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: 98
40
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12

The scene in each frame is the same, both cameras, only frame 23 has a problem.



This photo points out your Bluish Tinted debris airborne above the pentagon lawn.

According to your video expert it should be in exactly the same spot in both videos. It is traveling much slower than the plane it can be tracked in 3 separate frames.

As you can see it is not exactly in the place in both photos. In the top photo It's over the yellow building and a little higher , in the bottom photo it's left of the yellow building and lower.




Why are they not in the same spot like your expert claims they should be.

Any answer you give me, you also have to apply to frame 23.


Can you tell me the minute time you captured the frame at?


Frame 27




posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12

The scene in each frame is the same, both cameras, only frame 23 has a problem.



This photo points out your Bluish Tinted debris airborne above the pentagon lawn.

According to your video expert it should be in exactly the same spot in both videos. It is traveling much slower than the plane it can be tracked in 3 separate frames.

As you can see it is not exactly in the place in both photos. In the top photo It's over the yellow building and a little higher , in the bottom photo it's left of the yellow building and lower.




Why are they not in the same spot like your expert claims they should be.

Any answer you give me, you also have to apply to frame 23.


Can you tell me the minute time you captured the frame at?


Frame 27


ok thanks.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Rarely. It's not sloppy, it's convenient. Especially when you're filing out a 10 page document that requires a date on every page.


This would not be the right way to format date where i come from, but you're Americans you do thinks differently over there.


Do you think 9/11 happened on November 9th ?


It would be Sep 11 2001. 11 Sep 2001 just the opposite.

9/11 is not how you sign a official document date.
edit on 24-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

Do you think 9/11 happened on November 9th ?


The only thing the 9/11 truth movement has ever gotten right is the date.

Now you come along and ruin that for them.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: samkent
I really don't understand why we are butting our heads against the wall for one person.
His understanding of how the world at large works is very limited.

OK OK no plane hit the Pentagon !

Now explain to yourself how all the other evidence fits.
When you are finished write a book about it.


It would be nice if individual would cite the source that flight 77 flew less two feet off the ground for 5 to 6 seconds. The assessment the individual based that Hanjour had to be an ace pilot.

By the way, wouldn't whole trees and vegetation along the flight path be completely mowed down? As in the tree flight 77 only clipped its top?


I already said it was 6 seconds near the Sheraton hotel ages ago in another post. There is no way to know how fast that the plane was travelling i have my doubts it was 530mph, in dense air, in downwash and not stall exceeding the planes max speed for maybe 1 or 2 miles. The g-force alone would be nuts.
edit on 24-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: waypastvne

Do you think 9/11 happened on November 9th ?


The only thing the 9/11 truth movement has ever gotten right is the date.

Now you come along and ruin that for them.


I like 9/11 it's catchy but it look odd on a official document.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12
in dense air, in downwash and not stall exceeding the planes max speed for maybe 1 or 2 miles. The g-force alone would be nuts.



Just Stop.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Sure it's frame 27?




posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
waypastve, post the security video you had so i can see a wider view.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Yes







posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne
a reply to: Jacobu12

Yes







That video i watched is crap. Camera 2 shows an outline of a plane ahead of the pillar. Why do people post videos that can be debunked?



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   


Camera 2 shows an outline of a plane ahead of the pillar. Why do people post videos that can be debunked?


Because that is what the cameras recorded?

These security cameras were not designed for high speed capture, like the speed of the plane in question.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



Camera 2 shows an outline of a plane ahead of the pillar. Why do people post videos that can be debunked?


Because that is what the cameras recorded?

These security cameras were not designed for high speed capture, like the speed of the plane in question.


www.youtube.com... This video analysis is wrong, there is not a missing plane body in front of the pillar. Strange they left out camera 2 footage, or they just ignored that camera footage? The plane body is ahead of the pillar in that frame.


edit on 24-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12




I not buying a novice could fly the plane like this on the day.


How did he fly the plane?

He flew like a novice.

So you don't accept that someone who flew a plane like a novice before crashing it was a novice pilot, he needed to have military training?



He flew it like an ace, hero that he has been elevated to. Let's have a show of hands from the various aviators here who have flown their transport category aircraft at Vmo +90. Jacobu will swallow that claim too, is my bet, but I don't know a single person who has flown his 757 in ground effect, at the bottom of a maneuver requiring 3500FPM descent, at Vmo +90.

Not AA77, not any other transport category aircraft, hit the pentagon on that day.

If a lie is repeated often enough, people will buy it.



And not only that, but anticipate IN ADVANCE that he WOULD be able to pull it off. Otherwise he can't plan to do so in advance.

It's easy to forget this was a PLANNED SUICIDE attack. You don't plan your own death the way you might plan a family vacation.

The goal would be certainty of success. You wouldn't go "double or nothing" just for the possibility of hitting your target just a little bit harder. (And risk missing, and ultimately having died for nothing.)

So whether the COULD do this monstrous Kamikaze diver or not, the question is why WOULD he?



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Why not a slower maneuver? Or just do what he does when landing, except using the Pentagon as the landing strip?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Half the speed amounts to a quarter of the destructive power is the most likely reason he'd squeeze every knot he could out of the plane being used as a kinetic energy weapon.



He flew it like an ace, hero that he has been elevated to. Let's have a show of hands from the various aviators here who have flown their transport category aircraft at Vmo +90. Jacobu will swallow that claim too, is my bet, but I don't know a single person who has flown his 757 in ground effect, at the bottom of a maneuver requiring 3500FPM descent, at Vmo +90.


No show of (living) hands there. Fly like that and you're likely to have a serious accident not to mention voiding the warranty.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

Something like.....

Kinetic energy = .5mv^2

One could say, as velocity increases the energy to create damage is raised exponentially?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

That's it
twice the speed for 4 times the energy



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Because he probably labored under the same stupidity that most truthers do and thought dozens of SAMs were going to pop off from the Pentagon roof.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
No show of (living) hands there. Fly like that and you're likely to have a serious accident not to mention voiding the warranty.


I would think certain self proclaimed aviation experts would know the FAA keeps tabs on maintenance records for each plane/jet, pilots logs, and the FAA takes enforcing that pilots fly within dictated and outlined safety limits very seriously. As in flying specific aircraft beyond outlined safety limits my get you in trouble with the FAA. The FAA will pull your license for high blood pressure. What would they do to pilots that fly their aircraft beyond safety limits?



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join