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.

 

A Question For Believers of the 757 Pentagon Conspiracy

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Why are so many people hung up on engines or engine parts being found or not found at the Pentagon.

How many engines or engine parts were found at the World Trade Center, other than the one that landed a few blocks away relatively intact?

Why isn't everyone saying: only one engine was found at the WTC crash site, so it must have been only one plane with one engine that struck the building?

Yes, I know, both planes were captured on film striking the WTC towers. My point is that if the engines can be destroyed at the WTC then why not at the Pentagon?

And why do so many people keep pointing out that there was some hole that was "only" 15 feet wide. How wide do you think a 757 body is? It is 12'4". (Source: www.boeing.com...). Yes, I know, what about the wings? The body has a structural steel reinforced frame; the wings do not.




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by eagle eye
i dont have much opinion on 9/11 but all i can say is

1. Since when boeing doing stealth for 757 model, as we all know it was one of the 1st case a boeing dissapeared on Radar, FAA and Army said.

Since the time the FAA nor the NORAD have a massive primary radar coverage of the whole mainland of the USA. In areas without primary radar coverage (ie active radar) all informations are provided just by the aircraft's transpoder. Turn it off and guess what... The a/c disappears from the screen.



2 then why make a 280 degree turn to hit the only reinforce side of the pentagon. Most pilot know that at the speed he was going it would have been extremly difficult to do for a Boeing 757.

Nobody except CTers claimed it would be difficult. Crew of control tower from Ronald Reagan Intl. just thought it is unusual and unsafe. You know, it really wasn't the kind of maneuver 757 usually performs.
As to the wall tht was hit, there are more options as to why, but bear in mind that it was the only side where there weren't large structures in front of it and hitting something in a flat trajectory is easier than hitting it in a dive unless you are a diving specialist with a plane specifically designed for diving.



3 teh hole. Why we never see the hole before they decide to collapse the wall ( i know theres some footage of it but never from the mainstream media) a 16 feet hole for a boeing 757.. ok!?

You'd rather tell YOU never see the hole before collapse. Actually a shame as the pics are on the net on many places.
To help you, try this:
www.sweb.cz...



4 Video footages have been censored. Why removing a frame at the 1st place!?

Which frame?



5 Stories of the past showing how drastic american millitary complex can be to generate a few $$.

So for example when the Germans gassed a few million people in the past am I to believe they're still doing it?



6 we cannot say when (time) exactly the boeing struck into the pentagon.
[edit on 21-7-2006 by eagle eye]
Based on one office clock that could've been off the time?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Sorry but your just puting more juice into what i said. You not debunking anything i've said earlier in fact most of the stuff you wrote is quite irrelevent. When did i spoke about ww2, the missing frame comes frome the 1st photos to came off then after they released the 2 frame per sec video. How a pilot with difficulties flying a piper will drive a boieng like an ace fighter making such a critical turn and about your comment on the 280 degre turn it clearly shows how you need to do your homeworks on 9/11 facts.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Erm...Sorry... Irrelevant? When you state the fact that the 757 disappeared from the radars for some time, is it irrelevanto to state that it's the same that would happen in a given area to any other plane which would turn its transpoder off for the simple reason - there won't be a given coverage. No need for stealth Boeing or govt conspiracy.
As for the ww2, I can't seem where it appeared in my reply to your post, but while we are at it, I may use it now you brought it in

So pray tell me WHY on the earth did Maj. Lofton Henderson at Midway use the glide approach to his target, based on his knowledge of low skills of his green pilots, when according to you dive is much easier and they were moreover flying specialised divebombers? Why did he choose a tactics rather similar to the Pentagon attack, ie slower descent to target, when, as you say, dive is much easier for novice pilots?
I presume it was because skilled military flight instructor didn't have a clue about what is easier, no?
He should've asked you at first.
Another points - not Piper, Cessna, and (some) of the hijackers didn't have trouble with flying them - but with landing them, which is coincidentally the most important part of flight for flight instructors and nearly anyone - except, of course, suicide attacker.
Guess what, Kamikaze trainees also sucked at landings
And while we're at it, the same inexperienced trainees were instructed not to dive at the target, rather to come low and fast on a flat trajestory. Guess why? This way they had to care just for the direction, not for rate of climb, wind and other things that'd trouble them in a dive run.
Oh, and judging by the claims of professional pilots (both from English and Czech speaking sources) the turn performed by Flight 77 was not hard - just unsafe for jet liner with passangers on board. You think the hijackers cared too much whether some of the passangers may suffer an injury as a result of the maneuver?
Oh and pray SHOW me the frame you're speaking of, yes?Maybe you find it strange on the unmodified Pentagon footage there aren't the September 12 tags added by a CT site? Or what do you mean?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I wonder if they had boieng 757 at Midway. Seriously we are getting off topic.
Yes i'm asking about the sept12 photos, why they waited so long to release the judicial watch tape, wich was basicly from those sept 12 photos, btw i know 12 was a mistake. Why you believe the photos was unmodified?
The irrellevent part came from when you spoke about nazi german smoking ppl. and continue when you talk about Midway. You approach theory is rubbish cause it had the perfect timing coming inland but insted he did a 280 degree turn to hit the only reinforce wall, coincidence? i think not. i bet you have no idea of the fligth patern the "so called " boeing had when you derail the discusion on Midway.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by eagle eye
I wonder if they had boieng 757 at Midway.

Seems you have trouble finding the point. OK. So again, why did an experienced flight instructor order his green pilots in specialised dive bombers to attack not with dive run if this was, according to you, the easiest way? Contrary, 0911 hijackers didn't even have a specialised dive bomber at hand, so why wonder they've chosen to attack at low angle when even in specialised planes this attack was recommended for inexperienced crews?



Seriously we are getting off topic.

Nope, we are speaking of analogies. You know, comparing with RL situations involving some similarities, like unexperienced pilots etc.



Yes i'm asking about the sept12 photos, why they waited so long to release the judicial watch tape, wich was basicly from those sept 12 photos, btw i know 12 was a mistake. Why you believe the photos was unmodified?

Wel,, donno whether they were unmodified (my best guess is no) bu thte Sept 12 were definitely played with.



The irrellevent part came from when you spoke about nazi german smoking ppl.

Oh yes, my bad, it was just a reply "the US military done that in history so they are for sure ding that still". By the same logic...



and continue when you talk about Midway.

Nope, seems you've completely missed the point so just to be sure, for already third time - the Midway was a clear example how even if in a specialised divebomber, it was perceived better for inexperienced pilots to attack with a slow (compared to diving run) long descent to their target. I again ask you - you think you know better than knew Maj. Henderson (and Kamikaze instructors)? As you seem to insist that the dive run is the easiest way to hit target and they seem to think that it isn't the case. It is easy if you have tons of experience and luck and ideal conditions.



You approach theory is rubbish cause it had the perfect timing coming inland


What is perfect timing? Care to show some proof? pilots with both military and civillian flight experience dare to disagree with you, I really won't travel by air anymore as it seems every professional pilot is just an unskilled, uneducated loser who doesn't know how to fly, according to you.



but insted he did a 280 degree turn to hit the only reinforce wall, coincidence?


Maybe you've missed it, but for that flat approach, every other wall was screened by some buildings or other obstacles which would make such an attack rather hard if not impossible. So no, no coincidence, just the only option for that attack.



i think not. i bet you have no idea of the fligth patern the "so called " boeing had when you derail the discusion on Midway.


Rather seems you don't have an idea a) what analogy is, b) what is doable with the plane, c) what problems are posed by a diving run, especially for not-so-experienced pilot in a plane that is not made for performing dive runs.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
For what Howward?

You trying to say that is engine casing? Could be, but it's very hard to tell from that pic.
Could be anything really...

Sry nothing conclusive there...


So in that case claiming that it was a conspiracy just because specific airplane parts were not found is an empty argument.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join