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.

 

Watch out for low flying planes!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   

THIS amazing video of a KC-135 aerial refuelling tanker shows it flying dangerously close to the ground.

The plane, more commonly seen refuelling fighter aircraft high thousands of feet above the earth, is shown blasting along just above the surface of the ground.

According to YouTube, the aircraft belongs to the French Air Force and was filmed in the desert in Chad.

www.news.com.au...



This is one of the most amazing videos I have ever seen.
Im socked that a plane that size could fly so close to the ground.
Doesnt leave much room for error!

Apparently this video is not a hoax, what do the ATS aviation experts think?

Edit :- I cant get the utube video to work correctly. I click the youtube button, enter my http URL. Nofin.. Any ideas?
Edit :- Ahhh just the utube video reference number.. Maybe I should have read the caption text. Thanks for being patient

[edit on 6-9-2007 by SmokeyJo]




posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SmokeyJo
 


Just to let you know the link is bust mate - would like to see this vid tho




Never mind, just noticed the other link


[edit on 6/9/2007 by Now_Then]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I can't believe no one brought up this fact.

FACT, this plane is smaller then a 757..Do you know where I am going with this?

The maneuver this pilot pulled off seems very HARD to do. Apparently he is a veteran, seasoned pilot right?

YET A SO CALLED "TERRORIST" DID THIS SAME TYPE OF FLYING ON A MUCH BIGGER PLANE.

YEAH RIGHT!

This vid proves to me once again that the pentagon was hit by a missile...



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Wow, great video. I wonder what the Frenchies are up to with excercises like this??? Air to tank refuelling??? I think not...

Maybe something more along the lines of orchestrating an attack in France to consolidate THEIR new fascist government.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Mr.X_
FACT, this plane is smaller then a 757..Do you know where I am going with this?


I believe the 757 is longer and possibly taller, but I think the KC-135 has a slightly longer wingspan. Also Im not sure if a 4x engine plane or a 2x engine plane would be harder to maneuver at such a low altitude. But yes, you point out a very intresting fact.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by _Mr.X_
 
OK, first up this is an authentic piece of film and not new news. The French government initially seemed confused when it first came to light quite some months ago, and denied it was real.

And now for Mr X.

FACT, this plane is smaller then a 757..Do you know where I am going with this?
Well given that you explain your supposition in the next few lines we dont have to. And size has nothing to do with it my friend, FACT or not.


The maneuver this pilot pulled off seems very HARD to do. Apparently he is a veteran, seasoned pilot right?
Seeming is not really the same as knowing it for fact now is it? How does flying an aircraft at ultra low altitude equate to aiming and flying into a building? It doesn't.


YET A SO CALLED "TERRORIST" DID THIS SAME TYPE OF FLYING ON A MUCH BIGGER PLANE.

YEAH RIGHT!
And why prey tell, is it so hard in your estimation to fly an airliner into a building? I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I recently did it in a 747 simulator twice, no problem. Just point the nose at a building and fly in, it's that simple. And using your metric comparison a 747 is much larger and less responsive than either a 707/KC-135 or 757/767.


This vid proves to me once again that the pentagon was hit by a missile...
Again with the suppositions. And relying on selective proof which has nothing to do with what you claim. Actually come to think of it you are claiming TWO seperate theories. 1) That it is difficult to aim an airliner at a building on a city skyline(debunked by my own experience above). 2) That an airliner was somehow substituted with a missile.Given that we all saw two planes fly into the WTC, why would you bother with a missile on the Pentagon? Just use another plane. Oh no wait they were either, under telemetry control, mind controlled pilots, were holographic projections.. etc.

Sorry but this is NOT a 9/11 conspiracy thread, we have a special padded cell for that.... ooopppps Im sorry, I meant dedicated forum.


LEE.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by thebozeian
 


Ah...... I guess you said it just about perfect for me Boz. Keep 9/11 theories out of this forum. If the aviation nuts that ferquent this forum want to talk about 9/11 they will come looking for it else where.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
well maybe there just refueling this lot :





my all time favourite is:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I saw that video a few months ago after being linked to it on another forum. Many people thought it was fake, because, look at the shadow of the aircraft to the end of the video compared to everything else.

I do not know if it is fake, but I am suggesting something worth looking into.



FACT, this plane is smaller then a 757..Do you know where I am going with this?

Actually the Boeing 757 and the KC-135 have nearly identical sizes and there empty weights are very close yet the KC-135s maximum takeoff weight is significantly higher than the 757.

On average, I would say the KC-135 is heavier.


The maneuver this pilot pulled off seems very HARD to do. Apparently he is a veteran, seasoned pilot right?

It's not very hard to do. At high speeds like in the video, the ride in aircraft such as that are very smooth and the aircraft is easy to handle, especially this close to the gound in ground effect.

In laymans terms, ground effect is a cushion of air underneath the aircraft that occurs close to the ground caused by the jetwash getting washed into the ground. The lower you go, the more lift. You know what that means right? If you go too low you'll get more lift, meaning you'll have to lower the nose more to hit the ground. It does not mean your invincible or anything, but it does help when flying very close to the ground.

All you need to do is pull the nose up till the vertical speed indicator is 0 then look at the window and make minor corrections. Hardly a hard maneuver.






YET A SO CALLED "TERRORIST" DID THIS SAME TYPE OF FLYING ON A MUCH BIGGER PLANE.

That is subject for debate, but this is hardly the place to discuss 9/11. That's for the 9/11 discussion subforum not the Aircraft projects forum.

Thank you.

[edit on 7/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Harlequin your link reference the Spitfire had me in stitches


This has always been my favourite having flown to the Falklands in of these i would never have imagined it doing this quite easy

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Mr.X_
I can't believe no one brought up this fact.

FACT, this plane is smaller then a 757..Do you know where I am going with this?

The maneuver this pilot pulled off seems very HARD to do. Apparently he is a veteran, seasoned pilot right?

YET A SO CALLED "TERRORIST" DID THIS SAME TYPE OF FLYING ON A MUCH BIGGER PLANE.

YEAH RIGHT!

This vid proves to me once again that the pentagon was hit by a missile...


Do you realize that every large plane, well every plane for that matter, flies close to the earths surface at least twice per flight?

There is nothing particularly hard about flying a plane like that, in that profile. I have never flown in a KC-135, but I am pretty sure that if I was up in it and allowed to sit in the cockpit, I could do it too



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
There is nothing particularly hard about flying a plane like that, in that profile. I have never flown in a KC-135, but I am pretty sure that if I was up in it and allowed to sit in the cockpit, I could do it too


Please notify my of any and all flights that you may use, I will make every effort to avoid them!


But you are correct, it is even actually more efficient to fly that low - I'm sure you are aware of the WIG effect (wing in ground - really wouldn't fill me with much confidence, but thats just a name) for others that are not aware you should read about it



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I've been waiting for a thread like this to pop up again. I'm sure a lot of this forums members remember the video of the RNZAF 757 doing a low level high-speed pass. Well, those crazy Kiwis have been at it again....



How crazy is that?!

Great video OP!



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I saw that in real life.

It was pretty good, but nothing on the verge of crazy, if I were pilot I'd probably break the rules and fly a foot from the ground.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join