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.

 

Ted Olsen and flight 77 the phone calls that never were.

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


I can see aluminum oxide, like the parts were old and corroded . I bet they were planted. Not even fire damaged.




posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: edaced4

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: neutronflux

Allow me to clarify. Please post photographic evidence of flight 77's crash. Plane parts, wreckage, etc.

And btw, this quote:


I have cited sources that there is no reason to believe there is any other related flight 77 video to release in other threads. Is that false.

The truth movement concern over the pentagon surveillance video is a distraction. 


Is completely void of sense in terms of investigation or research.


You are saying there are not photos of the wreckage on the internet? Photos submitted at the Moussaoui trial of the wreckage? No video and photos of bits of wreckage on the lawn? Do you research anything?


Here is a link to a video of a P-51 hitting a runway at high speed.




Reno Nevada P-51 plane crashes into crowd on camera

m.youtube.com...


Nothing recognizable as a P-51 without picking up the book size wreckage? Is that false?

How are the videos and the photos of flight 77 wreckage on the internet not constant with a high speed jet pushing through three rings of a large building? Not constant with a high speed crash where momentum carried the wreckage in to and through a building over 20 acres in size?


However what you just posted are not nearly consistent with the supposed crash at the pentagon...a P51 is not nearly as big as flight 77 (a 757)


Nice false argument. The argument is how the damage at the pentagon is inconstant with a high speed crash. But thanks for pointing out the P-51 was built for combat, while the 757 is commercial jet that crashed into a large stone building over 20 acres in size?


So YOUR argument is that the the damage at the pentagon is inconsistent with a high speed crash. That the "plane" that hit the pentagon wasn't doing upwards of 450-500mph...

show me the pics of the debris on the lawn...the luggage...the engines and tail piece...that according to your argument should still be visilble



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

You realize that aircraft suffer from corrosion, right? Both of the VIP aircraft we had at Hickam had to be retired because the corrosion was so bad. You can't get to it except on heavy checks when you gut the aircraft.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Question for the crowd....

Did any of the supposed conspirators overseas, like OBL or KSM, ever reference the Pentagon as a target? I'm wondering, because "OBL" talked about NYC, but not the DC incident iirc.
edit on 1-4-2018 by FlyingFox because: freedom



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: edaced4

What do you think happens to a jet that clips a concrete wall, goes through a brick wall, takes out concrete columns, damages other concrete columns, goes out a brick wall, slides through the open base of the second ring, and goes through the the brick wall of the third ring?

How is the damage at the pentagon not consistent with a high speed crash of a passenger jet into a 20 acre building?


edit on 1-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed and addec

edit on 1-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
An ICBM shot out of a submarine caused 9/11.

And I thought I've heard everything... 😂😂



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: neutronflux


I can see aluminum oxide, like the parts were old and corroded . I bet they were planted. Not even fire damaged.


So I guess a bomb or missile did not detonate? No fire damage?

You know conspiracists claim no damage to the pentagon ground floor? How would a detonation not pit and crater the floor?

You do know water was used to fight a fire that release chemicals? Why wouldn’t the aluminum be oxidized?

As far as wreckage with no fire damage? What ring of the pentagon were they in. A good portion of the fuselage is forward of the wing fuel tanks. Why would wreckage that ended up in the third ring have extensive fire damage?



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Thiers still some paint on the parts showing no sign of fire damage.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Not all of the wreckage was in a fire. There are pieces that were going to be thrown clear and only pass through the fireball, or even not go into it at all. That means no fire damage.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Again, the jet was hitting antennas, trees, light poles, clippings concrete walls, clippings construction trailers, before impact. The large portion of the fuselage that traveled in front of the fuel tanks. Very conceivable the fuselage pressurized upon impact, and a pressure wave blow out some of the back of the fuselage. It is obvious that parts of the tail did not pass in to the pentagon, so must of shot off in some direction.
edit on 1-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 1-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: neutronflux


Thiers still some paint on the parts showing no sign of fire damage.


No you explain how a missile detonated, and caused wreckage to travel in only one direction. You explain how a missile didn’t blow out windows, or blow the roof off. I seen the truth movement make claims the concrete of the first floor was undamaged. You explain how a missile didn’t pit or crater the floor. How does a missile detonate, and make a small hole in the third ring, with deposited wreckage. How did the DNA and remains of the passengers and crew end up at the pentagon? What made all the contact damage on the path to the pentagon?



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed




Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?

Considering that most of the plane was inside the pentagon . . . .


And yet when I ask for proof of that, nobody seems to be able to produce it.


What a false and biased argument.

The truth movement has out context arguments, or right out lies concerning the damage at the pentagon.

How does flying close to the lawn equal damage to the lawn? When the momentum of the jet and its fuel with going 500 mph into the pentagon.


The short answer: It's physically impossible for a 757 to fly at 500 mph at that altitude. At least not without the wings breaking off and landing on the lawn you saw in the picture.


The first reason is 757’s cannot fly 480 knots at ground level.  Its way beyond their design capabilities.  The lower  the altitude the thicker the air becomes, and the greater that resistance (drag).  Pilots have to adjust their speed according to their altitude.  At 40,000 feet 480 knots is possible because the air is so much thinner.  But at ground level there is a huge difference.






 The maximum a 757 can fly at ground level is 360 knots.  If a 757 exceeds 360 knots the wings experience too much G-force and they bend until they dislodge.   It also causes the plane to become uncontrollable as the wings bend and flutter and the flaps stop functioning.


Here's Boeing's speed/altitude chart for their commercial 757's:


The above spec reflects a failure at 350 knots below 25,000 feet.  The Pentagon plane was flying 480 knots at 20 feet!


The next reason it is aerodynamically impossible for this to be flight 77 is ground force.  
A 757 with its 124 feet wingspan cannot fly level 20 feet above the ground at 480 knots.  The air infront of and under the wings is compressed creating an air flow field against the ground - a force of compressed air causing powerful updrafts.  Air is compressed against the ground and pushes up causing additional lift.  These forces would cause the plane to be lifting up as it reacts to the ground force.  It would either force the plane into the ground or lift it upwards.   Level flight would be impossible at this speed with that wing span.  Every half second the pilot would need to perfectly adjust the wing pitch to remain level.  The lowest a 757 can travel at 480 knots is 60 feet without experiencing ground forces.  

911infoblog.quora.com...
But of course, a pilot who could barely fly a single engine Cessna would be able to pull that off right?



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

That has been debunked over and over. Even so, the momentum would carry the jet into the pentagon. You think the jet would just dropped stright to the ground? Why?


Can you cite from the manufacturer at what speed the wings would fall off?

Is it true the safety limits set are to ensure the fuselage will meet its promised service life of ten, twenty, thirty years? So, the speed restrictions are set very conservatively low.


So, flight 77 was under enough stain it would never be allowed to fly again if it hadn’t crashed?

Or the fuselage was stating to crack when it crashed into the pentagon facade?

But what can you cite from the manufacturer that it would immediately break apart after the nose was pointed at the pentagon, and the throttles worked to full open in a constant descent to the pentagon.

Again, only a conspiracist would argue flight 77 could not crash into the pentagon during its descent because the jet would crash during the descent.

Again, how would flight 77 loose all forward momentum, fall straight to the ground with a complete loss of moving forward. Even if the wings broke off, the wings and fuselage would still have 500 mph of forward momentum.

Flight 77 couldn’t fly that fast, so it crashed in to the pentagon...... are you happy?

edit on 1-4-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

It's not that simple. A 757 can't accelerate to that speed at low level using just the thrust from its engines. Flight 77 didn't. They performed a descending spiral that accelerated them to that speed. And no, the wings wouldn't have fallen off just because they exceeded that speed.

EgyptAir 990 performed two dives, and pulled out of both, before breaking up. At one point it was near mach one, and didn't break apart immediately.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
The short answer: It's physically impossible for a 757 to fly at 500 mph at that altitude. At least not without the wings breaking off and landing on the lawn you saw in the picture.




the graphs you provided are for normal operating conditions, to protect the aircrafts structural integrity for its intended service life.

it doesnt necessarily mean that if you exceed the boundaries by 1 knot the wings must disintegrate.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I find it odd and ironic that you don’t cite the actual damage to the building to build a logical argument the only possible cause of damage to the pentagon was a missile.

I guess the missile narrative doesn’t explain the entrance hole. How windows were still intact on the facade above the impact. The way the columns were destroyed or damage. Like a jet flying into them. How the wreckage was wrapped around the columns? Why the roof of the pentagon was not blown off, or the floor cratered. The small hole in the C ring. If it was a missile or bomb detonation, how there was no interior of the pentagon on the lawn. How items in the construction yard at the foot of the pentagon has trailers pushed towards the pentagon, not away from the pentagon?



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Again, only a conspiracist would argue flight 77 could not crash into the pentagon during its descent because the jet would crash during the descent.

Again, how would flight 77 loose all forward momentum, fall straight to the ground with a complete loss of moving forward. Even if the wings broke off, the wings and fuselage would still have 500 mph of forward momentum.

Flight 77 couldn’t fly that fast, so it crashed in to the pentagon...... are you happy?


You see Neutron, this is exemplary of why I avoid discussions with you. In every thread you participate in, you twist someone's words to fit your liking. And perhaps worse, you constantly label anyone who disagrees with the government's official story as a "truther" and falsely lump them into one group with the same ideas. Enough already. It's immature and ignorant.

I don't believe many things that some truth movements like AE911truth profess. I think for myself, I research, and I go with what resonates with me.

As for putting words in my mouth, I never suggested the plane would lose all forward momentum and fall straight to the ground with a complete loss of moving forward. And what? Park itself on the Pentagon lawn?

At that speed and altitude, as Boeing's chart shows, there would be structural failure. How that would manifest exactly is anyone's guess, but it would likely involve much more debris on the lawn if not a large trail of dirt leading up to the Pentagon from the fuselage skidding on it. Clipping light poles as you suggest would also effect the already weakened wings of the 757. And if they had managed to stay intact, the odds of them staying as level as the OS suggests is impossible. Add in the fact that the supposed pilot of this plane had never been in the cockpit of any commercial airliner and what do you have?

A tale.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
The short answer: It's physically impossible for a 757 to fly at 500 mph at that altitude. At least not without the wings breaking off and landing on the lawn you saw in the picture.




the graphs you provided are for normal operating conditions, to protect the aircrafts structural integrity for its intended service life.

it doesnt necessarily mean that if you exceed the boundaries by 1 knot the wings must disintegrate.


Yes but the speed wasn't merely 1 knot above the boundary. It was 130 above. And at an altitude nearly 25,000 feet lower.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The problem is that there's a lot of leeway in that graph before damage starts. It's not a case of Vmo being 350 knots, and at 351 the damage starts. You could exceed Vmo for several minutes and not see damage to the aircraft, if you slowed back down.

There is no absolute definitive line that you can't cross in terms of aircraft speed. There have been many cases of aircraft exceeding their limits and suffering no damage in doing so.



posted on Apr, 1 2018 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

And that still doesn't mean the aircraft would fall apart. It probably suffered some damage, but that doesn't mean it would have suffered catastrophic damage in that short of a time.

If you look at the flight test program, IF Vne is defined, to be certified the aircraft must be flown, safely, 10% faster than the defined Vne speed. In the case of the 757 Vmo is the speed that you can safely fly the aircraft, not necessarily the speed it will suffer damage.
edit on 4/1/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join