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.

 

hey , aircraft the size of a boing 757 CAN fly NOE :P

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
vid clip

a french KC-135 preforming a pretty reckless low pas


so i guess the boeing flying into the pentagon was possible




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Oh hell yeah it was possible, as you can see from the clip....

Its just who was at the controls that bothers me, and what aircraft it was ..

I know we may not agree on alot of things, but saying a large aircraft cannot fly low enough to hit the Pentagon is silly - very silly.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
vid clip

a french KC-135 preforming a pretty reckless low pas


so i guess the boeing flying into the pentagon was possible


Well it is possible for a 757 to fly into the Pentagon. Problem is that a KC-135 is not a 757, also it is not flying at 500mph and hitting light poles and a generator, so its kind of hard to compare the 2.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
The problem is the pilot that supposedly flew the plane into the pentagon couldn't even get a cessna off the ground in flight school in florida.

Did you people see the video which was released based on the planes movements? It goes through step by step the 270 degree manauver and the records show that the plane wasn't quite low enough to actually knock over the light poles.

And the manueaver wasn't even necessary. They had the pentagon straight on before the big loop and quite possibly could have taken out Rumsfeld.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jinsanity
And the manueaver wasn't even necessary. They had the pentagon straight on before the big loop and quite possibly could have taken out Rumsfeld.


Yes it seems almost like they were specifically trying for the area that had been rebult.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
8,000 feet before the turn, after the turn, its 2,000 feet before the hit. Even I want to make sure I can hit the Pentagon instead of trying to dive bomb-style kamikaze.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I think that the plane never hit the light poles, but the wake turbulence of the aircraft brought them down. after all, we're talking about a plane going really fast, that's a huge amount of turbulance.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
I think that the plane never hit the light poles, but the wake turbulence of the aircraft brought them down. after all, we're talking about a plane going really fast, that's a huge amount of turbulance.


I have been trtying to work that out. Because of hitting the Pentaogn at ground level the plane would have had to strike the poles. But striking the poles would have damaged the aircraft, thier is a report of an aircraft hitting a pole on take off and shearing off a large peice of the wing and caused it to crash.

Yes turbulence or jet blast could have knocked over a few also.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
This has already been said before but I thought I'd voice my support anyway. It's not impossible to fly a 747 a few feet above the ground, it's just very very dangerous and difficult! You'd think it would be a lot easier to hit the pentagon from above?

And although that plane in the video flew VERY low it's filmed from a distance and looks to me like it's atleast five meters above the ground. Any opinions on this? I'm at work so I don't have the tools to analyse the video.

Take a look at this illustration:



One engine is touching the ground! Flying 1.5m above the ground is what I would consider to be impossible...



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Surley thats a model? there is barely any sound and from the shadow it looks really close to the people?

i would say big model which would explain it really!

Daz Out.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
And let's completely forget that we can nose the plane down in the last 100 feet, bringing the nose (and rest of the plane) closer to the ground, and potentially fligh high enough off the ground when we're a mile or so out.

As for the light poles - turbulance, or the plane, itself, could have done it. Planes have survived worse damage. And our plane did reportedly skidd on the ground for a little bit - so we can assume that, yes, the engine touched the ground, then lifted off the ground, and the plane banked after the skidd.

Holy crap it makes sense!

I will never understand this paranoia. "It was our own government, not the terrorists!!!" Seriously - our government has a hell of a lot more important things to do than try and blow up our own country. The U.N. - I could beleive if you said that they coordinated with the terrorists to try and get the U.S. to further support a global government - I could at least say "yeah, maybe... I wouldn't put it past them" - but what people keep suggesting about 9/11 is ignorant and would involve thousands of people across several dozen agencies...... and that ain't going to stay quiet. You can't silence that many people with threat of lethal force - because they'll all band together.

If that were the case - then we'd see an organized attempt at proving 9/11 to be a U.S. borne conspiracy. All I see are a bunch of 12 year olds who are just learning the wonder of the internet and are unable to filter out the BS that corrosive individuals put out.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
And our plane did reportedly skidd on the ground for a little bit - so we can assume that, yes, the engine touched the ground, then lifted off the ground, and the plane banked after the skidd.


You better come up with a link to verify this before you use it to justify a belief and spread it around.

I think you'll find there is NO evidence of the plane hitting the ground.

Making assumptions can really mess up your view of world events...


lawn looks pretty good huh?


jra

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jinsanity
The problem is the pilot that supposedly flew the plane into the pentagon couldn't even get a cessna off the ground in flight school in florida.


I've heard that Hani Hanjour wasn't the best pilot, but you don't need to be to crash a plane. You definitely don't need to know how to take off or land that's for sure. Taking off and landing is the hard part. The flying itself isn't as hard.

I've never understood what's so hard to believe about a 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

EDIT: Thought i'd add a youtube link, because the one in the original post played like garbage for me.

KC 135 low pass
www.youtube.com...

I also noticed this clip of a 757 doing a low fly-by. Although it's not that low (probably because it's a commercial airline and they'd probably get fired if they flew too low)

www.youtube.com...

Another (wow he really pulls it up at the end)
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 13-12-2006 by jra]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
If that were the case - then we'd see an organized attempt at proving 9/11 to be a U.S. borne conspiracy. All I see are a bunch of 12 year olds who are just learning the wonder of the internet and are unable to filter out the BS that corrosive individuals put out.


Okay, what about the women from Jersey or the scholars for truth or any of the other groups who have come together to fight for a REAL investigation into what happened? Doesn't that count? Or do you need to have the answer ready before any investigation can begin - as it seems was the case with the official investigation?

Here's my twist on the official story:

FBI: -These arabs did it!
CT: -But there are no arab names on the passenger lists!
FBI: -That's because they used fake ID's
CT: -So how do you know they are terrorists if they used fake ID's?
FBI: - Because we have pictures of them from the airport security cameras
CT: - So the FBI knows the face of every terrorist?
FBI: - No, these were known terrorists that were on our watchlist
CT: - Why haven't you updated your list with their real names then?
FBI: - We don't know their real names
CT: - So you don't know their names, they all used fake ID's, and many of the people on your list are actually still alive and claim they had nothing to do with this, then how can you be so sure these are the ones who did it?
FBI: Well...that's on a need to know basis, and you don't need to know...

What they really should say is:
-These are the only arabs we found, so we're pretty sure they must have done it. Everybody knows they hate us.




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
KC 135 low pass
www.youtube.com...

I also noticed this clip of a 757 doing a low fly-by. Although it's not that low (probably because it's a commercial airline and they'd probably get fired if they flew too low)

www.youtube.com...

Another (wow he really pulls it up at the end)
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 13-12-2006 by jra]


Problem with your videos you posted of the 757 doing low passes is that they are not doing 500 mph, hitting lightpoles and a generator.

Here is a video clip of a 757 model doing a high speed pass, look at the smoke and see how much turbulence is created by the plane.

www.onera.fr...

[edit on 13-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
DrLeary

The problem with debating on the names of the individuals involved is the sheer nature of intelligence gathering. Fake IDs are rather easy to generate with the right equipment - enough to get onboard an aircraft. You won't be able to join the military or clear a background check with them - but you could make a convincing fake ID with photoshop and some arts and crafts skills.

These people attracted the attention of the FBI somewhere along the line - and photos were taken of them or collected from security cameras (an infinite number of possibilities). This would be how they would appear on a 'terrorist watch' list. Things in their records just don't add up right - but their true names - the ones their families back in blah-blahstan knew them by, are not known - and probably never will be.

Do you have any clue whatsoever as to how terrorists work or how our homeland security system works?

Obviously not - or you'd have stopped yourself before making such an arguement.

And I'm talking about an organized group of people who would have been involved in this massive conspiracy. With as popular and well founded as this conspiracy theory is - and the number of people involved - you'd think more than a few people would step out and say "Yeah, I was told by my superior to lie about this." or "Yeah, I was involved in wiring the building with explosives." - or something.

But all I see is what we call here in the Navy a gangle-*SNIP* of radical claims and tangents - with about 10% of them based off of any logical discrepency or event.

We've gone from cruise missiles, drones, 'remote controled jet liners', demolition charges, and a recent claim of a thermonuclear bomb. Nothing organized - just wild grabbing at straws for a bunch of people so desperate to beleive their enemy is the beaurocracy rather than a bunch of extremists on the other side of the planet.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
By all means disagree on the topic BUT please do so in a polite manner. Sniping adds nothing to the debate at hand

Cheers
FredT

[edit on 12/13/06 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
In responce to a few of the thoughts in the thread.

The wake turbulence behind a 757 is really bad when in the air, However, not being a expert in the subject, im not sure how ground effect etc would moderate its wake turbulence what with it being so low to the ground.

Most planes can fly a nap of the earth flight profile if its flat enough. Its in hilly areas that you need alot of thrust to fly up and down keeping say 50 feet of the deck rather than skimming over ridgetops. Its not all that hilly in that area

While 500 kts of airspeed is alot and abuses the airframe when that low, I don't think these guys were too concerend about it.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
In responce to a few of the thoughts in the thread.

The wake turbulence behind a 757 is really bad when in the air, However, not being a expert in the subject, im not sure how ground effect etc would moderate its wake turbulence what with it being so low to the ground.

Most planes can fly a nap of the earth flight profile if its flat enough. Its in hilly areas that you need alot of thrust to fly up and down keeping say 50 feet of the deck rather than skimming over ridgetops. Its not all that hilly in that area

While 500 kts of airspeed is alot and abuses the airframe when that low, I don't think these guys were too concerend about it.



Well the problem is at 500 mph and feet off the ground you have several things acting on the aircrat that would make it hard to control, plus hitting lightpoles and a generator. Plus these effects would also be seen and felt by eyewitnesses that were close by.

1. Ground Effect.

2. Compessiblity (starts at 500mph)

3. You have 2 differents wake vortexes.

4. Jet Blast


[edit on 13-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
DrLeary

The problem with debating on the names of the individuals involved is the sheer nature of intelligence gathering. Fake IDs are rather easy to generate with the right equipment - enough to get onboard an aircraft. You won't be able to join the military or clear a background check with them - but you could make a convincing fake ID with photoshop and some arts and crafts skills.

These people attracted the attention of the FBI somewhere along the line - and photos were taken of them or collected from security cameras (an infinite number of possibilities). This would be how they would appear on a 'terrorist watch' list. Things in their records just don't add up right - but their true names - the ones their families back in blah-blahstan knew them by, are not known - and probably never will be.

Do you have any clue whatsoever as to how terrorists work or how our homeland security system works?

Obviously not - or you'd have stopped yourself before making such an arguement.

And I'm talking about an organized group of people who would have been involved in this massive conspiracy. With as popular and well founded as this conspiracy theory is - and the number of people involved - you'd think more than a few people would step out and say "Yeah, I was told by my superior to lie about this." or "Yeah, I was involved in wiring the building with explosives." - or something.

But all I see is what we call here in the Navy a gangle-*SNIP* of radical claims and tangents - with about 10% of them based off of any logical discrepency or event.

We've gone from cruise missiles, drones, 'remote controled jet liners', demolition charges, and a recent claim of a thermonuclear bomb. Nothing organized - just wild grabbing at straws for a bunch of people so desperate to beleive their enemy is the beaurocracy rather than a bunch of extremists on the other side of the planet.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]


I think the claims by the government is the biggest conspiracy here, and frankly, I would like some sort of evidence to back it up. A lot of people would never question the government or entertain the idea that they are lying to the people, but I for one am very sceptical about claims that don't have anything to back them up.

It might very vell be that all you say is true, and these people were known terrorists, but why should we accept that they are withouth any proof? I don't have to prove that the conspiracy theory is true, I only have to prove thet the official story is not. That should be enough to warrant an investiagtion, don't you think?

To me it makes sense to blaim this on terrorism, as that was everybodys first though anyway, and it's not like they haven't blown up stuff before, but how can we tell for sure? How do we even know it's al-quaida? There are dozens of terrorist organizations around the world with different agendas and ways of operating, so what makes the government so sure this operation was undeniably carried out by al-quaida? Is the "confession tape" of Bin Laden the only "evidence" of this?

The other day I was reading (yet another) news article about terrorist suicidebombers in Iraq, and I remember thinking do they ever investigate these things? Do they try to find out who the bomber was and who he was affiliated with or do they just conclude that he was al-quaida right away? There are a handful of these just about every day, so investigating each and every one would take a lot of time and resources. Would it change our view of the war on terror if we learned that these people were funded and trained by terror cells who in turn were funded by the CIA?

All I'm saying is, the government should provide evidence to support their claims, just like we are demanding of eachother. Taking their word for it is not an option when we are talking about war where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are killed and the politicians who went to war are getting fat and rich off their government contracts and other spoils of war. If we are going to be serious about this we must have all the facts on the table first...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join