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: 83
40
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Because there's no way to exactly measure the height, unless they have an crystal clear photo of the aircraft. Otherwise it's an estimate based on data from the FDR.




posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Because there's no way to exactly measure the height, unless they have an crystal clear photo of the aircraft. Otherwise it's an estimate based on data from the FDR.


But 9/11 conspiracy claim the government has worked out the height of the plane. They claim on page 14 of Pentagon building performance report: From the ground to the top of the Fuselage the plane was no more than 20 feet. If that's true that's seem to me they are claiming the plane was just 1 or 2 feet maybe off the ground?
edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   


The plane was flying low when it hit the Pentagon, why would they measure a standstill plane on a runaway?


Seems you are confusing the technical data/diagram measurements with someone's reporting. The runway measurements refer to the tech data. It gives the physical dimensions of the aircraft.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



The plane was flying low when it hit the Pentagon, why would they measure a standstill plane on a runaway?


Seems you are confusing the technical data/diagram measurements with someone's reporting. The runway measurements refer to the tech data. It gives the physical dimensions of the aircraft.


But it's not reporting if the government actually said 20 feet ground to the top of the plane? Page 14 has this information it self explanatory the plane was very low to the ground 1 or 2 feet at most.
edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Forget it. I'm done going ten pages arguing the same things over and over again. You win. It was whatever you decide it's going to be next.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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?


I don't know what the Page 14 says, are you not curious about it? Well is it not obvious they have to measure exactly for it to hit the first floor, any higher than 20 feet the plane is striking the second floor or missing the target. And, why would they measure the plane height and ignore what took place at the Pentagon?
edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

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 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Absolutely, I agree the plane was just 1-2' off the ground when it impacted, maybe even less than that. I can see the cross-section profile of the plane in the pic you're using as an avatar and, if you study the construction of a 757 regarding where the most massive and strong components (wing box and keel beam) are it all makes sense. Those components are in the bottom of the fuselage btw so that battering ram would have hit below the level of that floor that's barely hanging on with its support columns smashed out.
edit on 20/7/2017 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Some math from the specs:

Fuselage height - 13" 2'

Ground to top 20" in debate then:

That leaves a max of just under 7 ft, ground to underside, level ground.

Engines are about 2" 5' above ground if the top is at 20" 6' - so about 2 foot at 20"

If the wings are not level, that would change of course. I think it was said there was a 5 degree bank at the end.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Jacobu12

Absolutely, I agree the plane was just 1-2' off the ground when it impacted, maybe even less than that. I can see the cross-section profile of the plane in the pic you're using as an avatar and, if you study the construction of a 757 regarding where the most massive and strong components (wing box and keel beam) are it all makes sense. Those components are in the bottom of the fuselage btw so that battering ram would have hit below the level of that floor that's barely hanging on with its support columns smashed out.


See this is the problem i don't know if the government actually said 20 feet.. I see a claim online page 14 has this information and i just worked it out how low the plane would be from that. Plane to hit the first floor it have to be low, the cone connected there.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Some math from the specs:

Fuselage height - 13" 2'

Ground to top 20" in debate then:

That leaves a max of just under 7 ft, ground to underside, level ground.

Engines are about 2" 5' above ground if the top is at 20" 6' - so about 2 foot at 20"

If the wings are not level, that would change of course. I think it was said there was a 5 degree bank at the end.



757 fuselage in 2001 was 12 feet 4 . Plane was flying, no wheel down, the engines would extend maybe 6 feet + maybe 7, depending on measurements below the fuselage. 1 or 2 feet or less? If we count wheels the plane has a longer length.
edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I think everyone who believes a 757 hit, believes it was quite low.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

That is from the Boeing specs. Zaphod posted a link.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Jacobu12

That is from the Boeing specs. Zaphod posted a link.


They could be 2017 model specs, not sure though?
edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   


If we count wheels the plane has a longer length


How do wheels make an aircraft "longer". Maybe you are talking about height.

Those I posted were of mins but the difference sitting with less weight is only less then a foot. Th engine clearance is stated to vary 5 inches with a less load on the landing gear.
edit on 7/20/2017 by roadgravel because: syntax



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Your guess is off.

The material is dated August 2002.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
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.


The last 10 seconds of RADIO ALTITUDE go: 621', 492', 416', 352', 273', 233', 183', 89', 57', 4'

Note: the last reading (4') is less than one second before impact.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



If we count wheels the plane has a longer length


How do wheels make an aircraft "longer". Maybe you are talking about height.

Those I posted were of mins but the difference sitting with less weight are only less then a foot. Th engine clearance is stated to vary 5 inches with a less load on the landing gear.


Yes height. If you counted wheels down to the top of the plane, it going to be longer. Wheels up the plane would be smaller (height) Wheels touch the ground, engines and the body don't.
edit on 20-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
It looks like about 4" 6' height difference from engine ground clearance to underside of aircraft. At 4 foot height, that puts the engines near or at ground level.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12



That's the pic you posted earlier in the argument about 'blue tints'
Note carefully the position of the engines in relation to the fuselage IE the centre shaft of the turbine is barely below the bottom of the fuselage so, assuming an engine diameter of 8', there'll be maybe 4.5' of engine to add to the fuselage height of about 12.5' giving us a height of 17' roughly from the bottom of the engines to the top of the fuselage.

The 20.5' figure is from the bottom of the wheels to the top of the fuselage. Also note that the wheels will be a bit higher on the ground because the weight of the plane compresses the suspension/shock absorbers.

Now, if the bottom of the engine is within 1-2' of the ground, how far above ground would the keel beam I mentioned be?

This is getting a bit tiresome - might have to join Zaphod at the bar for a break myself



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: Jacobu12



That's the pic you posted earlier in the argument about 'blue tints'
Note carefully the position of the engines in relation to the fuselage IE the centre shaft of the turbine is barely below the bottom of the fuselage so, assuming an engine diameter of 8', there'll be maybe 4.5' of engine to add to the fuselage height of about 12.5' giving us a height of 17' roughly from the bottom of the engines to the top of the fuselage.

The 20.5' figure is from the bottom of the wheels to the top of the fuselage. Also note that the wheels will be a bit higher on the ground because the weight of the plane compresses the suspension/shock absorbers.

Now, if the bottom of the engine is within 1-2' of the ground, how far above ground would the keel beam I mentioned be?

This is getting a bit tiresome - might have to join Zaphod at the bar for a break myself


I estimated higher about 18+ feet. I took away 2 feet as the engines are close to 9 feet below the Wing. How many feet do you take off. At 20 feet the plane is hitting the ground (no space)


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



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join