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.

 

What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

page: 22
40
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: mrthumpy




Scanned certainly. What did I miss?

The fact that the maneuver wasn't that dramatic as the conspiracy crowd want you to believe.

But the conspiracy minded believe what they want and ignore real facts.


Any particular maneuver or just The Maneuver?




posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: mrthumpy

Have you even read the last 20 pages ?

I has been mentioned several times.


Then it should be easy to quote yourself? Or find to quote if you intended to use "it" and not "I".

If you are going to argue the jet stayed a static distance off the ground, that is a false narrative. The evidence showed flight 77 was lossing altitude from the time it hit the antenna to the point it hit the concrete lip in front of the pentagon.
edit on 3-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Added quote if it was used

edit on 3-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: mrthumpy




Scanned certainly. What did I miss?

The fact that the maneuver wasn't that dramatic as the conspiracy crowd want you to believe.

But the conspiracy minded believe what they want and ignore real facts.


Any particular maneuver or just The Maneuver?


Don't be obtuse.
You know what the topic being discussed is.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I think I remember flying off the ground at 4 foot mentioned by one poster, another poster claiming 20 foot? Neither cited any documentation in where the figures came from.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: mrthumpy




Scanned certainly. What did I miss?

The fact that the maneuver wasn't that dramatic as the conspiracy crowd want you to believe.

But the conspiracy minded believe what they want and ignore real facts.


Any particular maneuver or just The Maneuver?


Don't be obtuse.
You know what the topic being discussed is.


From what I can gather it seems that the aircraft supposedly performed some fantastic maneuver that would be beyond the capabilities of mere mortals with limited flying experience



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

And you still have radar proving flight 77 hit the pentagon.


Radar is like a video game, easily spoofed, easily forged. No matter what the radar says, 757 types cannot fly at the ridiculous airspeeds claimed by the government radar record.

These were staged events, pure and simple. In terms of details, certainly the most extravagant FAKE NEWS story of the new millennium. Some of us have figured that out, some of us have not yet.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

And you still have radar proving flight 77 hit the pentagon.


Radar is like a video game, easily spoofed, easily forged. No matter what the radar says, 757 types cannot fly at the ridiculous airspeeds claimed by the government radar record.

These were staged events, pure and simple. In terms of details, certainly the most extravagant FAKE NEWS story of the new millennium. Some of us have figured that out, some of us have not yet.


Is it wrong to say that flight 77 was picked up by multiple radar stations for long durations.

What is you proof of spoofing. How long was the spoofing. When did the spoofing take place. How was radar spoofed across different platforms. What caused the spoofing while other flights were picked up. While flight 77's position was verified by an in flight pilot that radioed in seeing a large jet hit the pentagon.

Radar is not like a video game. Is it false to say radar installations have dictated standards on reliability, resolution, reliability, calibration, PMs, and repeatability.

By the way, how are those rebuttals coming along to the works by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that shows the only credible explanation for what happen at the pentagon was a large jet strike. And that all other theories are virtually impossible.

Do you have the credibility to state what theory you think should supersede large jet strike? Or you just going to say you know it was not a large jet strike, but you don't have enough proof for the other theories with no credibility. Thus contradicting yourself.

Or how about discrediting the scores of civil witnesseses that attest to seeing a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon.

Or citing your FRD guy, quoting him, and using your vast piloting knowledge to create a logical argument and rebuttals to his debunkers.

edit on 3-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 3-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more

edit on 3-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed a bit more

edit on 3-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed video game



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

There is a lot of manufactured evidence in a hoax. You have chosen to believe the first hoax, that an unskilled pilot was able to accomplish flying a Boeing 757 into a building with practically no navigation ability.

If you start at the beginning with this false hood it makes the other evidence you believe false.

Are you not in favor of the Pentagon releasing the videos they have of the plane approaching the Pentagon?



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




No matter what the radar says, 757 types cannot fly at the ridiculous airspeeds claimed by the government radar record.

So why would the government give out ridiculous data on their own plan?
If you are going to make a cover story, why not use realistic data ?

You have never explained the expanding orange fireball of the explosion.
Explosives have milli seconds of orange.

You have never explained why the interior contents were not blown outside.
Explosives inside blows stuff outside.

Conspiracy theories ignore too many facts.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: neutronflux

There is a lot of manufactured evidence in a hoax. You have chosen to believe the first hoax, that an unskilled pilot was able to accomplish flying a Boeing 757 into a building with practically no navigation ability.

If you start at the beginning with this false hood it makes the other evidence you believe false.

Are you not in favor of the Pentagon releasing the videos they have of the plane approaching the Pentagon?


Hold on. The claim is now that the pilot wouldn't have been able to find his way to the Pentagon rather than being unable to perform some undefined maneuver?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Diving a 757 into the top of the building would have been almost impossible. Diving any aircraft like that is incredibly hard and he would have been lucky to hit near the building.




Just like the truth movement has a hard time committing, I think sometimes the official story needs to commit a bit more also. Either the maneuver was within Hanjour's capabilities, or it wasn't.


The real question here is: why did he feel the need to hit the Pentagon at such high speed? Treating the roof like a runway and coming in reasonably slow, but hitting the roof without putting down the landing gear, would probably spread the fuel over a wider area, and the debris.

Hitting at from the side at 500 mph most of the fuel would explode immediately on impact, before it could get spread around and cause the most destruction. You'd utterly obliterate the parts of the building immediately closest to you, and penetrate a good ways behind that, but you're limiting the area the damage is applied to quite a bit.

Even hitting from the side, you'd get a more dramatic event out of a slow impact, with most of the destruction visible on the outside of the building, where TV cameras can see it. Where as the high speed impact penetrated right through the outer wall and left a mark that people could mistake for being caused by a smaller object than a plane.



Now.... from the conspiracy perspective..... hitting at ultra high speed destroys more evidence. Less of the plane left around to be recovered. It also can make the attack more surgical, like if the conspirators wanted to hit that part of the building and that part only, to destroy something specific. (With a reliable, computer controlled, attack, making sure it hits.)




originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Zaphod58

The Pentagon takes up a huge area.

Your saying it's easier to hit just off the ground at high speed than hit a target that is 583 acres in size, sorry not buying that one.
A runway is only 26 feet wide(small) I have landed many times in an aircraft it descends at an angle and at about 150 MPH.
If he was in full control of the cockpit he would have slowed and come in at an angle just like the simulators train you to.

He either hits the grass and bounces or he hits the target deeper, I am not saying hitting this target was hard given it's massive size, just the way the plane came in and the type of plane flown with the level of expedience this pilot had.

The OP challenges these 5 points

1)The speed of the maneuver
2)The trajectory of the maneuver
3)The skill of the pilot
4)The ability of a standard commercial liner to pull that maneuver
5)The height of the final strike/crash



Yeah. It does make more sense that he'd stick to what he knows, right? He knows how to make a slow descent onto a runway. But he chooses instead to do a full on high speed kamikaze dive?


Why do a speculative maneuver he hasn't been trained to do?



originally posted by: Salander


No matter what the radar says, 757 types cannot fly at the ridiculous airspeeds claimed by the government radar record.



That is a bit of a misconception.

Just about any aircraft can hit 500 mph if it does so by means of descending from a higher altitude to a lower one.

A sustained speed of 500 mph would be another matter. I don't know how fast 747's fly at a cruise.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry




Are you not in favor of the Pentagon releasing the videos they have of the plane approaching the Pentagon?


how many times have you mentioned this?


Are you not in favor of speaking from a position of knowledge and want to keep pushing the ignorance you keep exhibiting?

What videos do the Pentagon have of the plane approaching?

To release them means that they haven't been seen, how do you know about them, how does the YouTube video maker that you are parroting know the Pentagon has video of a plane incoming?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Your explanation of a low energy impact is not very insightful.

One, the power of a fuel explosion is derived from how large the vapor cloud is, and how well the fuel is vaporizer.

The definition of energy:
www.merriam-webster.com...
"
: a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work."


The formula for kinetic energy, the energy of motion:
KE = .5 mv^2

As velocity of a given object increases, the energy and ability to cause deformation increases exponentially.

Therefore.....

One: A jet hitting the pentagon as fast as possible is going to result in a bigger and more fine vapor cloud that will result in a bigger explosion with more energy.

Two: as a jet's speed increases, the ability of that jet to cause damage and destruction literally increases exponentially.


So, yes. You would want to maximize your speed if you were wanting to literally make the biggest impact possible......



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
So? Conspiracists use the term 85 videos because there were 85 cameras at the pentagon that might have captured flight 77?

Title: The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras
www.9-11tv.org...



There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event[1].

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).





Conclusion

Since 2006, researchers have had all the frames of interest from both of the two surveillance cameras with the best useful information about the Pentagon event. Unfortunately, both sets of camera images are low resolution, and so what is seen is inconclusive. But what can be concluded with confidence is that the footage from both cameras is consistent with the large plane impact theory. Perhaps most significantly, one camera seems to show an unobstructed, but low-resolution view of the rapidly approaching plane.



And this is not even including the interviewed accounts some of the pentagon cameras were not online due to on going upgrades.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: m1kelowry

Manufactured what?

You have different and independent interviews and sources that:

Have an instructor stating Hanjour had the ability to crash a 757 once the 757 was in the air.

That simulators could have been used to practice crashing into buildings.

Simulators gave Hanjour the confidence and the abilities to fly a 757.

Hanjour was dealt with by numerous instructors and seen by different students at his various flight and simulator training facilities.

Hanjour had 600 hours of flight time logged with various training facilities and instructors.

Hanjour had a private pilot's license and a FAA commercial certificate.

The instructor that would not rent Hanjour a plane on a third visit was quoted it was due to his poor English skills and landing ability in a busy air corridor. He said nothing about Hanjour's inflight maneuvering.

An instructor is quoted asking if Hanjour had military training from his ability to navigate based on ground objects after a challenging landing.

A few of the items were from a FBI document you legitimized by quoting from it yourself.

What are the manufactured items? Items from the FBI document you yourself quoted from?

Or you playing the innuendo card?

edit on 4-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander




No matter what the radar says, 757 types cannot fly at the ridiculous airspeeds claimed by the government radar record.

So why would the government give out ridiculous data on their own plan?
If you are going to make a cover story, why not use realistic data ?

You have never explained the expanding orange fireball of the explosion.
Explosives have milli seconds of orange.

You have never explained why the interior contents were not blown outside.
Explosives inside blows stuff outside.

Conspiracy theories ignore too many facts.


Are you really that simple that you need an explanation for a fuel fireball?

The fuel had a velocity of about 350knots. It was decelerated to about 0 is just seconds. That caused the fuel tanks to burst, and the fuel was atomized. That's normal and happens frequently in that sort of an accident.

Because there was ample sources of ignition, the atomized fuel was ignited.

Why am I even posting to someone with such poor understanding of physics



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The impact at high speed spread debris through the building like a shotgun. Hitting the roof at low speed would have spread the fuel more, but wouldn't have necessarily done a lot of more than superficial damage to the top of the building. There's no guarantee that it would have done more damage or been more destructive.

You'd get a more dramatic effect yes, but if the goal was to be more destructive rather than more dramatic then why would you be more worried about the drama effect?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Neutron, baby
What powers that brain, can we go back to the empirical evidence....not so much conjecture

Squirrel on a wheel possibly....idka reply to: neutronflux



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The impact at high speed spread debris through the building like a shotgun. Hitting the roof at low speed would have spread the fuel more, but wouldn't have necessarily done a lot of more than superficial damage to the top of the building. There's no guarantee that it would have done more damage or been more destructive.

You'd get a more dramatic effect yes, but if the goal was to be more destructive rather than more dramatic then why would you be more worried about the drama effect?


The goal of a terrorist was to be more destructive rather than more dramatic?

That is a strange kind of terrorist!!


Hitting the WTC towers at high speed was necessary in order to have any real hope of making them collapse. Which would give the most spectacle.

But hitting the Pentagon that way caused most of the damage to happen on the inside, where the public would never see it. Very little spectacle. The publicly available pictures make it look like the building suffered barely a scratch. (Because all we get to see is the entry point of the "bullet")

You don't attack a symbolic building hoping to cripple a nation's armed forces directly. The military industrial complex would shrug that off and keep right on going. But having the public see the building harmed is irreversible damage.

Why didn't he want to maximise that?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Neutron, baby
What powers that brain, can we go back to the empirical evidence....not so much conjecture

Squirrel on a wheel possibly....idka reply to: neutronflux



How do you judge personal skills like flight ability? By experience, obtained certifications, logged hours, and the statements and judgements of instructors. There is more than credible evidence that Hanjour could perform a five mile radius turn that took over two minutes to complete with fluctuations in speed from 200 to 300 knots. Point the nose of the jet at a building larger than 24 football fields, start a bouncy decent, and then work throttles to full.

The only thing offered by conspiracists are quotes taken out of context, hiding facts concerning Hanjour's skills, not explaining what the impossible maneuver was, and the false narrative that flight 77 flew some static and constant distance off the ground. The conspiracists cannot even agree in this thread what the height of the fictitious constant hieght flight 77 flew at.







 
40
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join