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: 99
40
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

Again, AA77 was not at the pentagon that day. I try to keep to reality instead of fantasy, unless it's football.





posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

No, my friends were not members of PFT, but they were amateur radio guys. They knew the cell phone story was just so much nonsense, and proved it.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

AA77 was not at the pentagon that day.



Another Truther proclamation without evidence. How ordinary.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

No, my friends were not members of PFT, but they were amateur radio guys. They knew the cell phone story was just so much nonsense, and proved it.



How about Airphones? Did they prove Airphones can't work on airplanes?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12






I not convinced there was a plane flying at 530mph, so either way it don't matter.


Yes,

I wasn't asking about the speed, yes the speed doesn't matter all that much.

I was asking about the where you came up with the flying just inches off the ground for 6-10 seconds.

Did you just make that up?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




We can guess all day why that is but we never know.


No need to guess,

Zaphod explained why the flight isn't there and later linked to documentation showing what he said was correct.

But yes, you keep guessing.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne


You and the government have not proved that Airfones were used. As I recall, the guy who called his mom was calling on his own phone.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12






I not convinced there was a plane flying at 530mph, so either way it don't matter.


Yes,

I wasn't asking about the speed, yes the speed doesn't matter all that much.

I was asking about the where you came up with the flying just inches off the ground for 6-10 seconds.

Did you just make that up?





I cannot speak for him, but in order for the official story to be true, one must accept the flight data and physical measurements. In order for the airplane to have struck the building where they said it did, the engine cowlings had to be within 2 or 3 feet of the ground, while the airplane was streaking at Vmo +90 or so, therefore in ground effect, and under the control of a really crappy pilot who had never flown anything bigger than a Cessna.

You might be able to believe that fairy tale, but I cannot. I've been around too many airplanes, too many students, to believe th



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
The plane was in an descent. It was not flying low above the ground. The ground wasn't really close except right before impact.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne


You and the government have not proved that Airfones were used. As I recall, the guy who called his mom was calling on his own phone.


Ed Felt was the only passenger to make a call from a cellphone. It was a 911 call.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12




I already said it was 6 seconds near the Sheraton hotel ages ago in another post.


no you said it was flying over the hotel 6 seconds before impact.

You also said that the plane was flying just inches off the ground for 6-10 seconds.

Do you not see an issue and a contradiction in saying the 2 things?

Did you just make up the 6-10 seconds flying only inches off the ground?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Right.....because ATT and GTE did not produce the phone records of calls made from the Airfones assigned to those airframes and the FBI certainly did not talk to the operators and family members who received those calls...

Just curious, what does constitute as evidence in your brain?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

Airplanes don't work on airplanes according to some......

It is a one track mind....long ago someone guessed and said cellphones....so they cannot make the jump to Airfone. Just like its a one track mind on the buildings...it is either fire or damage, but not both....



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Hey, Maverick buzzed the tower TWICE and kept his wings...

Seriously though, this idea of certain posters that airlines routinely remove entire systems from airliners and do not document it in the planes maintenance history is ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander





I cannot speak for him, but in order for the official story to be true, one must accept the flight data and physical measurements. In order for the airplane to have struck the building where they said it did, the engine cowlings had to be within 2 or 3 feet of the ground, while the airplane was streaking at Vmo +90 or so, therefore in ground effect, and under the control of a really crappy pilot who had never flown anything bigger than a Cessna. You might be able to believe that fairy tale, but I cannot. I've been around too many airplanes, too many students, to believe th





I even simplified my question for Jacob to make it a yes or no answer.


Do you agree with their comment that the plane was flying for 6-10 seconds just inches off the ground?

If so, where does this info. come from?

To simply the question I ask, is the info just made up?

Its a yes or no answer.




I cannot speak for him



So don't, why make yourself look foolish, why continue the display of ignorance?



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596




Airplanes don't work on airplanes according to some......


Unless they want to make baby air planes





posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander


therefore in ground effect,



And again: How much time did the plane spend at an altitude than can be considered "in ground effect".

I get 1.4 seconds. What do you get?

In reality the plane probably spent 0 time in ground effect. Because the plane was descending, it's vortices would be above the plane and never made contact with the ground, until after the crash.

And one more time: How much time did the plane spend at an altitude than can be considered "in ground effect".



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
How does ground effect (is/is not happening) issue change the way the event unfolded. Just curious to what people believe would happen.



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
How does ground effect (is/is not happening) issue change the way the event unfolded. Just curious to what people believe would happen.


Ground effect is irrelevant. It's just words people like to throw out because they sound impressive. There is no cushion of air under the plane. Ground effect is a disruption of the vortices behind the plane. A plane handles exactly the same 2' AGL as it does at 200'. Glide performance is just better because of a reduction in induced drag.

I agree with every thing written this article.

www.aerospaceweb.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

AA77 was not at the pentagon that day.



Another Truther proclamation without evidence. How ordinary.


I think a 757 type plane was used to attack the Pentagon, the risk would be too great not to use a plane. Someone could have easily snapped a picture or leaked a video and eyewitnesses saw a commercial plane for most part.

Was it Flight 77 or a another 757 plane that crashed at the Pentagon?

For me this as Saudi led operation with CIA co-operation. So i bet money on it, Hani Hanjour was not a terrible pilot. Ted olson is also a big problem, no way can we verify he's story right now. I would not be surprised if the guy was lying, he could be a psychopath of all we know?
edit on 25-7-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join