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: 5
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Outstanding presentation P5.

Buck




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: hiddenNZ

Yep, kinda, you're right though.

In fixed-wing aircraft, ground effect is the increased lift (force) and decreased aerodynamic drag that an aircraft's wings generate when they are close to a fixed surface. When landing, ground effect can give the pilot the feeling that the aircraft is "floating". Also, when going extremely quick, it can be a pain in the ass. It either pulls you in or does not let you get low enough! Depends on your speed.

But all I'm saying is, he was extremely talented to keep it nice and level to get the hit he did that day. A fluke maybe? I've tried it on a real sim. To get down nice and low before the freeway and get a hit. I just kept bouncing and hitting the grassy area. But hey, i'm no expert with 4500 hours.

Landing, sure....easy. The a/c is set up for it. Full throttle...nope.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: hiddenNZ

The easiest explanation for ground effect is that when you reach the same altitude as your wingspan, there's a cushion of air that "bounces" back up under the bottom of the wing, and pushes the aircraft up. So for a 757, at 125 feet, there's going to be a bounce effect, and the aircraft isn't going to sink through that altitude, without the pilot pushing forward on the control column. Ground effect results in reduced drag, and increased speed, because you don't have wingtip vortices forming.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Curious that a plane which was so precisely and aggressively controlled wouldn't have employed a "splash" type of attack profile onto the roof. That have be highest success rate and cause greatest damage to the inner rings, which would be more difficult to fight the fires and would strike the progressively more secure areas within.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I've got to go now, but I'll leave this right here. Did a fully laden jet like the ones you saw slam into the WTC really leave this?




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hiddenNZ

The Towers were a tube in a tube. They were essentially hollow shells, that were assembled by putting sections together on the outer wall. When the planes hit, the sections where the panels were joined broke apart where the rivets attached them.



Rivets?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

Look at WWII. A dive bomber was designed with a larger than normal tail, with a larger rudder for control, and dive flaps, designed to slow the aircraft as it dove down on the target. And they missed more often than not. An aircraft not optimized for a diving attack is going to be extremely difficult to control all the way to the target.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




Step on the wrong part of the wing and you'll put your foot through the skin. But that was the exit hole in the inner ring wall.
For that hole to be of the inner wall it would mean the outer casing of the aircraft was still intact and the inside parts would have went through the last wall as well . where are the seats ?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

The outer wall sections of the WTC were essentially beams riveted together end to end.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Oh go on then.....just one more. I want to play a game!

Spot the difference!.....ready?



and..........




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Parts of the aircraft were still intact, such as the landing gear. The seats are foam pads, with a thin aluminum framing. The foam parts were totally destroyed, and the rest of it was probably damaged beyond repair in most cases.

There were other parts found that match a 757 perfectly.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

I must respectfully submit that because there were so many ignored facts by officials, and sequestered evidence ignored by the "steering" committees involved in the official explanations, that everything or anything these officials and government people have stated are simply not credible in any way. Even if everything they said did actually happen, their lies and stories simply have no credibility either way. I also know from spending years actually building the wings for the Boeing company that they are not hollow. They have very strong front and rear extruded spars and the inboard ribs are not just thin metal like the baffle panels every 2 plus feet are. There are also fairly thick upper and lower rib strengtheners that would be like knife blades when hitting anything at the speed said was crash speed.

Those inboard ribs the wing skins are attached to and the wing skins near the wing's center section are insanely over designed for strength and robustness. They would have been a powerful sword when striking that building and there isn't a trace of damage in places that would have been obliterated if that aircraft actually struck at that speed. Not shattered into dust as they say happened.

The other factor that is rarely addressed is how the official stories have all been sold to everyone, by using peer pressure, emotional pressure, the fear of ridicule, and every other means of deceptive pressures to force that story on the public or be the target of a political form of excommunication on naysayers, unbelievers, and even people asking too many uncomfortable questions.

Whether or not the official story is true, the stench of a dirty rotting rat is quite prevalent and still smells today just as strong.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: CaptainBeno

Apples and oranges, unless you're going to claim that all impacts are the same, regardless of construction materials.
edit on 3/11/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DickBrisket
a reply to: pale5218

I was at the Pentagon...Did Presidential Security from 1999 to 2004. All the conspiracy theories are B.S. PERIOD. Regardless, all the "Experts" who've been living in their parent's basements polishing their participation trophies will scream otherwise. You know...cause they weren't there and I was. Do not suffer fools.


So while at the Pentagon did you ever see any cameras?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit



Gee , that's Odd , I thought it was Already Proven that a Cruise Missile Disguised with Airline Markings Hit the Pentagon and left a Perfectly Symmetrical Round Impact Hole in the Building .


Except that's the EXIT HOLE left by mass of debris (including forward landing gear) which travelled through building

This was in the C RING wall which opens onto an alley (A-E Drive)

No explain how a missile strikes the middle of a building



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The portion of the wing that would have punched through the wall is the spar. The strongest part of that doesn't extend far past the fuselage on either side. Those ribs aren't as strong as you think they are. They're strong, but they're all individual pieces that have framing attached to them.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Oh, there indeed is a dirty rat. But you aren't gonna find it by dismissing the information the OP offered. That's only gonna help you nail the rodent.

If the OP was a disinfo agent of some kind, they would not admit a missile is still possible.

That's the reason for my line of questioning.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I wnat to believe the OS I really really do, But no video of the Pentagon (of all building in the world) in the 21 st century is just unbelievable.

The Budget the Pentagon and the Military have and had then how could anyone believe the PENTAGON for Christ sake didnt have a surveillance system?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Shangralah

You'd be surprised. Some of the things the military use are things that the civilian world has in museums. Some of the computers that were used at Hickam as recently as 10 years ago belonged in a dump somewhere. In the grand scheme of things, the Pentagon is important, but isn't the most important building in the Defense Department. It's their headquarters, but when it comes to actually fighting a war for example, NORAD is far more important.
edit on 3/11/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shangralah
I wnat to believe the OS I really really do, But no video of the Pentagon (of all building in the world) in the 21 st century is just unbelievable.

The Budget the Pentagon and the Military have and had then how could anyone believe the PENTAGON for Christ sake didnt have a surveillance system?


You apparently don't know how government works. Think of a really smart man, but he's staring into the sky thinking.



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join