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: 64
40
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

I have looked. Why do you think they do ultrasound, and other non visual inspections on bridge pilings? Because you can't look at them and see if they're damaged. You can look at that picture under a microscope and still not tell if some of those columns are damaged.


Look man believe what you like.




posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

So your proof of missile or bomb is you don't like the number of columns broken by a jet you claimed should have undegon catastrophic failure before hitting the pentagon, and you don't like how a camera with a fish eyed lens compensated for lighting and shadow of a high speed jet with a silver reflective skin?

Wonder why the truth movement is dwindling.....



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Yeah, ok. Apparently you do have x-ray vision to see those columns weren't damaged.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Yeah, ok. Apparently you do have x-ray vision to see those columns weren't damaged.


And the individual knows more than Boeing on how the engines hang off a 757.

And knows ground clearance is measured from the top of the fuselage, not from the part that hangs closes to the ground.

And likes to imply what individuals post to suit themselves without providing the actual quote.


(post by Jacobu12 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
(post by Jacobu12 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Let's talk about going from a missile system at the pentagon on 9/11.

Then the jet should have hit ground that is sloped down and away from the pentagon based on a false conception of the engines hanging down eight feet beneath the fuselage. When in reality, the left engine clipped a low concrete wall that sits on a high point before flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.

Then the jet should have experienced catastrophic failure and fell straight out of the air onto the ground.

Then switch gears in that the jet claimed to have undergone catastrophic failure should have been more solid to take out the number of columns to your liking.

While your proof of a bomb or missile at the pentagon is not the right number of broken columns, didn't like how a camera with a fish eyed lens took a picture of a high speed jet, and putting words in people's mouths? Then will not provide the quote when confronted.

Wonder why conspiracists get a bad wrap.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Attention Please

Since it's getting a little heated in this discussion, a reminder about the 9/11 forum rules.
LINK


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.


Do not reply to this post.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
FWIW - outside hole size - wing marks



When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
...
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them.

Link



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

I'll apply the usual responses. Nothing against you.

There is credible doubt to their accounts.

Prove the statements were under oath.

They lied because they work for the government.

So, do you have pictures of the pieces picked up.

I cannot find the wing mark pictures on the internet.

They hid evidence.

Witnesseses say the jet flew from the north.

But they are hiding 85 security videos from the pentagon.

It was a stolen Russian missile.


edit on 17-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




I'll apply the usual responses. Nothing against you.


I would expect nothing less here.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
So there are pages after pages of trying to define what ground clearance means, dropped clocks, fish eyed lenses, the color of the jet in security footage, missile systems at the pentagon, how far the engines hang off a 757?

And if you try to ask conspiracists about the physical evidence a bomb or missile detonated at the pentagon, you get ignored to discuss ground clearance, dropped clocks, funny looking security footage, missile systems at the pentagon, how far engines hang of a 757, and repeatedly misquoted...........

Just saying.........

Seems conspiracists push narratives by using misdirection...



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
FWIW - outside hole size - wing marks


" When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
...
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them."

Link


Good post, It shouldn't get pushed off because I post too much.....
edit on 17-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed quotes



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

No problem. It's there for what it is worth. I been watching this and it's an interesting study. It's hard to know how much of what was reported is true but certain points about the airplane seem to be hard to disprove. Aircraft tend to fall apart into many pieces when they encounter other large objects.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I thought this was an interesting take on a problem. Sometimes the solution may not be what seems to be obvious.


During World War II, Wald applied his statistical skills when considering how to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire. Researchers from the Center for Naval Analyses had conducted a study of the damage done to aircraft that had returned from missions, and had recommended that armor be added to the areas that showed the most damage.

Wald noted that the study only considered the aircraft that had survived their missions—the bombers that had been shot down were not present for the damage assessment. The holes in the returning aircraft, then, represented areas where a bomber could take damage and still return home safely.

Wald proposed that the Navy instead reinforce the areas where the returning aircraft were unscathed, since those were the areas that, if hit, would cause the plane to be lost. This is still considered today seminal work in the then-fledgling discipline of operational research.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

How many times have I specifically asked you how the crew and passengers of flight 77 ended up dead at the pentagon. What remains were released to families for burial.

You first......,



You can read everything you ever wanted to know about that question in this article:

www.newsweek.com...

Pieces of a lot of passengers were found and identified using DNA samples provided by family members.

The terrorists themselves were never positively identified, because their families have not come forward to offer any DNA to test against. However bits of DNA recovered from their car and hotel rooms have been matched to some of the remains.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Here is a quote from my original post

www.abovetopsecret.com...



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.



This was to a response making it seem cell phone calls from flight 77 were not probable.

What I was conveying was the fact: The only way to ensure broadcasting from a tower was not transmitted to the sky would be shielding the sky from cell phone radiation or a device that reflected all tower broadcasting to the ground. You can "focus" most of the radiation, but you still get leakage into all directions. Which is evidence if you can get a cell phone signal almost two miles into the sky. Or almost 6 miles above a tower.

It's against myself too, but none of us stated the speed a cell phone is moving while transmitting also plays a role how well the call is handed from tower to tower.




In this case we basically agree. The calls were not entirely impossible, because the receptivity is not quite zero from any angle. The antenna just has a harder and harder time the higher the angle.

The probability of making a successful call is not high, but also not zero. But low probability occurrences are the kind of thing that should be taken with a grain of salt.


originally posted by: neutronflux


I am going out on a limb. But radar doesn't need a transponder. So? our radar only detects enemy airfract when they have their transponders turn on. Transponders are a digital broadcast to identify the aircraft. For a lack of a better term, flight 77 was still tracked by conventional radar. And radar used to look for unidentified aircraft.



A lot of air traffic doesn't use transponders. So while of course it would have appeared on radar, it would have been one of many unidentified blips.

Even Reagan Airport, which was the airport about a mile to the Southeast of the Pentagon, didn't assign a designation to Flight 77's blip until the last couple of minutes.

The letter "S" suddenly appears over a small red blip Southwest of the Center that has a lot of dots trailing behind it. This happens at about 10 minutes 47 seconds into the video I'm linking you to. That "S" was flight 77.

Another nearby blip with the name "Gopher86" was the fighter plane tasked with intercepting and following Flight 77.

www.youtube.com...


edit on 17-7-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: Fixed link to REagan Airport Radar



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12


And so, it means Hani The Magnificent had to be flying as close to the ground as if he were taxiing, in ground effect, at Vmo +90 and that's ridiculous.



Yeah that's nuts.

Fly like that and you're gonna crash.

Oh, wait.....


A handful of guys who fly that airplane for a living are on record as saying they would have a difficult time flying the maneuver Hani is alleged to have flown.

?


And again, the Sharpshooter Fallacy. First, you need to prove that THAT EXACT SPOT is what he was trying to hit. I suspect that you can't. No I know you can't.

I agree that most would find it hard to replicate Hanis exact flight path. Especially the last few seconds. But that's irrelevant.

The real question that you nutjobs never consider is that his target was a 24 acre building that he just needed to hit anywhere.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
The issue with him flying so low and not crashing is just the amount of luck required to cut it that close, without hitting the ground. Especially with the whole plane shaking violently from the speed and stress to its airframe.

It's an issue whether he intended to cut it that close or not. The plane would probably have shattered had it made contact with the ground prior to hitting the Pentagon.

But it doesn't prove anything. Just influences the probability. Improbable things happen, but if too many improbable things happen on the same day, it starts to feel more and more like you're reading a novel, rather than experiencing real life.



posted on Jul, 17 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It was Gopher 06, and it wasn't a fighter, it was a C-130H that belonged to the Minnesota Air National Guard out of Andrews. He was close to the Pentagon and was asked to ID the unknown.
edit on 7/17/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join