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: 54
40
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

And you still have the gall to post as if you have any credibility or authority left. When people like you killed the truth movement.




posted on Jul, 15 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.....


It's not a question of anything being focused. A radio wave is just very low frequency light.

A vertical antenna is designed to be able "see" light/radio waves coming at it from the horizontal direction. It can't "see" it when it is coming from directly above, or even a very high angle.


Imagine if you had a visor or something on your head that prevents you from being able to see light coming your direction from high angles. I hold up a lamp (which emits light in a somewhat spherical direction), but I am standing above your horizon. You won't be able to see the lamp.




No. If a antenna is not designed to be directional by utilizing shielding and a surface to reflect and focus the radiation, the radiation is transmitted in a spherical pattern.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.....


It's not a question of anything being focused. A radio wave is just very low frequency light.

A vertical antenna is designed to be able "see" light/radio waves coming at it from the horizontal direction. It can't "see" it when it is coming from directly above, or even a very high angle.


Imagine if you had a visor or something on your head that prevents you from being able to see light coming your direction from high angles. I hold up a lamp (which emits light in a somewhat spherical direction), but I am standing above your horizon. You won't be able to see the lamp.




No. If a antenna is not designed to be directional by utilizing shielding and a surface to reflect and focus the radiation, the radiation is transmitted in a spherical pattern.


That's not true. You can read about it here:

www.astronwireless.com...

An "omnidirectional" vertically mounted antenna means it covers the whole 360 degrees of the horizontal plane, but in most cases its receptivity will drop off the further off of horizontal you go.

It's called the "azimuth".

add:


A vertically mounted antenna is implicitly directional to the horizontal plane because most of its surface area faces the horizontal plane. It simply has a smaller cross section when viewed from any other angle than horizontal. Remember that radio waves are the same thing as light. If something has a smaller cross section from the perspective of you looking at it visibly, then it also has a smaller cross section from the perspective of a radio wave.
edit on 16-7-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: add a bit more:



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I can't seem to get anyone to discuss the forged FDR data. Pilotsfor911truth has a really good point about this:

pilotsfor911truth.org...


The FDR data describes the approach and collision with the Pentagon, giving the correct altitudes the whole way in. However, it also shows the altimeter set to the wrong pressure of 29.92, when local pressure was 30.22.

Another poster so far has explained that this is because 29.92 is what gets set whenever the plane is at high altitude, and then its supposed to get adjusted to local conditions when it descends. Indicating Hani might have simply forgot to change it back when he started descending.


However......... that's not the problem.

The problem is that with the altimeter still set to 29.92, the FDR should be giving us inaccurate altitudes. Instead, it is giving us exactly the right altitudes. The ones that would perfectly match the clipping of light poles... etc.

It kind of looks like the forger forgot to set the altimeter to the right pressure, before giving us data that would perfectly match the light pole clippings. (Other than being based on the wrong pressure.)

If you're looking for a smoking gun, that looks pretty smoky.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Would be very surprising for a genuine FDR data to show that error.

But not surprising at all for a forgery to have it.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Just had a look at the FDR data and what I see is the barometric correction being changed from 29.91 to 30.23 at 13:24:21 zulu (13 minutes prior to impact) and altitude of ~18000'. The correction caused a reduction in barometric altimeter reading of 38' (18048' - 18010'). Actually the change doesn't appear to have made any significant difference as the aircraft was descending at ~40'/sec at the time.

You need a huge quantity of salt in order to put any faith in the claims made by PFT
edit on 16/7/2017 by Pilgrum because: added a line



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.....


It's not a question of anything being focused. A radio wave is just very low frequency light.

A vertical antenna is designed to be able "see" light/radio waves coming at it from the horizontal direction. It can't "see" it when it is coming from directly above, or even a very high angle.


Imagine if you had a visor or something on your head that prevents you from being able to see light coming your direction from high angles. I hold up a lamp (which emits light in a somewhat spherical direction), but I am standing above your horizon. You won't be able to see the lamp.




No. If a antenna is not designed to be directional by utilizing shielding and a surface to reflect and focus the radiation, the radiation is transmitted in a spherical pattern.


That's not true. You can read about it here:

www.astronwireless.com...

An "omnidirectional" vertically mounted antenna means it covers the whole 360 degrees of the horizontal plane, but in most cases its receptivity will drop off the further off of horizontal you go.

It's called the "azimuth".

add:


A vertically mounted antenna is implicitly directional to the horizontal plane because most of its surface area faces the horizontal plane. It simply has a smaller cross section when viewed from any other angle than horizontal. Remember that radio waves are the same thing as light. If something has a smaller cross section from the perspective of you looking at it visibly, then it also has a smaller cross section from the perspective of a radio wave.


Same thing as a flashlight? A Light bulb just in a fixture radiates all of a room with light. Not until you put the light bulb in a flashlight that has a mirrored surface does the light become focused.

Is there not shielding, or not something physically bouncing the beam at the ground like a "mirrored surface", the cell phone tower is still broadcasting into the air.


Found this article, and yes. It says many towers are designed to "direct" the signal at the ground. Not all.

But An air plane can be almost 2 miles above the ground, and cell users can still connect to a tower.

www.cnn.com...


Cell phones communicate through cell towers, which are located on the ground but can stretch hundreds of feet into the air. As an airplane rises, it gets further from these towers and eventually moves out of contact range. For efficiency, many towers are designed to direct their signal where its most useful: on the ground, not into the sky above.
The maximum distance at which a phone can still make calls and send texts varies depending on the type of tower and transmitter, but an airplane would have to be no more than 10,000 feet in the air for any cell phones on board to still have a signal, according to Bill Rojas, director of telecom research at IDC Asia Pacific.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

www.911myths.com...




It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council. “Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”
www.sandiegometro.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Non-pilots cannot appreciate the other factor in the equation, ground effect. Hani The Magnificent was 90knots or move over Vne, and in ground effect, and if he had been just a few feet off he would have missed the building completely.

It's a ridiculous story told about Hani The Magnificent, but humans and especially Americans today love to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief, as long as their government tells them to, time after time after time. For some, endless repetition of a falsehood will have them believe the falsehood.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




The problem is that with the altimeter still set to 29.92, the FDR should be giving us inaccurate altitudes. Instead, it is giving us exactly the right altitudes.

I've been googling FDR data and it appears that the sensors used (in most cases) are independent of the cockpit instruments.
Plus they need periodic calibration.

That would explain why FDR readouts aren't publicized a few days after an accident.
It takes them time factor in/out external parameters to give accurate data.

Now if you believe the data was altered to fit the OS, you are adding another layer of conspirators.
Just how many layers of people are you willing to believe can stay silent for decades?
People talk to their spouses and family.
People come clean on their past sins.
And yet not one verifiable death bed confession.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Yes, that's right, get proven wrong and ignore it, as usual. I just proved that the statistics are provided by the airlines to BTS. That means that if the airline doesn't list a flight, then that doesn't prove that it wasn't scheduled.

What have YOU proven lately? Nothing? I didn't think so.


You required to log all scheduled flights that day! How can they just forget to schedule the plane that crashed at the Pentagon? If you prove this theory go ahead?
edit on 16-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

YOU are the one claiming that BTS data can't be altered in any way, and a flight not listed means absolutely that it wasn't scheduled to fly. YOU are the one making the claim, so yes, it is on you to prove it. You make the claim, you have to prove it.

So prove it.


Of course people who believe the official narrative never try to investigate things themselves. Well i don't know how easy it be to prove your theory is correct, it 16 years later and i not a conspiracy researcher. You're a moderator on here? Why are all the people on here Skeptics?


You are stereotyping again. I was really interested in what 9/11 was all about. Then people like you showed me the light on the truth of conspiracists.

You, the government cannot be trusted. Then you use FBI evidence to claim Ted Olson didn't get a call from his wife Barbara from flight 77. Your justification was only citing AT&T network records. While you totally hid:

At least one other person called out to report the hijacking of flight 77 to three people.

There were at least four unknown records of calls from flight 77. Calls not pursued by the FBI.

That operators and Ted Olson's security talked to Barbara.

The only additional information the 9/11 commission got from Ted was box cutters.

Conspiracists like to hide facts, use misquotes, use pseudoscience, use false authority, and use pictures out of context.

Has nothing with the "Offical Narrative."

I liked how you had two to three people correcting you on how far the engines hang down off a 757, and you kept blowing it off like they were stupid. Then you blew it off as if it was a simple mistake on your part. Or was it you buying into a conspiracy site and didn't verify the actual deminsions......



You got no interest in the truth, you are a debunker. How can you not see, Hani Hanjour, is a terrible pilot? Do you think he was acting 3 weeks before 9/11 when he wa not able to pilot a small engine Cesna? He's instructors said he was unable to control the plane on he's own. Yet is believe for you guys 3 weeks later the same person was piloting a much bigger plane? Abursity and amazes me you people can't see it.

I just leave this here for you
ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. ''He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course,'' the ex-employee said.''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''
www.nytimes.com...

What evidence we got Ted Olson rang he's wife? The FBI, Pentagon all confirmed they got no record of Barbara Olson phoning the office of her husband (fact) We got 4 unknown calls that can not be traced to a specific number or caller! That's two issues i have addressed. Don;t you think it important we know if she rang her husband office? He was the person talking about pilots, removed from the cockpit to the end of the plane, hijackers with boxcutters? Where is the telephone records?

Oddity!
Captain Ralph Kolstad served as an airline pilot for 27 years, during 13 of which he flew Boeing 757s and 767s for American Airlines. He wrote: “[T]he ‘air phones,’ as they were called, were … deactivated in early or mid 2001.


What facts am i hiding? Everything i have said is factual and can be verified.

You said.
liked how you had two to three people correcting you on how far the engines hang down off a 757, and you kept blowing it off like they were stupid.

Again you misrepresenting the facts. The Fuselage is 12feet 4 inches (fact) i provided a diagram of 757 for that and the engine does indeed hang down 8 feet 10 inches (fact) There is no misleading here that is a fact. Where i made the mistake with my calculations, and owned up to that, the top of the engine is not parellel to the bottom of the Fuselage. Simple mistake to make. Either way the plane would be barely 12 inches off the ground, if that? I was only maybe off by 12 inches, this not a huge miscalculation you are making this out to be.
edit on 16-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




I think you need to get some fresh air. You wrapped up in your believes so much you cant see what's true anymore,


says the person who cant grasp the simple concept that a clock can be slow.




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.


this was a reply after you had already mentioned the clocks and someone explained the simple idea that maybe the clocks were not synchronized.

Maybe those clocks were 5 minutes slow.

Obviously this cannot happen, who ever heard of a clock being slow?



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




If the Plane max speed is 493 mph and the Plane at the Pentagon speed is 530mph, do you not see the problem?


No there is no problem with that.


Please answer Zaphods question,

here it is again

"So you're saying, that if I'm driving a car that has a maximum top speed of 70 mph, and I go downhill, it's not going to go over 70 mph?"



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12




I think you need to get some fresh air. You wrapped up in your believes so much you cant see what's true anymore,


says the person who cant grasp the simple concept that a clock can be slow.




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.


this was a reply after you had already mentioned the clocks and someone explained the simple idea that maybe the clocks were not synchronized.

Maybe those clocks were 5 minutes slow.

Obviously this cannot happen, who ever heard of a clock being slow?



Two clocks stopping at the same time, is weird. Lets not forget when first reports start coming in the attack time was placed just after 9.30! Only days later it got to 9.38. So Eyewitnesses report a attack earlier.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12




If the Plane max speed is 493 mph and the Plane at the Pentagon speed is 530mph, do you not see the problem?


No there is no problem with that.


Please answer Zaphods question,

here it is again

"So you're saying, that if I'm driving a car that has a maximum top speed of 70 mph, and I go downhill, it's not going to go over 70 mph?"



Comparing a car to a commercial airliner is silly.

www.grc.nasa.gov... Plane was exceeding speeds the plane was not designed to fly at. And flight instructors have tried to simulate this and have failed. The plane started to break apart or topple near 500mph. Flight 77 was hurdling through the air at 530mph.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12

Non-pilots cannot appreciate the other factor in the equation, ground effect. Hani The Magnificent was 90knots or move over Vne, and in ground effect, and if he had been just a few feet off he would have missed the building completely.

It's a ridiculous story told about Hani The Magnificent, but humans and especially Americans today love to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief, as long as their government tells them to, time after time after time. For some, endless repetition of a falsehood will have them believe the falsehood.



An object crashed at the Pentagon we know that for sure.. Lets not forget about the security camera footage released. Why did they remove the timestamp and date of the video? This would show the time of the attack to the minute?



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




Two clocks stopping at the same time, is weird.


So you don't grasp the idea that clocks can run slow.

OK.





Lets not forget when first reports start coming in the attack time was placed just after 9.30!



yeah, first reports.

I hope you get it.

'First reports coming in'




Only days later it got to 9.38. So Eyewitnesses report a attack earlier.


Yes.

Once the event is looked at it easier to get a bigger picture and supply more accurate info.

When first reports come in when an event such as that happens they are not going to be correct most of the time other than the main thing reported, like a plane crash, an explosion.

The time, how many casualties, etc , etc will be reported but wont be verifiable until the event gets looked at.



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




Comparing a car to a commercial airliner is silly.



No one compared a car to commercial airliner.

NO wonder its like talking to wall.




Plane was exceeding speeds the plane was not designed to fly at.


Yes.

if a cars top speed 100MPH and its driving that speed when comes to a hill, the car goes down the hill, the cr will go over its 100MPH limit.

Do you get the concept of something falling or going down hill will accelerate?

Its something 5 year old children understand, why is it so hard for you to grasp?



edit on 16-7-2017 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12




Two clocks stopping at the same time, is weird.


So you don't grasp the idea that clocks can run slow.

OK.





Lets not forget when first reports start coming in the attack time was placed just after 9.30!



yeah, first reports.

I hope you get it.

'First reports coming in'




Only days later it got to 9.38. So Eyewitnesses report a attack earlier.


Yes.

Once the event is looked at it easier to get a bigger picture and supply more accurate info.

When first reports come in when an event such as that happens they are not going to be correct most of the time other than the main thing reported, like a plane crash, an explosion.

The time, how many casualties, etc , etc will be reported but wont be verifiable until the event gets looked at.



I do. Just find it odd they found two clocks near the impact site and both clocks stop at 9.31 minutes Most people i believe would find this curious?

Or they changed the time to fit the narrative of the flight time or for some other reason? Witnesses said just 9.30 or just after they saw the smoke and fire. Two clocks stopping at this time fit with their accounts!
edit on 16-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join