It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
From this angle, it looks less like an engine. Look at the way it's twisted and deformed, like it's just a thin piece of metal that was damaged.
Originally posted by Long Lance
Originally posted by Howiethejew
It is quite obvious from the penetration of 3 rings that a missile of some sort was used (as seen in the released 5 frames) ...
Don't assume too much, you don't know wether the alledged 'exit hole' was caused by projectile OR by mop-up team AFTER the attack, do you?
The official version is complex and contradicts itself, so read on carefully.
To justify the absence of Boeing debris, the authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted with such a highly reinforced building as the Pentagon.
To explain the disappearance of the aircraft's more resistant components, like the engines or brakes, we were told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light and its black boxes).
To justify the absence of 100 tons of melted metal, experts attempted to show that the fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the evaporation of parts of the aircraft (but not of the building itself or, clearly, of the landing light or black boxes).
To justify the presence of the hole, officials now state that it was caused by the nose of the aircraft, which, despite the rigors of the crash, continued careering through the three buildings.
The aircraft thus disintegrated on contact with the Pentagon, melted inside the building, evaporated at 2500° C and still penetrated two other buildings via a hole 2 ½ yards in diameter. Questions need to be asked of Pentagon experts here. The official version has its own holes that need filling.
Originally posted by count zero
This thread is a red herring and a waste of mental energy.
Why else would the Pentagon release doctored photos
of the strike. DIVERSION!
Concentrate on real evidence.
Originally posted by Howiethejew
It is quite obvious from the penetration of 3 rings that a missile of some sort was used (as seen in the released 5 frames) ... whether it was in conjunction with a 757 or A3 or Globalhawk is irrelevant since it is quite sane to say a 757 didn't penetrate 3 rings and surely a human pilot didn't manouever a 757 in a descending 360 degree dive at over 400 mph and hit the Pentagon at less than 20 feet above ground.
**NEW** 11 X 17" - B757-200 Cockpit Layout STUDY Panels - Full color, high resolution cockpit panels. Include Overhead, Forward, and Pedestal. Big enough for easy viewing, small enough to travel. Uses identical graphics as in the Professional Pilot's Systems Guide for easy cross reference.
I loved the internet guy's argument, Nila I think. He's an expert, as an "aerospace engineer and a qualified pilot." I've met a few of these guys in my time and they haven't been experts.
A lot of dudes got wrapped up in landing the airliner. That's a different story than pointing an airliner towards a target and flying into it. TEAC needs to rephrase the original question. Do you believe a guy with a few hours of experience can take over an airliner with box cutters and navigate himself to DC and hit the side of the Pentagon? Most of us would answer in the affirmative. Heck, that little kid stole a plane and did it in Florida. Why is it so difficult to believe? If you don't believe it happened, what do you believe? Please tell.
By the way, you won't convince me since my uncle is a VA State Trooper. He spoke with the trooper that was filling his car up with gas next to the Pentagon. There is no doubt in his mind that he saw an airliner hit it. But I bet you'll say he was coerced into making up that story, right?
Zero. you may be able to turn it but you would die trying to land. Sorry. Go to pilot training.
If both pilots are dead, all communication is lost and you're the most experienced on the aircraft (w/ only some light a/c and flight sims), then that's probably a sign that no one on that plane is meant to live much longer.
Unfortunately, I would rate your chances as "slim". If you had 1,000 hours in GA aircraft and were a ramp rat for years, I would upgrade that to "maybe" due to better avioncs/cockpit familiarization, but as a 69 hour GA pilot in -152s...slim.
Slim and None.
Slim just left.
None since you said you'd bank sharply at the last second. You'd be better to do a go around and try again. You'd bank sharply, hit a wing tip, and be dead.
I say no chance. MAYBE with the radios working (if you could figure them out), you'd get some good assistance from the ground. That would help you do the only things that would save your ass...
Snowballs chance in Hell.
I would say that without radio help you wouldn't even find the city you wanted to land at let alone the airport.
Well, how can I put this....let's just say you would have a better chance at enforcing sobriety in Russia or restoring virginity in Amsterdam's Red Light District.
You see it was a virtual "landing" into the pentagon since we know the craft would had to have been about an inch off the ground to coincide with the damage. (and the tail still doesn't fit!)
To assume that a high speed "landing" would be any easier is naive at best.
Thank you so much for that thread smitty!
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference baby!
Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”
Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.
“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.