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: 44
39
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Here is an interesting link to a story about 911. Some guy saying he worked on building 7 doing a controlled demolition. One that he had to disguise as a terrorist attack yournewswire.com...[/url]

He is an ex CIA agent who was told he has weeks to live and decided to tell the truth of that day.
edit on 14-7-2017 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2017 by illuminnaughty because: link




posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: illuminnaughty

Yournewswire.com is a terrible source of news, and has republished numerous hoaxes and frauds without carrying out even the most basic fact-checks. Also, it breaches copyright on a daily basis, so it is not only printing rubbish, but stolen rubbish.

Seriously, if it's carried by yournewswire.com you can almost guarantee that it is outright untrue.

It's true that some stories only appear in the fringe and/or alternative media, but it's also true that you could get better 'undercover' knowledge by offering a can of beer to one of the transients at your local bus depot. Avoid. You deserve better.
edit on 14-7-2017 by audubon because: ambiguity removed



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.


This is why the official narrative is a joke.
prnt.sc...



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: illuminnaughty
Here is an interesting link to a story about 911. Some guy saying he worked on building 7 doing a controlled demolition. One that he had to disguise as a terrorist attack yournewswire.com...[/url]

He is an ex CIA agent who was told he has weeks to live and decided to tell the truth of that day.


The number of men on the team is correct ( what i learned) Still there is no evidence this person exists or was employed with the CIA.
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
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.



That makes sense. The angle the radio wave is coming from certainly matters. A vertical facing antenna is designed to be most receptive to signals coming at it from a strictly horizontal direction.


But there are things that can affect this. Radio waves in the higher frequencies can bounce off of objects.

Also the plane was only flying at about 8,000 feet, so a tower much farther away than 8,000 feet would perceive the signal to be coming from an angle that isn't too far off of horizontal. (If it could pick up the signal from so far away.)

Like if it is 10 miles away (52,800 feet) that is only about 8.6 degrees off of horizontal. But the signal still has to travel 10 miles.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

What? Cannot write a theory out like a big person and support it with evidence.

Keep enabling those that exploit 9/11 and push false narratives to an irrational consumer base.
edit on 14-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

What? Cannot write a theory out like a big person and support it with evidence.

Keep enabling those that exploit 9/11 and push false narratives to an irrational consumer base.


The official narrative is bogus i just posted a picture of what it would look if a plane crashed at the Pentagon. The video released to the public is a fraud.

prnt.sc... 20 feet of the ground the shell/casing but the engine would have hit the ground before reached the target.
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Nooooo. Radiation is transmitted as a point source. To "focus" radiation in a direction it needs to be built like a flashlight, radar gun, or those funny cones on a microwave tower. Then it still radiates in a cone with "weak" leakage in all directions.

What the hell directs or shields cell phone tower signals to restrict the radiation to ground coverage.

The antennas on cell phones transmit in a spherical shape as a point source.

I think science just died a little.....



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Then post it......



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Then post it......


prnt.sc... Can you not see it? It a graphic representation of how the plane would look if crashed at the Pentagon. 20 feet of the ground. The engine would have hit the lawn and plane would have toppled or broken right up right there before impact.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Then post it......


prnt.sc... Can you not see it? It a graphic representation of how the plane would look if crashed at the Pentagon. 20 feet of the ground. The engine would have hit the lawn and plane would have toppled or broken right up right there before impact.


And why would it do that when it crashed into the pentagon?



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

All the sudden I am supposed to believe an artists interpretation of the crash over security frames you could not discredit, 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon, numerous sources I have quoted stating the only credible explanation for damage at the pentagon is by a large jet, backed by radar data, DNA evidence, and wreckage as documented at the Moussaoui trial. A trial you legitimized by citing from it to support your claims.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Then post it......


prnt.sc... Can you not see it? It a graphic representation of how the plane would look if crashed at the Pentagon. 20 feet of the ground. The engine would have hit the lawn and plane would have toppled or broken right up right there before impact.


And why would it do that when it crashed into the pentagon?




If the government version was correct the plane would have gouged the grass all the way in at 20 feet, both engines would have touched the ground.

This is a 757 www.pcpilot.net... Now imagine this plane with no landing gear deployed flying in a 20 feet of the ground. How close would both engines be to the ground 5-10 feet, would the engines collide with the grass or near the highway?
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

All the sudden I am supposed to believe an artists interpretation of the crash over security frames you could not discredit, 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a large jet hitting the pentagon, numerous sources I have quoted stating the only credible explanation for damage at the pentagon is by a large jet, backed by radar data, DNA evidence, and wreckage as documented at the Moussaoui trial. A trial you legitimized by citing from it to support your claims.


Numerous witnesses saw a plane flying Northward away from the target spot. And did you know two Pentagon clocks recovered at the scene stopped just after 9.30. A full six minutes before the attack took place if the government is to be believed!
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)


One of the clocks amhistory.si.edu...

9.37 is the alleged time for the attack?

edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12



Numerous witnesses saw a plane flying Northward away from the target spot. And did you know two Pentagon clocks recovered at the scene stopped just after 9.30. A full six minutes before the attack took place if the government is to be believed!


Ever think it may be because the CLOCKS WERE NOT SYNCHRONIZED ...!

Hell just looking around the room find that the 3 clocks in sight all show different times ....!

one on table says 6:55, one on Cable box says 6:54 and clock on computer is 6:49

Now if some %%^& frigging disaster should befall me then if must be a conspiracy because of different times on clocks
not matching official reports



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

The old dropped clock theory proven inconsistent by Scientists for 9/1 Truth by experiments.

The 13 eyewitnesses? Vs 100 plus to seeing the jet hit the pentagon.

Title: The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...



Category 3: The CIT group of witnesses (about 12) is those whose testimony appears to suggest a plane flight path north of the CITGO station. Such a path, if impact were to follow, could not reasonably create the observed damage trail and could not avoid creating damage inside the Pentagon in its direction of travel. Consequently, the proponents of this theory claim the plane flew over the Pentagon. Drawbacks to this theory include: (a) There is thus far only one questionable witness to a plane flying away. (b) The CIT witnesses appear in some instances to have been led by their interviewer (for example, the interview23 of Albert Hemphill by Craig Ranke). (c) Many CIT witnesses also testify to plane impact24. The theory also suffers from the difficulty in assessing the position of the plane by witnesses not immediately underneath, for example those at the cemetery, and the fact that flyover is inferred rather than observed. Legge and Chandler have further pointed out that the proposed deviation from the established approach path would require a strikingly large plane bank angle, which no witness reported.23
Category 4: CIT claims that one witness saw a plane fly low over, or away from, the Pentagon. This witness is Roosevelt Roberts. His testimony has been subject to extensive discussion25. His testimony is confusing and some describe it as open to interpretation. Careful study26 however shows he is not a witness to “flyover” and not a witness to “fly away”. The only option remaining is “impact.” The plane he reports over the South parking lot, and over the light poles, he describes as traveling east, hence toward the Pentagon. He makes it clear that he saw two planes, apparently the one officially described as AA Flight 77 and the other a C-130. Roberts' CIT questioners jump from one plane to the other in a way that puzzles him so he seeks clarification and obtains it. Referring then to the second plane he describes it as doing a U-turn and heading south west. We know he cannot be referring to the first plane as it would be impossible for it to turn in the space available, so it must be the C-130. Later he says that both planes came from the same direction, thus confirming again that he saw the approach of the plane which hit the Pentagon. According to the radar evidence the C-130 came in from the west, did a U-turn to the left, about 2 minutes after the impact, and headed back west, not south west. The discrepancybetweenwestandsouthwestisnodoubtjustasmallorientationerror.TheC-13027 wasnever lower than 2000 ft, far too high to be mistaken for the plane over the light poles.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Jacobu12



Numerous witnesses saw a plane flying Northward away from the target spot. And did you know two Pentagon clocks recovered at the scene stopped just after 9.30. A full six minutes before the attack took place if the government is to be believed!


Ever think it may be because the CLOCKS WERE NOT SYNCHRONIZED ...!

Hell just looking around the room find that the 3 clocks in sight all show different times ....!

one on table says 6:55, one on Cable box says 6:54 and clock on computer is 6:49

Now if some %%^& frigging disaster should befall me then if must be a conspiracy because of different times on clocks
not matching official reports


Two clocks stopping at near identical time 9.31 one clock and 9.31 just a few seconds faster then the other clock. Implausible both clocks would stop at identical times and this was a full six minutes+ before the attack.
edit on 14-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

The old dropped clock theory proven inconsistent by Scientists for 9/1 Truth by experiments.

The 13 eyewitnesses? Vs 100 plus to seeing the jet hit the pentagon.

Title: The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)
www.scientistsfor911truth.org...



Category 3: The CIT group of witnesses (about 12) is those whose testimony appears to suggest a plane flight path north of the CITGO station. Such a path, if impact were to follow, could not reasonably create the observed damage trail and could not avoid creating damage inside the Pentagon in its direction of travel. Consequently, the proponents of this theory claim the plane flew over the Pentagon. Drawbacks to this theory include: (a) There is thus far only one questionable witness to a plane flying away. (b) The CIT witnesses appear in some instances to have been led by their interviewer (for example, the interview23 of Albert Hemphill by Craig Ranke). (c) Many CIT witnesses also testify to plane impact24. The theory also suffers from the difficulty in assessing the position of the plane by witnesses not immediately underneath, for example those at the cemetery, and the fact that flyover is inferred rather than observed. Legge and Chandler have further pointed out that the proposed deviation from the established approach path would require a strikingly large plane bank angle, which no witness reported.23
Category 4: CIT claims that one witness saw a plane fly low over, or away from, the Pentagon. This witness is Roosevelt Roberts. His testimony has been subject to extensive discussion25. His testimony is confusing and some describe it as open to interpretation. Careful study26 however shows he is not a witness to “flyover” and not a witness to “fly away”. The only option remaining is “impact.” The plane he reports over the South parking lot, and over the light poles, he describes as traveling east, hence toward the Pentagon. He makes it clear that he saw two planes, apparently the one officially described as AA Flight 77 and the other a C-130. Roberts' CIT questioners jump from one plane to the other in a way that puzzles him so he seeks clarification and obtains it. Referring then to the second plane he describes it as doing a U-turn and heading south west. We know he cannot be referring to the first plane as it would be impossible for it to turn in the space available, so it must be the C-130. Later he says that both planes came from the same direction, thus confirming again that he saw the approach of the plane which hit the Pentagon. According to the radar evidence the C-130 came in from the west, did a U-turn to the left, about 2 minutes after the impact, and headed back west, not south west. The discrepancybetweenwestandsouthwestisnodoubtjustasmallorientationerror.TheC-13027 wasnever lower than 2000 ft, far too high to be mistaken for the plane over the light poles.


Going to disagree. Police officer, security personnel, and people working near the Pentagon witnessed the plane flying Northward. Lets not forget only 1 plane photographed and seen in Washington that day was a government looking plane.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

What are you talking about?

When sitting on the runway the minimum distance from the bottom of the jet to the runway is 7 foot 9 inches?

www.boeing.com...

The closest the engines get to sitting on the rain way is 2 feet 5 inches.

The difference between the deployed landing gear and the engines are 5 feet 4 inches.

But you measure how close the plane is to the ground by the part that hangs off the closes to the ground.

If the jet was five feet off the ground that means the lowest hanging part was five feet off the ground. Why would you measure any other way?

I have no idea what you are even trying to prove?



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

It's only about 13 people. Can you cite more than thirteen people.

Whole document on the list of eyewitnesses.

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

As pointed out, what are the chances a clocks synchronized to the same time.

Logic dictates not all clocks will break when dropped. Not all clocks will completely break when dropped. Only some clocks will break when dropped.

Please state the scientific law that all clocks will instantly stop and indicated the time they were dropped. Is this for any hieght? What if one falls on a book case? Then hits the ground after it slowly slid of the book case.







 
39
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join