft disappeared from the visual observance of the Indianapolis controllers because of poor radar coverage based on a weak primary return however, the track was there and captured in the raw data.

I get being skeptical but I don't see any evidence of radar manipulation from the reply especially when it's collaborated with audio.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by: pale5218

Originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: pale5218 and to D8Tee :

LT : Now, think a moment about two planes already, they lost primary tracks on, during the moments they were hijacked. I do not believe in coincidence regarding this subject.
The question rises then, how Middle Eastern hijackers at that time in 2001, could have known about these rare radar holes their exact positions and areas.? And how could they measure them from their plane seats, to know the best moment they had to overtake control.?
Why did they need the disappearance off radar at the begin of their hijacks.? Plane swaps.?
Or hiding their 180 degrees turns for main radars and get a time advantage before main radar would find them back.? Again, how did they knew then, about the right region to start their hijacking.???


I don't think this was (not) a calculated element to the plan. Only AAL77 was in an area that had poor radar coverage and that was most likely due to coincidence. The other three aircraft AAL11, UAL175 and UAL93 were all tracked in primary mode and they were even observed on radar the moments they were turning off the transponders.

Granted, there was some difficulty following the the primary targets but for the most part, they were in coverage.


Umm, why then, did the confusion about AAL11 seemingly on route to Washington, lasted that long.?
Why did it take so long for FAA HQ, AAL HQ, UAL HQ and military HQ conferences, to become aware and sure of the fact that UAL175 had already flown into the S.Tower.? And to get aware that AAL11 as the first one, had flown into the N.Tower.?

In my interpretation, and btw, according to your former posts, yours too, of the FAA, NORAD, NEADS tapes, it is crystal clear that at the decision levels, AAL11 and UAL175, and especially AAL77 too, were "at lost" for a very long time.
Long AFTERWARDS, when all the data was available, it was easy to find those planes in the saved radar files.

But NOT on 9/11, as you said so many times already. And that makes me wonder, since military radar specialists tell me VERY different opinions on that losing and/or not reporting to the right top brass decision channels by the military main radar operators, of these three planes: 11, 175 and 77 in the first HOUR.

They say : No way, José.!
They say there must have been an obstruction build in artificially, to block those messages from coming through.
This kind of National Threat level situation, and then this kind of crucial info not ending at the decision levels, is highly suspicious, they say. Radar operations are of the utmost importance in case of a sudden First Strike, there are strict rules of engagement STAMPED and CARVED in the minds of those operators, especially regarding their or their commanding officers reporting duties. Acceptance statements must have been obtained by the reporting officers. Otherwise they would have KEPT trying, up to the highest levels, even the White House, Pentagon top brass or Ministry of Defense.
This is where you should go after, the white spots created in the radar returns reportings. Important info was obstructed and got lost.
That's why it's not in those tapes and transcripts.
But of course it turned up in the later radar scoops data mining, and that's where these 9/11 planners made again a tiny mistake, a radar professional sees that it was there on the scoops, and knows immediately that something must have been very wrong in the MILITARY communication chains, ON THAT DAY.


Now it was my turn to point you to your anomalous, long afterwards, facts data mining behavior.


I'm well aware btw, of your stance on 9/11 as explained in your OPs.
I also like your strictly neutral and professional behavior in this thread of yours.
I'm glad you're on board.

I will go on a tour through my HD's and Mem-sticks collection, to find those very early 2002 posts from those early Team 8 members back, to show you their 1999 to 2001 eastern US radar coverage maps with their discovered MAIN radar holes circled-in, with the flight paths overlapping them. Quite a LOT of these holes in 2001, by he way.
Which could also have been an indicator of foul play by some important, small military factions, stopping technicians in repairing them, by simply obstructing and extending decision chains. VERY hard to prove later on, who was guilty of it.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DickBrisket

i dont understand how theres no video cameras outside the pentagon (the most secure place on earth, lol)

to prove it was a plane! we did have video cameras in 2001....



why do no pictures show a plane, and no video evidence, for me a plane hit it, but not the plane they say hit it.


edit on 4-5-2017 by Davg80 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Found it on YouTube, a search there for ""9/11 radar holes"" saved me a lot of work, checking my files :

Title : Inside 9/11 - Who controlled the planes?
By "inside911films", 1,215,627 views, Sep 07, 2011 :
www.youtube.com...


(Radar gaps map)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Conclusion at 3:43 :

By pure logic, that leaves only two possible explanations for the strange simultaneousness: accident or a central external control of the planes and their transponders.


More short videos about the 9/11 radar analyzes :

Flight 175 & Flight 11 Official RADES Radar FlightPath by femr2 :
www.youtube.com...

A 9/11 Coincidence Involving Airplanes And Air Force Bases by Saintly Oswald :
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Davg80

So - your contention is that since there is no video of AA77 crashing into Pentagon it did not happen....??

What about this ...??

USAIR 427

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:USAir_Flight_427_Impact_crater.jpg

There is no video of this, but can clearly establish that it was an aircraft which crashed here

As for Pentagon being "most secure site in world...."

Explain why if "most secure" there are no perimeter fence(s), no guard towers, no anti vehicle ditches or barriers??

Pentagon is an OFFICE BUILDING !!! While a very specialized office building, it is still an office building where
people come to work



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

edit on 5/4/2017 by pale5218 because: double post



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: pale5218

Umm, why then, did the confusion about AAL11 seemingly on route to Washington, lasted that long.?
Why did it take so long for FAA HQ, AAL HQ, UAL HQ and military HQ conferences, to become aware and sure of the fact that UAL175 had already flown into the S.Tower.? And to get aware that AAL11 as the first one, had flown into the N.Tower.?


Well if you follow the tapes and the actions and I have stated this before, you will see that it was speculated that the aircraft that hit first was AAL11 but there wasn't concrete evidence or assurancen they were the same. As they were putting some of the pieces together, the second one hit, UAL175.

AAL77 was known mainly by Indy Center, then AAL airlines and then started spreading throughout the FAA facilities in the northeast.

Around 9:21( I don't have my info now, I'm at the gym) it was falsely reported that AAL11 was still airborne. So far 11 minutes, until 9:32, they were assuming the first plane that hit the WTC was AAL77. That's 11 minutes before the primary was noticed south of IAD by the controller at iAd tower.



In my interpretation, and btw, according to your former posts, yours too, of the FAA, NORAD, NEADS tapes, it is crystal clear that at the decision levels, AAL11 and UAL175, and especially AAL77 too, were "at lost" for a very long time.
Long AFTERWARDS, when all the data was available, it was easy to find those planes in the saved radar files.


For AAL77, the others were tracked immediately after the transponders went off, they were making traffic calls to other aircraft about these flights.
I said that when AAL11 got near NYC, the target got lost in a sea of targets and because the one controller in NY Center ended up with both aircraft as his responsibility to track, it became part of the problem. He took the handoff from Boston center on AAL11 after being t was hijacked but while he was working the hijacked primary target, UAL175 was handed off to him under normal circumstances. It was at this time UAL175 went NORDO and turned the transponder off.
This controller was trying to track two primary targets amoungst doing his other duties. This I believe could attribute the lack of continued vigilance needed to track the targets and AAL11 got lost in the numerous targets around NYC.

Radar coverage was not bad in these areas and the same goes for UAL93, they were tracking the flight and calling out traffic to other nearby airplanes.

To be continued later , heading home from gym to do that data mining

edit on 5/4/2017 by pale5218 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

They say there must have been an obstruction build in artificially, to block those messages from coming through.
This kind of National Threat level situation, and then this kind of crucial info not ending at the decision levels, is highly suspicious, they say. Radar operations are of the utmost importance in case of a sudden First Strike, there are strict rules of engagement STAMPED and CARVED in the minds of those operators, especially regarding their or their commanding officers reporting duties. Acceptance statements must have been obtained by the reporting officers. Otherwise they would have KEPT trying, up to the highest levels, even the White House, Pentagon top brass or Ministry of Defense.
This is where you should go after, the white spots created in the radar returns reportings. Important info was obstructed and got lost.
That's why it's not in those tapes and transcripts.
But of course it turned up in the later radar scoops data mining, and that's where these 9/11 planners made again a tiny mistake, a radar professional sees that it was there on the scoops, and knows immediately that something must have been very wrong in the MILITARY communication chains, ON THAT DAY.


I'm don't see it that way, I don't see any evidence that can point to anything concrete about the radar data and/or the audio tapes. You can talk to military, civilian, government controllers, radar techs etc. They all have their experience to help them make their decisions or provide their interpretations.

I don't think you should rely on one source for information, I'm perfectly fine with that but I want to say that what I am doing is trying to interpret in an way that it is as unbiased as I can. It's up to you and the ATS readers to believe it or not.



Now it was my turn to point you to your anomalous, long afterwards, facts data mining behavior.


I'm well aware btw, of your stance on 9/11 as explained in your OPs.
I also like your strictly neutral and professional behavior in this thread of yours.
I'm glad you're on board.


I respond when I see something I can respond to. The data that has been presented and the data that is from the 911dataset site, it's there for anyone to go and verify. I try not to respond to comments or statements that I have no knowledge of.

Data mining, yes... without a doubt I will say that I do spend time data mining but this is why I do it. I can watch utube videos and get the perspective of who prepared the media but I also have come to the conclusion that these are not raw and what I consider unedited.

The ATC, NEADS, NORAD tapes are not edited, in my opinion. They have been authenticated for the official accident/incident reports required and for the 911 commission. They all have labeled positions of record where they were recorded from and they are all time stamped. Some may think they could still be altered, well it's possible but it's less likely than the one stop shopping utube videos.

Back to the data mining subject, the ATC audio alone that I downloaded from the 911datasets site equates to over 500 tapes. The Herndon facility alone has 125 audio tapes.
The radar replay data is not as much but along with this data is supporting documents and pdf files to read.

Then there is the links, sites and previous ATS threads that are embedded into this thread that requires at least the cursory look through to see if anything can either support or contradict this part of the story or any other part.
So Data mining ...yup...it takes a while but I don't think my interpretation has wavered much at all.

I spend a good deal of time yesterday reading through the Rutgers University Law review that D8Tee posted on page 47 and I think it's what I have interpreted all along. Thanks for the link D8Tee

I still work full time, at the FAA Command Center, previously the Herndon facility but relocated in 2011, no longer in Herndon. I have other commitments that take time from me and the most important one is my grandson who lives with us and demands several hours from me every day, this commitment does not get compromised.

I'll do the data mining but it's only to get it right, not cherry pick. I want to make sure what I am interpreting is as accurate as possible.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Thank you, pale5218, for a sincere explanation.


Listing of more RADAR related finds.

Journal of 9/11 Studies PDF : „Radar loss on 9/11“, April 2013, by Paul Schreyer :
journalof911studies.com...


Page 1 of 4 : Several sites that were not“beacon-only” tracked American 77 after its transponder had been turned off. However the plane was lost to controllers because of the way computers processed the radar data - and because of an unexplained wide-ranging radar failure.
--snip--
Thus, when the controller lost the transponder signal and switched to “primary radar” on his scope, the computer started displaying the radar data received from Lynch.
The problem: Lynch operated poorly.
For unknown reasons it did not “see” American 77 in the precise area where the transponder was turned off. That is why the plane got lost for about 8 minutes, exactly when it turned.
The problem with the Lynch radar site was known to air traffic controllers and managers at
the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (Indy Center) before 9/11, as interview notes by the 9/11 Commission reveal.(7)
However, the Commission apparently failed to investigate why Lynch operated so poorly and also why the FAA, being in charge of the radar sites, had allowed this.
In fact, planes do disappear temporarily from radar from time to time for a number of technical reasons.
Yet the instance of turning off a transponder in a small zone, internally assigned to a
supplemental radar site which is known to insiders to be faulty, appears suspicious.


pale5218, this above article seems to be an adequately composed explanation of those radar gaps and the use of those at crucial moments in the hijacks, which indicates involvement of entities that had access to this kind of very specific knowledge, which we can't subscribe to 19 simple hijackers with a simple plan.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:48 AM
link   
An English written page of the huge in German written website of Paul Schreyer, with his 7 unexplained 9/11 pertinent facts :
www.911-facts.info...
Fact 5 is the "Perfect flight into radar gap" one :


The third hijacked plane on 9/11 takes off from Washington and will be directed into the Pentagon right there. The distance between airport and target is just a few miles. Nevertheless the plane starts flying about 250 miles to the west before it turns to the opposite direction. Exactly at this turning point is a small zone of poor radar coverage, a so called „radar gap“. That´s why the plane is disappearing for a while from the screens of the air defense. Right before the Pentagon the plane is maneuvered in a further very precise and skillful way: it makes a sharp 330 degree turn while loosing altitude extremely fast at the same time and than crashes with top speed exactly in the first floor of the Pentagon.

Official explanation: None.

Problem: The following questions need to be addressed: How should the alleged hijackers have known, that the radar gap existed, where it was located, and when they would have arrived there? What sense did it make for them to fly a detour of roughly 500 miles? Finally: The huge skills of the alleged pilot, whose flight school teacher said he couldn´t even fly a Cessna safely before 9/11, appear almost incredible. All anomalies mentioned could easily be explained, if the plane was remotely controlled. But this was never officially investigated.

Further information:

"Inside 9/11 - Who controlled the planes?", Paul Schreyer, 07.09.11
www.youtube.com...

"Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917", Washington´s Blog, 11.09.11
www.washingtonsblog.com...

9/11 – eine andere Perspektive (9/11 - another perspective) :
paulschreyer.wordpress.com...-135 Translate it with Google Translate, to English.
You will be surprised that so much of the personal details of the hijackers is not accepted by US courts as evidence...Passenger lists f.ex., were falsified and new hijackers were inserted, in the few days after 9/11.
A treasure trove of references is offered.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Title of Google.groups thread : Pentagon 757 Parts Myth Exposed
Discussion at groups.google.com in 2005 about radar gaps and this part of an answer :

The link this animated picture was in, is gone...just as the whole site, as so many of them. Perhaps we can find it back with the WayBackMachine website.? :
www.gallerize.com...

groups.google.com...

poster Owamanga :
--snip--
The animated gif picture 'image016.gif' shows how in real life, the
wings of a 767 operating at 100mph in excess of it's designed flight
envelope suffers extensive wing flex. It is not a 'swept wing' as the
loony claims. Many GMax models in FS2004 do not simulate wing-flex,
and those that do are built to be somewhat accurate *within normal
flight envelopes*.
--snip--
Same goes for "Der Spiegel Image", it's a flexible wing, and they are
flexed 'up' in these photos
(as one would expect).



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
pale5218,
This was the original website (now defunct), where a certain "Team 8+" posted those precise radar coverage maps of the NE sector of the USA in 2001, with all those circles around all radar stations. With numerous radar gaps shown in between them :
www.the-movement.com...
9-11: Holes in the Radar
Frank Levi and Team 8+ (Feb 2005)
www.the-movement.com...

The hijackers cunningly exploited vulnerabilities in the radar that only the US Military and perhaps the FAA should have been aware of.

We should try to put those links in the WayBackMachine website and see if they return something worth-full. I do not have my hopes high, since precisely these kind of informative sites seem to have been scrubbed from even that powerful web page recovery site.


edit on 5/5/17 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop


The animated gif picture 'image016.gif' shows how in real life, the
wings of a 767 operating at 100mph in excess of it's designed flight
envelope suffers extensive wing flex. It is not a 'swept wing' as the
loony claims.
Many GMax models in FS2004 do not simulate wing-flex,
and those that do are built to be somewhat accurate *within normal
flight envelopes*.
--snip--



It's always so cute when MS Flight Sim experts try to pass themselves off as real experts. All modern commercial aircraft are swept wing designs. They have to be to operate at the speeds they do, at their cruising altitude.
edit on 5/5/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/5/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
A reply to: Zaphod58

Poster Owamanga is thus wrong.
He declares the other poster, that posted a huge amount of info by the way, a loony.

The other poster only linked to some pictures, where also a MS FS2004 picture was smuggled in.
That other poster was trying to prove no planes, if I understand him right, but while failing at that, gave a lot of otherwise interesting information. Did you read that thread link, and his first huge posts? Also his radar gaps/holes post.?



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Well, after reading that post by MrBig2430 in page 43, its him as the only one, that tried at least to use some contra-argument. Without, as usual, adding some drawing or such, of his own.

But I told you already, that the plane's right wing tip, just cut through pole 1.
And I asked Zaphod for an estimation of the wing tips flex-up at 825 KMH and he guessed about 3 meter, which I used in first instance.
In fact, we don't even need that much flexing by far, I will show you that, later on.

And its right wing tip that cut through pole 1 at a cut-height of 20 to 23 ft / 6.1 m to 7.0 m (as guessed by Adam Larson) is where I based my calculations on.
The calculations and measurements I used are still right and don't need any alterations :


MrBig2430 : Ok. So you're basing everything on the wing tips flexing up 3 meters. Correct?
Let's assume that's correct.
Now present evidence that wing tips ONLY were what hit the light poles in the so called "OS". I don't believe that's the case though.
I believe that the "OS" says that the wings hit farther onboard, where wing flex is MUCH less.
This makes your claims and all the measurements you've done inaccurate.
Start over buddy.


So, when do you start offering your claims and measurements, proving mine wrong.?



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join