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: 82
40
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

They very clearly said the 757 that was flown into the Pentagon in the second quote. It doesn't get more clear than that.




posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

Pentagon Building Performance Report, p14 "the top of the fuselage of the aircraft no more than 20 ft above the ground.



Why is that a problem or proof of anything?
With the top of the fuselage 20' off the ground, the bottom of the engines will still be 4-5' clear of the ground and a bit less if the plane is banked slightly. The top of the engine is level with the wing which is not level with the bottom of the fuselage.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

So AGAIN, you're going to sit there and say with a straight face, that it's nothing but the world's most incredible coincidence that the ground clearance of a 757 EXACTLY matches what they said the altitude was. Yeah....no. The report has to have baseline measurements, which is what they were talking about.

You. Don't. Measure. From. The. Ground. To. The. Top. Of. The. Fuselage. In. Flight. Here we go again. Altitude is measured from the ground to the bottom of the aircraft. It doesn't make sense to measure from the ground to the top of the fuselage in flight.


Conspiracy theorists claim this
Pentagon Building Performance Report, p14 "the top of the fuselage of the aircraft no more than 20 ft above the ground.

People who believe the 9/11 government version and i have looked don't even mention the p14 the top of the fuselage of the aircraft no more than 20 ft above the ground

Who is telling the truth. Surely this page can be found somewhere online so we can actually take a look and see what it says instead of speculating about it?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: Jacobu12

Pentagon Building Performance Report, p14 "the top of the fuselage of the aircraft no more than 20 ft above the ground.



Why is that a problem or proof of anything?
With the top of the fuselage 20' off the ground, the bottom of the engines will still be 4-5' clear of the ground and a bit less if the plane is banked slightly. The top of the engine is level with the wing which is not level with the bottom of the fuselage.


I don't know what the government is measuring are they including wheels and all like Zaphod says.

Conspiracy people just say 20 feet from the ground to the Top of the Fuselage. If their version is true the number of feet is going to be lower 1 or 2 feet at most..

I can't find this report online and specifically page 14 to check out what truly said.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

There is absolutely nothing on an aircraft to measure distance to the top of the fuselage while it's in flight, or on the ground. The only way they could say that it was 20 feet to the top of the fuselage, and mean while it was in flight before hitting the Pentagon, is to have a still image of the aircraft, and use a computer to measure the distance from the ground to the top of the fuselage. And if they had that, don't you think that they'd release it, and put an end to all of this debate?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Well the 20' from ground to top of fuselage is obviously when standing on the runway which normally means on the landing gear to a reasonable reader. The engines don't drag on the ground under those circumstances do they.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

There is absolutely nothing on an aircraft to measure distance to the top of the fuselage while it's in flight, or on the ground. The only way they could say that it was 20 feet to the top of the fuselage, and mean while it was in flight before hitting the Pentagon, is to have a still image of the aircraft, and use a computer to measure the distance from the ground to the top of the fuselage. And if they had that, don't you think that they'd release it, and put an end to all of this debate?


I guessing it had to be this low to strike where they said it did?

Can we just find the page anyone know where we can find this?. If conspiracy theorists are claiming p14 says 20 feet ground to the top of the plane, don't you think it's important we debunk this.
edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I haven't seen anyone bring up the radio altimeter in this thread so far which would be the most reliable indicator of ground clearance when extremely close to terra firma. The final reading from memory was about 4 feet.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Jacobu12

Well the 20' from ground to top of fuselage is obviously when standing on the runway which normally means on the landing gear to a reasonable reader. The engines don't drag on the ground under those circumstances do they.


The plane was flying low when it hit the Pentagon, why would they measure a standstill plane on a runaway? P14 if i could find i know more.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

These are the same people that claim it's 44 feet to the top of the tail. Which is it, with the landing gear down.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

It's hard enough making the easy points. Heh.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

These are the same people that claim it's 44 feet to the top of the tail. Which is it, with the landing gear down.


Never mind that. Are you not a proponent of the government narrative? Surely this page 14 of the report is important, it will tell us what the government found out about the height of the plane.

Snopes say
14.9 yards high

This seems widely inaccurate, that could be 40 feet or more?
edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Sounds to me that the statement shows the plane was barely above the ground when it hit. If it was frozen in air and the gear dropped, the gear would then touch the ground, so at about gear touch down height.

It has been reported that an engine clipped a low wall which is on high point of ground near the building. That place it low but above ground.
edit on 7/20/2017 by roadgravel because: typo



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

As pointed out, the radio altimeter showed 4 feet at impact. That means that it would have been less than 20 feet to the top of the fuselage.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
www.snopes.com...
2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Thank you for proving my point. A 757 is 44.7 feet high, from the ground, to the top of the tail, with the landing gear down. The 14.9 yards is 44.7 feet.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

As pointed out, the radio altimeter showed 4 feet at impact. That means that it would have been less than 20 feet to the top of the fuselage.


Someone is wrong here and not saying you not right, but if you got conspiracy sites saying 20 feet ground to top of the fuselage, that seems to me they are talking about the plane in flight and just 20 feet straight up ground to top of plane.

This page 14 is very important.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Thank you for proving my point. A 757 is 44.7 feet high, from the ground, to the top of the tail, with the landing gear down. The 14.9 yards is 44.7 feet.


Yes but they don't give a height from ground to the top of the plane. They only mention the speed!
edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Snopes says this.
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by the New York Times, the plane still hit not “just the ground floor” but between the first and second floors:

The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

And if they are using 44 feet 7 inches high, for a 757 height, what makes you think they're not using the same 20 feet 6 inches from the ground to the top of the fuselage? How ELSE are they going to get that exact same measurement that is used in the planning document?




top topics



 
40
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join