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.

 

How Did the Hijackers Find the Pentagon, Anyway?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870


If it was a crack pilot, F-16, A-3, cruise missile, hologram, Global Hawk, or remote-controlled 757; why wouldn't they be sure to hit the Pentagon on the first pass instead of flying over it. Please don't say it was to hit the only reinforced side. That theory doesn't hold water when the object of the attacks was to create death and destruction.



I'm a gambling guy. I'm also "decent" at math.

The penta-gone(yes, I kid) has 5 sides. It's not very tall. THINK for one second here please.

Use plausible logic please and ask yourself this question:

If I'm a hijacker hell bent on flying a plane into the pentagon, why would I try on sabotaging the operation by hitting said penta-gone that would require great navigational skill to pull off?

Why not just aim for the penta-gone at a nose dive? All you would need to do is descend aiming at the top portion of the side you're flying into to hit it. If you miscalculate a bit and miss, you still will hit the building no matter what. You'd even do more damage because you'd be coming from top and at an angle(Bonzai!!!!!).

WTF?



[edit on 28-8-2007 by Conundrum04]




posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Totally agree. From above would have been the better angle.

Here is a thought though: if they did too much damage, they wouldn't have anywhere to plan or run a war from, would they?



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04

Why not just aim for the penta-gone at a nose dive? All you would need to do is descend aiming at the top portion of the side you're flying into to hit it. If you miscalculate a bit and miss, you still will hit the building no matter what. You'd even do more damage because you'd be coming from top and at an angle(Bonzai!!!!!).

WTF?


Nose diving like some Japanese Kamikaze Zero figher bomber is hard as hell flying with a passenger plane using the same method.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy


Nose diving like some Japanese Kamikaze Zero figher bomber is hard as hell flying with a passenger plane using the same method.


So flying in a few feet off the ground while hitting 4 light poles was the easiest route.


Yeah, I'm convinced.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04

So flying in a few feet off the ground while hitting 4 light poles was the easiest route.


Yeah, I'm convinced.


Yeah makes him bad pilot, like he really gives a dam about some light poles in the way, as long as he can still hit it.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy


Yeah makes him bad pilot, like he really gives a dam about some light poles in the way, as long as he can still hit it.


Yeah makes him a bad pilot??????????????

Yeah, Hanjour doesn't give a dam but he gives a dam, just enough, to not damage the pentagon lawn. What a swell guy he was!!?

"Boy, that Spielberg sure is great"- Chris Rock 1986


edit: Hanjour

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Conundrum04]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by conundrum04
Why not just aim for the penta-gone at a nose dive?


I asked myself that question and here is me answering myself.
Holy smokes! There is the Pentagon directly in front of me and not only am I going 400 MPH , that darn building is 7000 feet below me. I'm going to kamikaze this bad boy straight down into my target. Oh wait a minute, every aircraft I have ever flown has had a maximum safe speed so I'm sure this one does too and if I push the nose over to dive into the target there is a good chance that I may overspeed and lose control or rip the wings off and then I will completely miss my target. I better make a loop and come back at the target when I'm at a much lower altitude.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Boone 870]

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Boone 870]

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Boone 870]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04

Yeah makes him a bad pilot??????????????

Yeah, Honjour doesn't give a dam but he gives a dam, just enough, to not damage the pentagon lawn. What a swell guy he was!!?



Like he needs to hit or touch everything.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
if the palne was hijacked, I'm not saying it was ot ir wasn't but this this discussion let's believe the gov's story and sat it was, and H.H. was at the controls.

I would think he had flow into Reagan Airport many time as a passenger, with a left window seat, and a right window seat, ect. Also useing rudementary maps, and flight simulator time, I sure he could get familiar enough with all the landmarks around the Pentagon.

I mean there are rivers, the Washington Monument, roads, Reagan Airport as I said already.

I'm not sure if this is the same guy's website who posted the video on youtube of map passes over the Pentagon at 30k, 20k,10k, feet ect, thinking it was so hard to see, and what was funny was I saw it on the first pass from 30,000 feet, and I have no idea of the surrounding area near the Pentagon as far as landmarks waterways ect. I just look for a Pentagon and saw it.

I'm pretty sure if the governments fairy tale is true, then these guys had detailed satelite images of the area and flight paths ect, and had even practiced fly by's over the pentagon "for fun" in fly simulators. I would hope your not allowed to do that, but I'm sure if you yuck it up with the instructor enough he'll let you fly your video game game airplane all around D.C. ect.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Here is a video made by a guy who used the data from the flight recorder to recreate American 77's flight and approach to the Pentagon.



edit: Dag nab it. How come everyone can embed YouTube video links but me?

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 29-8-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

After he had completed his 180 to head East (0855-0859) , he then corrected (0906) to head almost directly for the Pentagon. For the next 25 minutes, he flies on an almost constant heading, straight for the Pentagon! He doesn't deviate from this heading until around 0930 when presumably he becomes visual with the Pentagon.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by mirageofdeceit]


How could he know that he wasn't going to be interrupted (shot down) before he got there?? None of his 'maneuvers' seemed evasive did they?? Or could a plane that size be zig-zagged even a little bit?



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   


originally posted by frayed1
Or could a plane that size be zig-zagged even a little bit?

here's a video of the 757 200 doing a high-speed flyby.

here's another video of a 757 200

I'm not sure if they had to do any maneuvering so to speak, but you can see in the second video that the 757 is no slouch for such a big aircraft.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
I better make a loop and come back at the target when I'm at a much lower altitude.


You forgot to add:

"and there's no rush as our best buddy Dick bin Cheney has ordered the fighter jets to standown"



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Simple answer to this is that the official account is not true, yes there was a plane, but the plane (s) people saw was a diversion, think about it, I think I have mentioned this before, if you are at all familiar with the area, the angle and trajectory of the path was completely impossible to hit at the head on (not angular path) that you see that initial hole that was made, because we all know that is the true impact outline...not the collapse (or explosion) of the building minutes later, I remember reading that even veteran pilots said this flight path was impossible to drop from the altitude and impact perfectly where it did off of a left turn from 395.

I remember that they said the plane took a turn off of the path of 395, a major highway into DC. but I can remember a different story being told by some employees at a car dealership on Columbia Pike where i used to take my vehicle for service, that is the same road where the Sheraton is that the rooftoop surveillance tapes and also near Armed forces Gas station where the security tapes were seized from.

Well I also remember one of the employees that worked there shortly after saying and also with some of the other employees say they saw A low flying plane very close to the ground coming up Columbia Pike, if you know where Glebe road is in relation that is about 2 miles or so before the Pentagon and that is where these people told me they saw the plane overhead following the path of Columbia Pike...

Which when i heard this story I instantly said well it was said the plane followed 395 and took a left turn, so what low flying aircraft was this??? I just think people have not done their homework finding witnesses in the area that saw either other planes low flying or anything else unusual, because if what these people said is true then we can see why tapes were seized and there were other people at the Pentagon whose stories conflicted about what plane they did see impact and how many were there.


[edit on 29-8-2007 by phinubian]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Thanks for those, Boone.......looks like a real roller-coaster ride for someone!!

And that's another thing......If I were about to end it all, I believe I might have taken a bit more of a 'joy ride' and thrown in a little grandstanding at the end.......but I guess that might not be in keeping with the image of a 'religious zealot'......



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by phinubian
Simple answer to this is that the official account is not true, yes there was a plane, but the plane (s) people saw was a diversion


Interesting post phinubian. But you didn't include any maps. Hope these help.


the angle and trajectory of the path was completely impossible to hit at the head on (not angular path) that you see that initial hole that was made, because we all know that is the true impact outline...


I don't know this. I was under the impression the plane hit at about a 39 degree angle.



I remember reading that even veteran pilots said this flight path was impossible to drop from the altitude and impact perfectly where it did off of a left turn from 395.

I remember that they said the plane took a turn off of the path of 395, a major highway into DC.


From what I've seen this is not the majority view anyway. I've heard it ran along, over, or near 395, depending. I've heard maybe one or two accounts that seem to imply a slight left turn, and at least as many implying a straight path. Or a right turn. It all happened pretty fast and there are complex psycho-perceptual and recollection issues as well.


but I can remember a different story being told by some employees at a car dealership on Columbia Pike [...] saying [...] they saw A low flying plane very close to the ground coming up Columbia Pike, if you know where Glebe road is in relation that is about 2 miles or so before the Pentagon and that is where these people told me they saw the plane overhead following the path of Columbia Pike...


I've also heard it ran down, over, or near Columbia Pike. Yeah, what gives? Those roads are like, feet apart. Okay, not finding Glebe, but two miles back the distance was greater, sure, but people often take "right over me" too literally. It was over that general airpace even in the official account...




Which when i heard this story I instantly said well it was said the plane followed 395 and took a left turn, so what low flying aircraft was this???


The same one perhaps? This is all in the same air corridor, where anyone on the Pike or on 395 could rightly say it was right over them. This one consistent flaw with using eyewitnesses as evidence to try to place the plane precisely. Did it turn left off 395, or come down Columbia pike to the left of 395?




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by phinubian
 


Hi Phinubian,

If you live in the area you will be real interested in the interviews we have done.

I interviewed Edward Paik from A-One Auto in front of the Sheraton on location as well as 3 witnesses at the citgo station.

We have talked to many other witnesses further back in the flight path and we have documented a final flight path making a loop around from accross the Potomac just south of the airport and all the way around and up Beauregard past Glebe, over the Army Navy country club until it crossed over to the north side of Columbia Pike right over A-One auto.

You are 100% right that it was used as a "diversion" because it then flew on the north side of the citgo station making it impossible to have downed the light poles and create the physical damage as outlined in the ASCE report.

Watch our documentary for free at our website in my signature.

PM me if you know anyone who saw the plane.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
WOW I am glad that you did because like I said you need to be VERY familiar with the area, also to add I still work right where I look over the Pentagon every day and drive by it daily and still scratch my head, even though I don't live in Arlington anymore.

Those maps posted up are cool but they still dont give you the sense of distance and impossibility plus the kicker, the fact that the Pentagon sits down in a mini valley at the bottom of the hill also adds to the degree of difficulty of straightening a turn head on from the 395 approach...

I am just saying I asked these people emphatically and they said they saw this plane flying low straight over their heads...at the point and intersection of columbia Pike and Glebe it is a good 4 Miles parallel to 395 at that point so its not hard to confuse something 4 miles away as overhead though and the turn according to the sheer light Poles would have been closer in so it really would not have flown over Columbia Pike at no point according to official estimates...anyhow i want to view what you have...also another bit, if that official angle where true the dead on looking impact hole would not have looked as it did, that's what I was trying to convey, sorry if it did not come across like that...but do you see what i am saying by looking at the nice graphic posted above?

even that video that is out from the security cameras establish a straight head on VERY LOW approach not angular in any way...you see that hill becomes a good point to use that the plane would not have had time to adjust and turn in from 395, go there and look you dont need to be a pilot to come to that conclusion.
Craig Ranke CIT
I will now add your interview with the policeman is GOLD , what the Policeman said and wrote is what would be the path that the people told me also, I have never seen this video until a few minutes ago, and now for me and what I was told and what they are saying confirms for me the official flight path is pure BS. Thank You very much for doing this interview, it again confirms that someone is lying.



[edit on 30-8-2007 by phinubian]



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by phinubian

even that video that is out from the security cameras establish a straight head on VERY LOW approach not angular in any way...you see that hill becomes a good point to use that the plane would not have had time to adjust and turn in from 395, go there and look you dont need to be a pilot to come to that conclusion.
Craig Ranke CIT
I will now add your interview with the policeman is GOLD , what the Policeman said and wrote is what would be the path that the people told me also, I have never seen this video until a few minutes ago, and now for me and what I was told and what they are saying confirms for me the official flight path is pure BS. Thank You very much for doing this interview, it again confirms that someone is lying.



Thanks!

I knew you would understand.

It's a lot easier for people who are actually familiar with the area to understand then some of the so called "researchers" or bloggers out there who have never even been to the area and can not grasp the topography.

You are SO right about the angle of approach and descent angles required.

The plane would have been strewn across the facade of the building more if it had hit at that angle and there would definitely be more debris.

Instead we've got a cookie cutter style plane shape limited to under the wingspan of the plane as if it had hit straight on that STILL doesn't fit!




No matter how you look at it we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the light poles therefore a military deception has been established.





posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Was that technology available to everyone 6 years ago? in airplane cockpits?

More importantly, how did these exepreicned pilots manage to avoid all other air traffic?

Unless you want to make excuses for the official story, the story doesn't add up.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join