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: 86
40
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

The person has no real understanding of science. An he wonders why he is baffled by this stuff.




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12

This animation was provided by the NTSB and is accurate in terms of the flight data recorder on board this aircraft.

What it shows is the flight path and shows how difficult this flying would be even for an expert. You see how hard that dive is to get down low enough to hit the target.. i just cant see how an amateur got lucky with this?


Thats what you see. I see a crappy pilot, make a huge crappy uncoordinated slipping turn, He doesn't maintain pitch attitude during the turn so his speed varies. He lines up with his target and fixates on it. Then makes crappy overcorrections all the way to impact. There was nothing skilled about his flying, there was nothing difficult in the manoeuvre. Target fixation is all he needed to hit the pentagon.


Yet he somehow manages to make impact just a few feet off the deck?

Nevermind whether he could, though. That's not the real question>

The real question is: why would he choose to?

Any impact would achieve his political objective. Fast, slow, high, low..... North, south......... none of that matters. Any impact with the Pentagon would do.

Why didn't he choose a simpler maneuver?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Why accelerate to 500+ mph?

Why would a pilot in that situation do anything that increases their chance of missing?


(A robotic pilot, of course, has very little chance of missing either way. And a fast impact that manages to make complete contact with the building's wall will leave behind the least useable evidence. )
edit on 21-7-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: destroy most evidence changed to leave behind least evidence.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Why accelerate to 500+ mph?

Why would a pilot in that situation do anything that increases their chance of missing?


That seems easy to me
IE m.v^2/2 to maximise the damage



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Ha.....that's you.....

He has social skills, nice of him to chat with us


Indeed i do, but i haven't got the time to continue debating.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Why does the amount of damage matter, when we're discussing the Pentagon? He's not going to take the whole building down.



It does make sense when we're discussing the WTC, because a faster or slower impact can make the difference between merely damaging the WTC and knocking the whole building down.

But why with the Pentagon?
edit on 21-7-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: add: it makes sense for the WTC, where the speed might make the difference between falling the building.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Why accelerate to 500+ mph?

Why would a pilot in that situation do anything that increases their chance of missing?


(A robotic pilot, of course, has very little chance of missing either way. And a fast impact that manages to make complete contact with the building's wall will leave behind the least useable evidence. )


If it was a robot, why not do the stright nose dive into the pentagon roof and stright down. There are gaps between the rings. Maybe Hanjour didn't want to risk ending up in the pentagon court yard which is as big as 4 football fields, or just crashing in one of the gaps between the rings. If the 757 nosed into one ring separated by gaps, would the damage have been as wide spread?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Would a nosedive destroy more evidence? Maximum speed means maximum destruction of the plane and its passengers.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Why does the amount of damage matter, when we're discussing the Pentagon? He's not going to take the whole building down.



It does make sense when we're discussing the WTC, because a faster or slower impact can make the difference between merely damaging the WTC and knocking the whole building down.

But why with the Pentagon?


Maybe it wasn't you then. But I have seen it argued by conspiracists if Hanjour wanted to do the most damage, he should have nosed flight 77 straight down through the roof.

Therefore, Hanjour didn't do a maneuver as interpreted in that it would cause the most damage, so it was proof of conspiracy to hit the pentagon from the side.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
And maybe he just performed the attack as he'd practised in a simulator. The actual toughness of the building would be an unknown so maximum force for maximum success and he only had 1 shot at it after all.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Any ideas what this could be, off topic i know, but i noticed a flash of light near the area where the second plane hit the second tower. The flash of light is obviously bigger, the distance is far away. You can see the plane coming to attack.




edit on 21-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Would he have feared being unable to breach the wall at a lower speed? In a 747?

Why would be practice a high speed crash instead of an easier crash?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Would a nosedive destroy more evidence? Maximum speed means maximum destruction of the plane and its passengers.



? ????? I didn't say it was a well thought out argument.

Now that I thought about it. The simple answer would be a side crash puts all the energy into the building. A crash straight down through the roof into the ground would put most of the energy into the ground. Then the straight down nose dive is supposedly a harder maneuver. Then there would have been the risk of crashing into the courtyard or a gap between rings?
edit on 21-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

It's not off topic in the proper thread.......



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

It's not off topic in the proper thread.......


I have to get off, but if you got answers what it could be i read them. On video it appears as a flash as the plane was coming in.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Would he have feared being unable to breach the wall at a lower speed? In a 747?

Why would be practice a high speed crash instead of an easier crash?


A 757? Seeing if people are paying attention? Or an implication.

The throttles were not worked to full until it seems the pilot of flight 77 thought the jet was lined up and starting the descent. I would say its simply human nature to use full ramming speed to be blunt. Do you go half assed when tackling the opposing team's quarterback, or give it your all?
edit on 21-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Same light source? The plane hit about 2 to 3 seconds after this. Very odd both sides of the building.




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12
Same light source? The plane hit about 2 to 3 seconds after this. Very odd both sides of the building.



It's paper.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

I think that paper has a blue tint. WTC standard issue paper is white. Must be a conspiracy........



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12
Same light source? The plane hit about 2 to 3 seconds after this. Very odd both sides of the building.



It's paper.



My picture was a flash, not sure about this one just took from a youtube video. Why you think it's paper?



new topics




 
40
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join