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.

 

Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 20
1
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Okay, this is my first post ever here at this site.

Now, I've read most of these post on this thread but skipped the last few pages but I get want to get my 2 cents in.

First off, it's dam near impossible for that thing in that video being a 757. Do any of you conspiracy debunkers believe that anyone can a fly commercial jet going 500 mph or even 400mph, a few feet parrellel from the ground(with landing gear up I must add)? Do you not realize that there is something called approach speed, and landing speed? Do you realize this is needed to properly gauge your target and to have a successful landing? Planes dramatically slow down for this purpose. Do you actually think that this amateur pilot could pull off a manuver like this when most likely no top pilots can? If anything, the plane should be coming down at an angle if I were to consider the "official version".

Second, look at the video again. I think some of you guys are confusing that stuff that's in the far background. It adds to the image which makes the 'thing' look bigger or even resemble a plane of sorts.



[edit on 17-5-2006 by commonsense4u]




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
You know what, that object does not look like a 757 to me, nor a cruise missile.

If it were a cruise missile or even a 757 it would be pointed parallel to the ground. In fact, it looks like the nose of a fighter jet.

Check a fighter jet in level flight or even parked... Its nose is cone shaped pointing downward at a slight angle, just like the object in that picture so heavily debated.

So much for the cruise missle theory... How annoying...



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I'm guessing its a bit easier to aim/fly a plane going very fast then very slow at low altitude when you have no desire to land.
Landing and approach were not on thier minds.

I think it's a plane.
I will continue to think that until I SEE a video clear enough to make me change my mind.


Originally posted by commonsense4u

First off, it's dam near impossible for that thing in that video being a 757. Do any of you conspiracy debunkers believe that anyone can a fly commercial jet going 500 mph or even 400mph, a few feet parrellel from the ground(with landing gear up I must add)? Do you not realize that there is something called approach speed, and landing speed? Do you realize this is needed to properly gauge your target and to have a successful landing? Second, look at the video again. I think some of you guys are confusing that stuff that's in the far background. It adds to the image which makes the 'thing' look bigger or even resemble a plane of sorts.



[edit on 17-5-2006 by commonsense4u]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sandman658
I think it's a plane.
I will continue to think that until I SEE a video clear enough to make me change my mind.


Am I the only one who thinks of this as an ass-backwards way to look at life?

I believe Santa gives children presents. I'll continue to believe it until I see that it's really my parents.

I believe that a monkey riding a unicycle rode into Ford's Theater and shot Lincoln. I will continue to believe it until I see video that it wasn't.

I believe... well you get the idea.
Did you ever see video proving it was a plane?


[edit on 17-5-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sandman658
I'm guessing its a bit easier to aim/fly a plane going very fast then very slow at low altitude when you have no desire to land.
Landing and approach were not on thier minds.

I think it's a plane.
I will continue to think that until I SEE a video clear enough to make me change my mind.


Originally posted by commonsense4u

First off, it's dam near impossible for that thing in that video being a 757. Do any of you conspiracy debunkers believe that anyone can a fly commercial jet going 500 mph or even 400mph, a few feet parrellel from the ground(with landing gear up I must add)? Do you not realize that there is something called approach speed, and landing speed? Do you realize this is needed to properly gauge your target and to have a successful landing? Second, look at the video again. I think some of you guys are confusing that stuff that's in the far background. It adds to the image which makes the 'thing' look bigger or even resemble a plane of sorts.



[edit on 17-5-2006 by commonsense4u]




My point is, if you are going to come in parrellel a few feet to the ground, you are in a approach and land mentallity because there is no way else you explain that path they took to ram into the pentagon. Now I know they would have had no intention of landing the plane but that's not the point. It would of made more sense to me if they came down at an angle with the nose pointing right at the building. It would of made more sense if the top of the Pentagon was hit, wouldn't it?


SMR

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sandman658
I think it's a plane.
I will continue to think that until I SEE a video clear enough to make me change my mind.

As we believe it is NOT a plane ( Boeing 757 ) and will continue to think that until we SEE a video clear enough to make us change our mind.


You know what else I thought about.I cant find the image, maybe I can get some help here.There is an image I remember that showed us the layout of the 'plane' path as well as the camera position.
What I seem to remember, the 'plane' was coming TOWARDS the camera at an agle, yet this video we get shows something going parallel to the camera.If it came in towards at an angle, there would then be more time to capture what ever it is.Rather than having minimal time because it comes in from the side at almost parallel to the camera.Also, if it was coming towrds the camera, the object would be getting bigger due to perspective.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by SMR]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Last one.

If you look at the video in mediaplayer, freeze it the moment the object enters.

Set size to 200%, and look at the object. Do not enhance or enlarge. It looks like a cone, slightly pointed downwards.

Furthermore, the cone is divided in three sections by thin black lines, where the black color is darker at the division of each section at the bottom, hinting more defined paint at the bottom.

Assuming this is a fighter jet, which type or model would match a thin nose like that in that angle? I submit to you this is the nose of a SU-27 Flanker, and that its nose is painted in camouflage striping which divides the nose in three sections.

Heck, even the double tail when looked at from the side is an almost perfect match to the upright fin in the other video. The tail of a 757 is almost a parralelogram, the tail of a SU-27 is nearly 90º straight up at the rear. USAF loves to use SU-27 drones for target practice right? Anyone of those missing?



There may be other jets matching this nose and fin, but this is the best one I could up until now. Denied, thanks for insisting.

Am I nuts? Ok next question, comments?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet
Ok next question, comments?

Yeah, does the Su-27 drone have the same engines of a 757, which were found, documented, and photographed at the Pentagon crash site?
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation






seekerof



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
No, most likely not. But you fail to mention that the complete engines of the 757 were never found. Also I might add it would be very easy to plant parts, even the bigger ones in the E- and D-section just prior to the attacks as this wing was closed for renovation. After the crash you ship out the identifiable parts of the drone in a box, maybe with a blue tarp over it, and that´s it.

Just look at these two frames, not a 757, impossible. Tail, nose, cone, downward angle.

If that were the nose of a 757 it would have landed 50 yards short and created a crater in which you could have hidden a battalion of Sherman tanks.

If that were the tail of a 757 its nose would be seen on the other side of the post.

I´m truly sorry, I know you want to have faith in the official story, but it just does not add up.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by HardToGet]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper





Jack
This is the pic from the Cam closest to the plane. For some reason I believe this image is compressed or corrupted. If you look at the 2nd video through VLC player and you pause it, a much larger image comes into the screen. It does have a larger body like an airliner. That one frame with whatever it is poking out is not enough. Look at the second video. Thats only the front cam. The Second video has the cam further away.


Pie



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet
No, most likely not. But you fail to mention that the complete engines of the 757 were never found.

Excuse me?
Enough was found for them to be identified as engines coming from a 757, not your hypothetical Su-27 drone.






Also I might add it would be very easy to plant parts, even the bigger ones in the E- and D-section just prior to the attacks as this wing was closed for renovation. After the crash you ship out the identifiable parts of the drone in a box, maybe with a blue tarp over it, and that´s it.

Yeah, that is the 'a' typical excuse for many amatuer conspiracy theorists when they cannot find a way around refuting documented and photographed fact. Your simply following that dictum.




Just look at these two frames, not a 757, impossible. Tail, nose, cone, downward angle.

Excuse me x 2?
As I have explained, as has been cited by many media outlets: the frame rate of the Pentagon security cameras only caught the nose of the aircraft, the white blur, and explosion. With such a slow frame rate any attempt to snap shots of an object traveling at 500+ mph are not going to happen. Again, you, as with others, continue to hinge your bets on a whitish blur within a very slow frame rated security camera....ironic, huh, definately something that real conspiracy theorists would know or acknowledge?





If that were the nose of a 757 it would have landed 50 yards short and created a crater in which you could have hidden a battalion of Sherman tanks.

Based on what empirical or conclusive evidence?





If that were the tail of a 757 its nose would be seen on the other side of the post.

And your remotely 100% sure of that? Again, based upon what empirical or conclusive evidence?





I´m truly sorry, I know you want to have faith in the official story, but it just does not add up.

How quaint.







seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Seekerof]


SMR

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Problem is......

Based on the above analysis, the closest match to the debris at the Pentagon appears to be a rotor disk from a Rolls-Royce RB211-535.

If you read, the RB211-535 was only used on the Boeing 747 and 767
We are told the 'plane' at the Pentagon was a 757



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
No, sorry even with VLC it clearly shows a thinnish cone, divided into three sections by two black lines, and pointed at a downward angle. No airliner, where the nose is much, much thicker.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Problem is......

Based on the above analysis, the closest match to the debris at the Pentagon appears to be a rotor disk from a Rolls-Royce RB211-535.

If you read, the RB211-535 was only used on the Boeing 747 and 767
We are told the 'plane' at the Pentagon was a 757

What? Are we mind readers here?
How about link that EXTERNAL SOURCE, you think?





seekerof



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Another thing that bothers me about this pentagon hit is this:

Here were i live (mexico, Monterrey) i live were comercial airplanes passes so they go to the airpot, and most of the times you can hear the engies real loud but still the planes are way above high, now on that day at the pentagon i am kind of wondering about what people saw and hear. I have been close to the pentagon and it's sorrounded by freeways, so many people were passing that day...surely a lof of people would have hear the engines roaring way to close and very loud so say and saw actually the plane but still there are very few actual witness and their recounts are really disturbing because non look very real, they all said saw something hear something but like in a distance... still if you can hear the engines way above in the sky and distingues the airplane too way above...how te hell that very few people actually hear that and saw that if it's sorround by freeways??....

Many questions



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Problem is......

Based on the above analysis, the closest match to the debris at the Pentagon appears to be a rotor disk from a Rolls-Royce RB211-535.

If you read, the RB211-535 was only used on the Boeing 747 and 767
We are told the 'plane' at the Pentagon was a 757


Of interest to you, SMR:


Boeing offered two different engine options to customers of the 757-200. Airlines could choose between the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 family or the Rolls-Royce RB211 series. The particular engine model chosen by American Airlines for its 757 fleet was the RB211-535E4B triple-shaft turbofan manufactured in the United Kingdom. A drawing illustrating the overall size of this engine is pictured below.

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation


:shk:





seekerof


SMR

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
WHAT!?
I posted text from the source you gave man.So now you wont believe your own source?

[edit on 17-5-2006 by SMR]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
WHAT!?
I posted text from the source you gave man.So now you wont believe your own source?

[edit on 17-5-2006 by SMR]

You know, for someone who has been here as long as you have, you know that anytime you cite or quote from ANY external source, you MUST provide a link or properely cite/reference that source?!

Hence, me asking are "we" mind readers here? :shk:




seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Seekerof]


SMR

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Um......you gave a link to look at.I read it.I posted text from it.
I always post a link if it is different.But in this case, it came from something you told us to have a look at.So I did and posted info from it.

So now that we have THAT out of the way.How do we explain that bit of information?

P.S. Here's your LINK



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
I always post a link if it is different.But in this case, it came from something you told us to have a look at.So I did and posted info from it.

Apparently, you assumed that we were mind readers then, cause you did not say where you got the quote from, huh?




How do we explain that bit of information?

Already did. The Rolls-Royce engine type was on the 757.


Boeing offered two different engine options to customers of the 757-200. Airlines could choose between the Pratt & Whitney PW2000 family or the Rolls-Royce RB211 series. The particular engine model chosen by American Airlines for its 757 fleet was the RB211-535E4B triple-shaft turbofan manufactured in the United Kingdom. A drawing illustrating the overall size of this engine is pictured below.

Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation








seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join