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: 43
40
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

You got caught contradicting yourself, you didn't post the image that shows the jet outside the pentagon before impact? Linked picture shows up larger then may screen space. and you cannot even comment if your assessment of the image of the jet that is blurred compensated for wide angle lens distortion.

So you do admit a large commercial jet impacted the pentagon. Once you correct for wide angle lens distortion, the image is consistent with a large commercial jet. Not a four foot diameter missile.


Ted Olson wife Barbara ringing him on 9/11 can not be verified, Hani Hanjour had trouble controlling a Cesna plane 3 weeks before 9/11 and was a terrible pilot. We have proof camera footage of the Pentagon attack is still unreleased 16 years later. Only 1 video of the Pentagon Hijackers at a airport (no timestamp or date to verify this was on 9/11) Engine parts that are still unidentified. Eyewitnesses accounts of seeing a Plane heading in a Northward direction towards the Pentagon on 9/11 not the Southward direction needed for the official narrative to be correct.

Security camera footage.
We see a blob of nothingness this could be a small jet or missile? We see something appear and then we see a fireball?
No outline of the plane hitting the wall? How fast do you think the plane got smashed up when it hit the wall?




posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

Security camera footage.
We see a blob of nothingness this could be a small jet or missile? We see something appear and then we see a fireball?
No outline of the plane hitting the wall? How fast do you think the plane got smashed up when it hit the wall?


I thought you made out wing position from the security images?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"It's a commercial airliner with a long wing span. The wing span it's not going to be pushed inwards on approach, the wing should be closer or visually easier to see and closein more to the camera. The video was tampered with."

So? One contradiction

I thought you claimed the engine wreckage at the pentagon was identified as wrong?

So, two contradictions?

You didn't understand that Ted's calls can be forwarded to the phone secretary.

You didn't understand the distortion caused by wide angle lens.

There is more than enough evidence that Hanjour could sloppily and bumpily handled the autopilot and controls.

And all the physical damage at the pentagon is indicative of a large jet impact. You denied large jet impact? Another contradiction?

Please state a clear theory of what happened at the pentagon. Please stop throwing that Hail Mary pass to find that one smoking gun. Just makes you look desperate.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: neutronflux

So you go from you cannot tell it's a jet to you can pick detailed wing positions from a blurred photo captured with a wide angle lens.

Zero credibility..... zero consistency....


What's blurred about it? I can see the Pentagon, the walls, the grass no plane though.

Here is a still when plane just hit. image.prntscr.com...


Why is the backend not showing least a blur of it? Where is the wing? The cone obviously will hit first but you going to see something when it hits the wall.



But now you claim:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Security camera footage.
We see a blob of nothingness this could be a small jet or missile? We see something appear and then we see a fireball?



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Oh, I get it? You do think there should be a cookie cutter hole in the pentagon.

But you neglect:

The jet started to deform on impact.

Hit items on the way in.

The jet hit at an angle.

The image is distorted and made to look far off due to the wide angle lens.

The image shot was a side angle.

The pentagon wall having spaces for windows would break away at weak points.
edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording

edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added

edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and clarified and added



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

Security camera footage.
We see a blob of nothingness this could be a small jet or missile? We see something appear and then we see a fireball?
No outline of the plane hitting the wall? How fast do you think the plane got smashed up when it hit the wall?


I thought you made out wing position from the security images?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"It's a commercial airliner with a long wing span. The wing span it's not going to be pushed inwards on approach, the wing should be closer or visually easier to see and closein more to the camera. The video was tampered with."

So? One contradiction

I thought you claimed the engine wreckage at the pentagon was identified as wrong?

So, two contradictions?

You didn't understand that Ted's calls can be forwarded to the phone secretary.

You didn't understand the distortion caused by wide angle lens.

There is more than enough evidence that Hanjour could sloppily and bumpily handled the autopilot and controls.

And all the physical damage at the pentagon is indicative of a large jet impact. You denied large jet impact? Another contradiction?

Please state a clear theory of what happened at the pentagon. Please stop throwing that Hail Mary pass to find that one smoking gun. Just makes you look desperate.


You're difficult to deal with. You believe a commercial airliner crashed on 9/11 at the Pentagon , right?

If correct "The wing span it's not going to be pushed inwards on approach, the wing should be closer or visually easier to see and closein more to the camera. The video was tampered with."

We don't see this, get it? No commercial airliner crashed at the Pentagon, least the video does not show that.


I thought you claimed the engine wreckage at the pentagon was identified as wrong?
This was talked about already please pay attention. Both sides have a opinion to what it could be. To me it looks like a Turbofan disk, but was never officially labeled by the government as that!

Hanjour is a weak pilot and could not control a small plane. Yet it's believe he could control a commercial airliner flawlessly and effortless all the way to the Pentagon. First inexperienced in history to fly a airplane 20-40 feet of the ground (530mph) and not stall the aircraft on approach. Fantasy flying.

And all the physical damage at the pentagon is indicative of a large jet impact?
Wrong again we should be seeing wreckage scattered everywhere, upon impact. Plane hits it blows apart remember. The Physical damage we see it looks a missile hit, as it designed to penetrate the wall and explode inside.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Oh, I get it? You do think there should be a cookie cutter hole in the pentagon.

But you neglect:

The jet started to deform on impact.

Hit items on the way in.

The jet hit at an angle.

The image is distorted and made to look far off due to the wide angle lens.

The image shot was a side angle.

The pentagon wall having spaces for windows would break away at weak points.



The traffic camera footage when released will support the official narrative?
1.bp.blogspot.com...

Clear direct line of sight, not black and white, it's color. We all see the plane no problem and we can stop debating what crashed and did not crash at the Pentagon!



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

www.cnsnews.com...

The VDOT cameras did not record any footage. Was not set up to record.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

www.cnsnews.com...

The VDOT cameras did not record any footage. Was not set up to record.


No traffic footage either, come on this just ridiculous. Why was it turned off don't make sense it be turned off? You monitoring a busy highway for incidents?



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I wouldn't be surprised if most believe all of what the US government tells then despite the track record from history.

Everything said doesn't have to be a lie, just give some truth, omit some, and steer the perception in the desired direction. What amount has happen in this event may never be known.

On revelation is the FBI, et al manipulation of persons into terrorist type events for the government benefit.
edit on 7/14/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

So what was the result of Hanjour piloting supposed to be, a crash?



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

No, the video was captured by a wide angle lens that makes everything in the middle look close and everything at the edges look farther away.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

So the closes "look" at flight 77 captured would be in the middle of the frame for the type of lens used.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Here is an example of a fish eyed lens. The objects in the middle looks close, everything on the edge looks far off.

en.m.wikipedia.org...#/media/File%3AThe_Squirrels_0048.jpg

I am difficult?

When you distortion the narrative, don't understand fish eyed lenses, call forwarding, and science of explosives. Or just science in general?
edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




No traffic footage either, come on this just ridiculous. Why was it turned off don't make sense it be turned off? You monitoring a busy highway for incidents?

There was no need to record traffic.
You are putting today's standards on yesterday's life style.
Back in 2001 things were recorded on VHS tape.
You would need 120 tapes per camera to record one months worth of traffic.
Even today, traffic doesn't warrant that amount of resources.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Look guys i have not got the time to debate this endlessly. My view is this was a conspiracy and hopefully in time we learn the truth?

Listen to this debate about 9/11 it's well worth your time.
www.youtube.com...

listen carefully to the bright guy who supports the 9/11 truth movement. He highlights what i heard from my friend, how this all started ( Rumsfield) and the hijackers attacking buildings with planes before 9/11 was well known.

Rumsfield what i heard is the "Cigarette" bad guy you see pulling the strings and advising behind the scenes on Xfiles. Rumsfield my friend said would kill civilians and he would not care as long it helped further an aim!
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

But people hate the example you provide. Because fish eyed lenses are not understood by you, there is a conspiracy and the security footage was tampered with? What a joke.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Oh, but they do know the difference between horizontal and vertical. Don't take my word for it, do some research on your own.

Cellphones transmit and receive in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. In the 850MHz region.

The microwave frequencies are rather directional, and the design and construction of the antennae reflect that.

The smaller the wave length (microwave) the greater the number. The cellphone system was designed for people walking along the surface, not riding in airplanes. Especially compared to radios operating in 30 to 300 MHz, the microwave frequencies and equipment are very directional.

That is why their performance falls off so quickly at altitude, especially for the old analog systems that existed in 2001.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




. The cellphone system was designed for people walking along the surface, not riding in airplanes.

It's a good thing they used the seat back phones that ran through the planes electronics, isn't it.
Otherwise the calls would not have gone through.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Even by the official story, all calls were not made by the Airfone system, seat-back type.

And there is some information suggesting that the Airfone system was not functional with AA and UA.

Not only were the cell calls themselves impossible, but if one takes the time to read the printed transcript of various conversations like Betty Ong's, it becomes apparent the conversations have a distinct theatrical and staged quality to them.

Anybody can see this when reading it, but also at least one book has been written about it by a former airline stewardess Rebekah Roth's "Methodical Deception". Admittedly fiction, but interesting perspective.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




Even by the official story, all calls were not made by the Airfone system, seat-back type.

Nope!



Most of the phone calls from the 9/11 planes were made from onboard (seatback) phones; only two of them were made by means of cell phones. This was stated at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, reported journalist Greg Gordon, who was covering the trial for the McClatchy Newspapers.

Here



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join