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: 51
64
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Salander


How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?


A very good question.


However, the only answer to that questions will be "excuses" to why the unbelieveable was achieved. Excuses, assumptions, are now scientific facts, facts for the unthinking readers.


My question to you is, did Hanjour hold any licenses or anything that indicated he was able to fly a commercial multi engine plane?




edit on 6-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 6 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Salander


How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?


A very good question.


However, the only answer to that questions will be "excuses" to why the unbelieveable was achieved. Excuses, assumptions, are now scientific facts, facts for the unthinking readers.


You keep saying he couldn't do all those things like he would crash or something. Oh yeah, he did crash.....
edit on 6-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Oh, look, it seems this guy had his Commercial Pilot Licence, Multi-Engine instrument endorsement, as well as a number of hours experience on Boeing simulators. From the information provided when Hani applied at Pan Am International Flight Academy for training on the Boeing 737 simulator in February 2001, he had;

- 250 Hours Total Flight Time
- 75 Hours Instrument Flight Time
- 29 Hours Multi Engine Flight Time

I wonder if that means he was able to fly a plane?



Lot of info at this site:
Link



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Salander


How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?


Excuses, assumptions, are now scientific facts, facts for the unthinking readers.



Yep.

This is why nutty conspiracy believers think there was thermxte. Or that it's been scientifically proven that there should of been a legible video at the Pentagon site. Etc....

Y'all are not thinking for yourself.
edit on 6-5-2017 by MrBig2430 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
It's all about preserving the OS conspiracy for the very few here. However anyone that believes the OS, has never really researched anything.

Haven't you all heard yet, those that do not support the "OS nonsense" are now stupid, low IQ, basement dwellers, tin foil hat, conspiracy theorist, and all of them should be ignore. Am I correct so far?

A very few of you on here, do nothing but defend the OS and never question any of it, don't think that goes unnoticed.

The OS of 911 is a great big fat lie and a very few of you defend it to death. Thank God, you few do not get to control the real 911 narratives outside of ATS, that's my two cents worth on this topic.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958


It's all about preserving the OS conspiracy for the very few here. However anyone that believes the OS, has never really researched anything.
From reading these forums I don't come to that conclusion, there are many well informed posters who have done considerable research, to say otherwise is very juvenile.



Haven't you all heard yet, those that do not support the "OS nonsense" are now stupid, low IQ, basement dwellers, tin foil hat, conspiracy theorist, and all of them should be ignore. Am I correct so far?
I do not agree with this statement either.



A very few of you on here, do nothing but defend the OS and never question any of it, don't think that goes unnoticed.
You want people to change their interpretation of the evidence due to peer pressure?




The OS of 911 is a great big fat lie and a very few of you defend it to death. Thank God, you few do not get to control the real 911 narratives outside of ATS, that's my two cents worth on this topic.
Posters defend the evidence that is defensible, what would you have them do? Oh, the guv said it, it therefore must not be true? Look at the evidence instead of discounting it due to it's source.

Thing is, you don't bring any alternative evidence to the debate, it's just the same old tired whining. Everyone that does not agree with me is a big fat liar is childish.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Thing is, you don't bring any alternative evidence to the debate, it's just the same old tired whining. Everyone that does not agree with me is a big fat liar is childish.


Because I do not support the OS narratives, I am being childish?

I like how you twist the facts in my above statement, I never claimed anyone was lying, I just stated a fact, that the OS is a great big fat lie.

You have nothing left in your arsenal in supporting the os, but ad hominem attacks.

Carry on...

edit on 6-5-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee


Thing is, you don't bring any alternative evidence to the debate, it's just the same old tired whining. Everyone that does not agree with me is a big fat liar is childish.


Because I do not support the OS narratives, I am being childish? Carry on.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pale5218

I doubt it was a deliberately planned portion, as in finding the exact spot where the gap was, but being in the general area may have been, in an attempt to cause more confusion.


I kind of get that, that's why I say coincidence.

Something else that has to be considered that tells me it would be very difficult to plan.

Flights plans are filed an hour or two prior to departing. The factors that go into this planning are mainly airline driven due to cost, the goal is to obviously reduce the cost of the flight.

AAL77 was filed on a flight plan that followed J134 which is a route that takes them through the center of Indianapolis Center where it went through this poor coverage area.

This could have been a different flight route for a number of reasons including, ATC moving the flight to a different route before departing or after airborne. The preferred method is prior to departing, giving the pilot and company dispatcher opportunity to make calculations for fuel, weight etc.

The main reason they can change is the AOC, Airline Operation Centers, when they file flight plans. This would be due primarily to get the shortest route possible but still consider impacting conditions along the route, weather.

Now we know that the sky conditions were clear, no thunderstorms, no significant observable weather. But there are conditions that could influence the route of flight even on a day that looks to be ideal for flying.
1) Turbulence along the route but this was during early morning hours so there probably weren't reports, so this was most likely not a factor.
2) The primary consideration the AOC uses is Jet Stream. A west coast to east coast flight jumps into the jet stream and uses the tailwind to their maximum benefit. A east coast to west coast flight will file away from the stronger winds so they don't incur further cost by fighting the headwind.

These AOCs plan this daily, even hourly. My point to this is it's most likely the pilots didn't even know what route they would fly until the AOC dispatchers picked the most beneficial for that city pair (IAD to LAX) for the conditions they had to consider. About two hours prior to departing when the flight plan was filed.

The route they took via J134 is a common route westbound but by no stretch of reality, this could have easily been a different route. So this also weighs in to my belief that this was just coincidence more than a planned part of the attacks.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It's not about perspective. It's about real science, real evidence, actual eyewitness accounts, and the credible case that is built on science, evidence, and accounts.

You think investigations are about picking a specific cause and driving that investigation down a narrow path? Investigations are about letting the data and evidence speak for itself. Letting the evidence and data drive the investigation.

What caused the damage at the pentagon again? It's about starting from how the crew and passengers of flight 77 ended up dead at the pentagon.
edit on 7-5-2017 by neutronflux because: Added last sentence



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee


Thing is, you don't bring any alternative evidence to the debate, it's just the same old tired whining. Everyone that does not agree with me is a big fat liar is childish.


Because I do not support the OS narratives, I am being childish?

I like how you twist the facts in my above statement, I never claimed anyone was lying, I just stated a fact, that the OS is a great big fat lie.

You have nothing left in your arsenal in supporting the os, but ad hominem attacks.

Carry on...


Who here is supporting the OS. This is just the weighing of facts in that a large commercial jet struck the pentagon.

You and your straw men / intellectually dishonest arguments?



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: pale5218

I suspect that they planned for going through that area, simply because it is one of the most common ways to get to LA, but it wasn't required for their plan. They were going to take them, and get where they wanted anyway, so if they were able to take the aircraft in that area and create that much more confusion, then great. But if not, then so be it, they were going ahead anyway.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pale5218

I suspect that they planned for going through that area, simply because it is one of the most common ways to get to LA, but it wasn't required for their plan. They were going to take them, and get where they wanted anyway, so if they were able to take the aircraft in that area and create that much more confusion, then great. But if not, then so be it, they were going ahead anyway.


I can accept that.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by: Pilgrum
A reply to: MrBig2430

The wing flex would purely reflect the mass of the plane if it's flying in a straight line IE the weight the wings are supporting regardless of the air density so the force on the wings is basically f=m.a where a is 9.82 (gravity). If the plane is pulling out of a dive then additional force is present due to v^2/r, increasing the 'a' figure and therefore the wing flex. The plane was flying as 'clean' as possible to achieve max velocity so the drag would be minimized compared having the landing gear or flaps deployed for example.



Pilgrum :
First find out with the help of 2001 or other later history pages of Google Earth its maximum bended side view, and Google's Street View, and with a USGS made terrain profile for the conditions on 9/11/2001 (as I posted already), if under my below offered conditions, there is a 60.25 degrees true North flight path possible at 825 KMH for the center beam of a B757-200 with its wing tips extending at both sides for 19 m from that center beam, when starting at a point when it was skimming with its belly bottom (fuselage diameter = 4 m, center beam at 1 m above belly) over the roof rim of the Navy Annex 7th Wing (its 8th Wing roof was a few meters lower) , and then in a straight line to the impact point at 10 feet/3.048 m up from ground level at the Pentagon's west wall, into column 14 at the first floor's concrete slab.
Then check if that line's 19 m perpendicular extention (the right wing tip) cuts through light pole 1 at 17 ft / 5.18 m to 23 ft / 7.01 m high, as Adam Larson calculated/guessed. If not, flight path correctional forces are at play and needed, thus proceed then to :

Find out which obstacles were in the plane's way from a point just over the eastern roof rim of the 7th Wing of the Navy Annex, to the 17 to 23 ft / 5.18 m to 7.01 m height of the cut in light pole 1.
Note especially the 40 ft / 12.2 meter high light pole along the clover leaf exit ramp, which that plane's center beam and belly bottom must have passed straight over. That pole was not cut, so the plane's belly must have been there, at least 40.01 ft high, or higher, over that specific light pole.
Google Earth and USGS offer heights above/under sea level for specific map points.
And find out under which minimal possible dive angle that plane then flew that trajectory between those two above defined points. Then extend that angled flight path to the lawn.

If the plane hits the lawn while in that straight line flight path you drew, after cutting pole 1, or the bushes/trees on both sides of that overpass bridge, or hits the railing of the overpass bridge, the pilot had to correct his path upwards, before arriving at pole 1, and probably missed pole 1. And who knows, how many of the other 4 light poles.

If the plane missed light pole 1 on that straight path line you drew, the pilot had to correct his path downwards before he reached pole 1, to be able to cut through light pole 1 with his right wing tip. And then pulled it up again to get to the impact point at column 14.

Which in both instances results into the G-load subject, MrBig and D8Tee are so font of.
Only then, you / I / we, can proceed further.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 05:55 AM
link   
A reply to: D8Tee

It seems not doable to prove that Hani Hanjour was even on that flight.
He's the only one not clearly visible on surveillance cameras, and his DNA (nor any other from the hijackers) has never been coupled to any relatives, they were all non-cooperative, said US investigators....


www.911-facts.info...


Fact 6 - No identification of the hijackers The alleged hijackers with Mohammed Atta at the top have never been conclusively forensically identified. The remains of most passengers of the four flights were identified by there DNA found at the crash sites. But not the remains of the 19 alleged terrorists. Allegedly their relatives hadn´t provided DNA samples for comparison to the FBI´s investigators. Furthermore the flight manifests were only partially published and are inconsistent with the claimed hijackers.

Official explanation: None.

Problem: Just this.

Further information:

"How FBI determined the 19 hijacker´s identities",
www.scribd.com...
9/11 Commission

"7 years later, 9/11 hijackers’ remains are in limbo",
www.nytimes.com...
Sean D. Hamill, New York Times, 21.09.08



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   
A reply to: pale5218


The route they took via J134 is a common route westbound but by no stretch of reality, this could have easily been a different route. So this also weighs in to my belief that this was just coincidence more than a planned part of the attacks.


Or, if you are a strong believer in the 25 NoC witnesses like me (and lots of other proven indicators I posted already), you easily opt for a deliberately filed and inserted flight plan.
In my opinion, all those hijackers were simply patsies, just as Lee Harvey Oswald was.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander




How is a person supposed to believe that a pilot such as Hanjour could fly at that speed, in ground effect, first time in a Boeing?

People with zero experience have landed planes.
So someone with an FAA multi engine pilots license should have no problem crashing into a building.

After 16 years it's the same preconceived ideas going around.
It happened as the OS states. Get over it.


You may be willing to give Hanjour superhuman status, superpilot status and skills, but I am not. Numerous line pilots are on the record saying they could not fly that maneuver Hanjour did, and I'm very sympathetic to the statements of those airline pilots because I am a pilot myself, including flight instructor, and it is absurd to claim that somebody with Hanjour's reputation could do that. Downright silly.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Wow, what an impressive piece of paper, an FAA 8710. Man alive, the typing is so impressive. What does it prove again? I've filled out many dozens of those 8710 forms back before they were superseded by the IACRA system. What does it prove to your simple analytical skills?

His flight instructors, 2 of them, say he was a lousy pilot. Who should I believe? You or them? Hint: the guys who actually flew with him there in Venice FL is who I will believe.

Why do you suppose the State Of Florida agents showed up at Venice and confiscated all the flight records at the school run by a CIA asset?


Probably for the same reason that FBI agents showed up and confiscated the video records from businesses nearby to the pentagon---THEY HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And yet, every video taken by the FBI that had anything to do with the Pentagon, was released long ago..... Still curious why that is so hard to understand...



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596


And yet, every video taken by the FBI that had anything to do with the Pentagon, was released long ago..... Still curious why that is so hard to understand...


What videos are you talking about? You mean the video of nothing hitting the Pentagon, you mean the don't blink video? You mean the video of a white streak of something?

I find it very amusing how some put our government on a pedestal. Perhaps you are satisfied with the OS, however not everyone is fooled so easily.

edit on 8-5-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
64
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join