It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
originally posted by: waypastvne
I am a pilot and instructor. On a students first flight, after they get a handle on the controls, I have them focus on something off to the side, then turn the plane and point the nose at it. After a few minuets they stop thinking about flying and they can make the airplane follow there eyes where ever they look.
When I start teaching them to land, I have them keep there eyes on the center of the runway and not on the plane, tree, car, dog, kangaroo, person... on the side of the runway.
I teach them to look at where they want to go, NOT at what they don't want to hit.
If you want to hit something with a plane all you have to do is look at it.
Really the rabbit hole is this:
1)No amateur pilot could have hit the pentagon the way it was hit with the plane that was suppose to hit it !
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Naw the hole was very small at the pentagon, neutron baby
Not 90 feet at all.....missile I suppose
a reply to: neutronflux
The Building Façade Damage
The overall damage to the Pentagon West wall, a hole at the first and second floors of 18 ft diameter, roughly centered above a 96 ft gash in the first floor, indicates impact and penetration of the building by an airplane- shaped object46. The body of a Boeing 757 is roughly a cylinder 13 ft in diameter, and the wingspan is almost 125 ft. The 96 ft gash is more than wide enough to accommodate both engines and the wing tip damage is approximately correct for a Boeing 757.
Requirement: Those who hold to any of the above alternative theories must produce a credible alternative explanation for the façade damage, in order to still claim that these theories are viable. If no credible evidence or explanation can be produced, these theories must be discarded.
Status: Requirement not fulfilled.
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
It's time for a neutronflush, where's that silver handle
The video also has a cousin, the helicopter reporters doing the first video.....there onsite, reporting not enough debris to fill a suitcase
originally posted by: DClark
a reply to: waypastvne
What's the curriculum for training pilots to hit a building 10 feet off the ground flying a 155 foot long Boeing 757 at 500 knots while evading over 80 CCTV cameras? Just curious.
originally posted by: DClark
a reply to: face23785
LMFAO, how in the hell is he taken out of context. JFC, just listen to the whole thing. smh
Reporter: "The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. Uh, there are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage; nothing like that anywhere around."
Of course, having been there on September 11th, having seen the plane wreckage and photographed it myself personally, I can tell you that that's nonsense...
...You were able to get pretty close for a while. Eventually, they cleared out the scene.
As I said, I had a camera with me. I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage, a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene. I saw thousands of shards of metal, of pieces of the plane all over the driveway. I didn't pick up any of them or touch any of them, but I saw them everywhere. And again, took some pictures of them. So there's no doubt that the plane hit the Pentagon. I mean, for no other reason than we know the plane took off at Dulles Airport and people on the plane, you know, made cell phone calls. We know a plane hit the Pentagon. It's just interesting to see the documentary evidence. Some people just don't believe it until they actually see it.
Now, onto the video. Once you see a smoke trail enter the frame, you don't see the rest of the alleged plane. Keep in mind, a Boeing 757 is 155 feet in length. Positively, you would have seen most of the plane in that frame. You cannot see it, because it wasn't a Boeing 757. Look closely and you will see that whatever it was is behind that piece of equipment in foreground. Possibly a missile, possibly something else. What it wasn't is a damn Boeing 757. That is a fact!
IMPORTANT: STRICT RULES
Within the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, the Terms and Conditions will be strictly enforced, along with the following additions:
Name Calling: Tossing around indiscriminate name calling such as "OSer," "Shill," "Troll," "Truther," and all the other related nonsense will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.
Personal Attacks: Taking focus off the subject matter and toward each other will not be tolerated in any form. You will experience an immediate account termination with no warning.
Thread Derailment: Posting of any irreverent or ridiculous information that disrupts the flow of productive discussion will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.
Trolling: The repeated posting of content that supports any specific position, without interacting with members regarding that position will be considered Trolling in the 9/11 Forum. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.
Minimal Posts: Any minimal post that is nothing more than "atta-boy" agreement, or "nope" disagreement will not be tolerated -- if you post, contribute something. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.
External Sources: There has been way too much copy-and-paste of massive amounts of content from external sources. You should never post more than FIVE (5) paragraphs from each external source. If you post more, we will indiscriminately cut it down to two or three paragraphs. If you do this repeatedly, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.