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: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

No offense, but that's about as unscientific as a photoshop job can get :. Unless of course, you're joking.




posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: gusamaso
I suggest you save your amazement for later, as it was a missile that hit the pentagon


No it was not. If you read the excellent threads here on ATS you will find the proper conclusion from some extremely well researched expert content.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DClark
a reply to: waypastvne

No offense, but that's about as unscientific as a photoshop job can get :. Unless of course, you're joking.


Here's a truther site for you.

911speakout.org...

Move your pointer over the photos.

The plane is there in both videos. It is exactly the size it should be for the distance from the camera.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

That appears to support my very rough calculations from the previous page. From the ground to the top of the tail, with the gear down, is 44 feet and 6 inches. Obviously with the gear up that removes a few feet, and then removing the height of the back of the fuselage, which is not as tall as the rest of the fuselage, the "object" I identified appears to be the tail of the aircraft.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Some have speculated it was unique and larger version of this.

AUTOMATED LARGER DRONE



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Maybe. The only thing we really know for sure is that it wasn't a Boeing 757. I have seen that hypothesis before. Might explain some of the official story's so-called eye witnesses, as well.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Well logic says it's much easier to crash a plane than fly one.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
DP
edit on 22-6-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Ok this video is important this pilot actually flew the exact planes that crashed, not the type but those exact planes before he retired. A very experienced pilot. If you guys won't believe an experienced pilot of the planes that crashed, I can't do anything more for your cognitive dissonance.

Please note, there is a ton of aggravating background noise on this but the information is important.

It also makes me question all the comments from people claiming to be knowledgeable about piloting on this thread, this pilot really knows his stuff. His talk about "ground effect" is valid, it's just as I said the dive couldn't have been pulled out of at that speed, it's like making I hard right turn with a car at 100 mph, we all know what happens. Loss of control and a crash.

I have never seen this video before, it is very interesting.

edit on 22-6-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

He's not the only pilot to say the same thing. I have no doubts that some kind of projectile hit the Pentagon, but not only is physically impossible according to the official story and expert pilots, but there isn't any video or photographic proof.
edit on 2017-6-22 by DClark because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

I did check it (not the version that's on that site, used the actual real video) and didn't get the same result. I see an object that looks white, but even super zoomed in or out, I don't see that dark blue or purple line. Go figure. That being said, it really doesn't matter, we know that a Boeing 757 isn't physically capable of performing this maneuver at the speed stated in the b.s official story.


Also, despite what that site says, it's not possible for the object in the foreground to cover up the whole plane. Do the math.
edit on 2017-6-22 by DClark because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DClark




Where's the plane? Video Proving No Airliner Hit Pentagon


A plane 54 metres long going at 200 metres a second failed to show up on a video taking pictures a second apart . Get where i am going with this .



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: DClark




Where's the plane? Video Proving No Airliner Hit Pentagon


A plane 54 metres long going at 200 metres a second failed to show up on a video taking pictures a second apart . Get where i am going with this .

Which is physically impossible for a Boeing 757 to do at sea level. Get where I am going with this.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DClark

Your correct its 184 metres a second at sea level .Now if it was to dive down to that level .
edit on 22-6-2017 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DClark

Very simple questions. How did the remains of the passengers and crew for flight 77 end up at the pentagon? The DNA testing proves the crew and passengers ended up at the pentagon. Are you saying the recovery of the remains is discredited? The people that recovered the remains are discredited? The DNA analysis is Discredited? The persons conducting the analysis are discredited? The coroner's office that issued death certificates and released remains are discredited? The families that held funerals and buried the dead of flight 77 are discredited?

Added to that, the hundred plus eyewitnesses that were victims and part of the tragic event at the pentagon that give an account of a large silver commercial jet hitting the pentagon are discredited?

Then add to that, the context that conspiracists use the wrong picture for the entrance hole into the pentagon, use quotes out of context, and only give a small portion of the whole story. Conspiracists are more about crafting a narrative than using all the evidence to create the most credible picture.

By the way, care to state the dimensions of the entrance whole into the pentagon?


edit on 22-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DClark

Can you quote from the designers of the jet.

You do understand design limitations for a passenger jet are not set when catastrophic damage will occur. The limits are set so the jet can meet its service life of 10, 20, 30 years.

Thanks for using innuendo and misconceptions to create a unsupported argument.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Neutron, baby.....the size of the hole....you are obsessing that too much

The video shuts the debate down pretty hard

Two of them actually, the one on page four or so and one from a news team in a new Jet ranger long Ranger with the four color paint job from the factory. Both showed

Showed actually the grounds with not enough debris to fill a bucket from Home Depot my brother from another planet

Like Hal 9000 man, I'll pull that plug



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

I cited a source referring to the entrance hole dimensions. Please reference the source and measurements, and create a logical and fact based rebuttal out of intellectual honesty. And address the questions and evidence cited to you.

Or you here to just rant with nothing but innuendo.
edit on 22-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DClark

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: DClark




Where's the plane? Video Proving No Airliner Hit Pentagon


A plane 54 metres long going at 200 metres a second failed to show up on a video taking pictures a second apart . Get where i am going with this .

Which is physically impossible for a Boeing 757 to do at sea level. Get where I am going with this.


Ok, it was impossible. I agree the jet crashed into the pentagon.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

Maybe because the jet was inside the pentagon? Not much interior of the pentagon on the lawn either. Indicating a large item traveling in one direction plowed into the pentagon.

And now you have a hundred plus individual accounts of a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon to discredit. One by one. Would you like me to cite a document that list the accounts again.




top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join