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.

 

Pentagon Plane for Creative minds

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Draw me up some conclusions here.

Ok, the second photo in this video is a better blur than the one from the first.

Pentagon Plane

Now this is not a thread to fuss and complain who is right and who is wrong.

This is how I see it at first:

Think of it coming in slant (Hence the smoke?)

Think of that cylinder hitting the ground (Fuselage? Wing? Both?)

Think of the body and tail of the plane just behind the cylinder from above

I'm starting to see a plane, but its hard to put it in perspective the exact direction its facing. Cuz I only see half of one in that picture.

Anyways, any constructive thoughts on what YOU see?

*Note* This thread is only for constructive thoughts about people's view on what they see compared to a clear picture of another plane.




posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

This might help you visualise it in your head.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
Draw me up some conclusions here.

Ok, the second photo in this video is a better blur than the one from the first.

Pentagon Plane

Now this is not a thread to fuss and complain who is right and who is wrong.

This is how I see it at first:

Think of it coming in slant (Hence the smoke?)

Think of that cylinder hitting the ground (Fuselage? Wing? Both?)

Think of the body and tail of the plane just behind the cylinder from above

I'm starting to see a plane, but its hard to put it in perspective the exact direction its facing. Cuz I only see half of one in that picture.

Anyways, any constructive thoughts on what YOU see?

*Note* This thread is only for constructive thoughts about people's view on what they see compared to a clear picture of another plane.


It is not a plane, they digitally added it in to make it look like a plane. I downloaded a video via torrent site and the video was a documentry saying "there was an angle where one of the security cameras captured everything, but the secret service told them to be quiet and where not allowed to release the other videos that captured the pentagon attack" they have something to hide, its not a plane.

It was not a plane, it was a missle and i will always think it was a missile. The documentry aso showed us that a few eye witness kept telling us different stories on what hit the pentagon, and people who where in the cars near the pentagon and as the plane went over them the documentry said "this is what would of happened if a plane would of got to close to the cars" the cars would of got blown of the highway, the documentry showed an example of a car getting to close to a plane and then it went of the cliff.

Did anyone else see this video i am talking about?, if not you got to search on a torrent site.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
There is no way a newly trained not even a proffesional pilot could perofrm that sort of angle of attack coming in so close to the ground like that.

I have flown light aircraft for a few years and trust me your never smooth and narrow when coming in so low. I cant believe we are expected to believe someone pulled of that kind of manouvre its madness



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
There is no way a newly trained not even a proffesional pilot could perofrm that sort of angle of attack coming in so close to the ground like that.


I agree, that kind of maneuvering looks extremely difficult. The best pilots in the world can fly in formations with fighter jets at only a few feet apart. This 757 would have been inches off of the ground.

But that video does show, imo, that a 757 could have created the scene at the Pentagon, given remote control technology, such as what NASA tested on Boeings in the 1980's. No need for missiles, smaller jets, etc. The materials are completely destroyed upon high-speed impacts.

Video of (remotely) controlled Boeing crash by NASA

High-speed jet impact into a concrete wall

[edit on 18-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
A remote controled plane would have the same difficulty as a piloted plane flying that low.

Could it have been a hologram cloaking a misile?....Check this site out.

www.gallerize.com...

I can't find it now but there is a thread about USAF hologram tech on ATS.
Aparently they can now project holograms in the air without a surface to project the image on. You know how the military loves to test technology in real world situations



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
That video is amazing. Amazing how all those pieces fit together.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Why is it so amazing that they came in like that?

Isn't that what pilots do when they land, only faster and slightly banked?



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Isn't that what pilots do when they land, only faster and slightly banked?


No, not that close. Landing gear is usually out when planes land, which prevent them from getting that close to the ground. The runways are also long enough to avoid problems with pilot precision.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
So, could those holographs have kept the lawn in such a good shape, long enough for the lawn people to put some dirt/soil over it?



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigMoser
So, could those holographs have kept the lawn in such a good shape, long enough for the lawn people to put some dirt/soil over it?


Theoretically, it could be very much possable. Just consider the fact that what the general populace knows, is what they are allowed or wanted to know. Some exclusive cases are obvious leaks and all, but over all.

Publication restrictions to trade restrictions and technology lists are highly sought after bits of information.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why is it so amazing that they came in like that?
Isn't that what pilots do when they land, only faster and slightly banked?


Faster? No, not sure the exact landing speed of a 757 but I'm sure it's no faster than 200 mph. aproach, and prob around 120 when it touches down with full flaps.

The way a plane lands is it stalls out (no longer creates lift), it isn't flown into the ground at high speed.

If a plane put it's landing gear down at 500 mph they would probably be damaged, if not ripped off.

And why would it be slightly banked?



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   


And why would it be slightly banked?


It was in a turn or perhaps making a corrective maneuver.
Why else would an aircraft bank?



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
It was in a turn or perhaps making a corrective maneuver.
Why else would an aircraft bank?


What? I thought he was talking about planes landing?

He said the plane at the pentagon was doing the same thing a plane would on landing, 'only faster and at a slight bank', right? Or did I misunderstand the post?

Why would he assume the plane would slightly bank on landing? It should be straight and level.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Those are what banking would possably mean, if it was banked it was for a reason. What that could be I have no clue. Landing as it may be would not be the issue, just a descriptive usage for what was seen. Obviously the plane was not going to land, in or on the building. Kamikaze yes, but no landing was intended, so I don't see what the issue on that is.


It was banked or it wasn't, makes no difference to me. Both remote piloted or man operated corrections or turns will cause a bank. That is all I was adding.

Personally, I want to see the tapes the government "aquired" via national security force.
Or even any of the sat records that had a visual, over the horizon or direct, I know one of the hundreds had to have had an eye or so.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Advisor I think you or I are confused. You're talking about the pentagon plane banking, I'm talking about just a plane landing in general.

That was what I thought LeftBehind was talking about, a regular plane landing. LB said it would be faster than the pentagoon plane and banking on landing.

What I was questioning is why he said a plane 'landing' would be banking, not the pentagoon plane....

It's not really that important, I was just curious what LB was thinking....



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
I'm absolutely confused, and so will leave it at that.

I've been up 30 + hours again, so lets add sleep deprived to my current condition, aw well at least I have ATS.


As for banking, planes and this thread the topic is ."Pentagon Plane" for Creative minds

Naturally, I am going to discuss the plane.
To address your question more directly, I have no clue as to what planes landing would being doing in a "bank", um... chooseing a certain location in particular maybe?

Ok, I'm going to figure out what we are talking about. When I get back, let me know what that is.



WAIT!
I figured it out, see the name "LeftBehind" explains it all, they are the ones confused. Just reread their quotes. The wording is enough.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
www.youtube.com...

This might help you visualise it in your head.


So why didnt the plane that hit the pentagon cause damage to the ground?, here is some photos after the plane crashed into the pentagon.

911research.wtc7.net...

If you scroll down to photo number 3 where the man in the grey suit is standing look at the ground and how clean it is, and the thing in front of him the grey pole stand things is in still in the ground, it should be wrenched out from the plane. Its a load of bollocks no plane hit the pentagon stop getting brainwashed.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join