Can a 767 Fly 500MPH @ 700ft Altitude? Boeing Official Says: Ha Ha Ha! Not a Chance!

page: 15
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm As you know, there is no "official story." Why do you deliberately misrepresent the facts?

Now, answer my question directly with no excuses and evasions this time, ok? I repeat:

If there are no photos of an event, no videos of the event, and no post-event "official" report, then the event did not happen.

Let's be real clear here. Is that what you want us to believe, Ultima 1?


If there is no official story what is it the media is feeding us and what is the 9/11 commision report for?

You tell me, you and other people who still believe the (official story)that the media feeds us state they know what happened that day so you should be able to come up with evidnece to support your theories.

I am trying to find the truth of what happened that day. But i cannot find the evidence that we should have to show us what happened that day. Can you explain why there are no videos or photos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? Can you explain why we have not FBI and NTSB crime scene reports, if you beleive you know what happened that day you should be able to tell me these things.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm As you know, there is no "official story." Why do you deliberately misrepresent the facts?

Now, answer my question directly with no excuses and evasions this time, ok? I repeat:

If there are no photos of an event, no videos of the event, and no post-event "official" report, then the event did not happen.

Let's be real clear here. Is that what you want us to believe, Ultima 1?


If there is no official story what is it the media is feeding us and what is the 9/11 commision report for?


I've asked you a direct question and would appreciate a direct answer. Are you going to answer my question or not?




[edit on 8-10-2007 by seanm]

[edit on 8-10-2007 by seanm]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm
I've asked you a direct question and would appreciate a direct answer. Are you going to answer my question or not?


Why do you need an answer from me, didn't the media tell you everthing that happened? Don't you know everything that happened that day?



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
I've asked you a direct question and would appreciate a direct answer. Are you going to answer my question or not?


Why do you need an answer from me, didn't the media tell you everthing that happened? Don't you know everything that happened that day?


Let the record show that ULTIMA1 believes that if are no photos of an event, no videos of the event, and no post-event "official" report, then the event did not happen.

Your continued evasion of the question on the table is quite clear, Ultima 1. It is clear why you are so confused about the events at the Pentagon.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by seanm
Let the record show that ULTIMA1 believes that if are no photos of an event, no videos of the event, and no post-event "official" report, then the event did not happen.


I have expained about the facts and evidenca that are missing from the media's official story. Tha does not mean the incident did not happen. It just means we do not have the facts, evidence, and reports we should have.

If anyone is confused about what happened at the Pentaong it is you, because you have no actual evidence or official reports to support your theory of what happened.





[edit on 9-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
Let the record show that ULTIMA1 believes that if are no photos of an event, no videos of the event, and no post-event "official" report, then the event did not happen.


I have expained about the facts and evidenca that are missing from the media's official story. Tha does not mean the incident did not happen. It just means we do not have the facts, evidence, and reports we should have.

If anyone is confused about what happened at the Pentaong it is you, because you have no actual evidence or official reports to support your theory of what happened.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Your weaseling is duly noted, Ultima1. You've used every desperate dodge in the book.

When you and your sidekick, Craig Ranke, decide to muster up the courage to interview the hundreds of rescue workers, firemen, and wreckage recovery crews - I repeat the hundreds of those people who were in the Pentagon in the hours and days after AA77 hit the Pentagon - and you can bring their accounts here, and those accounts support your claim that there is any doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon, we'll have a reason to listen to you.

Until you decide to stop pretending the evidence you hate does not exist, you'll just be another 9/11 denier who refuses to respect truth.

The choice is yours. What will it be, Ultima 1? Intellectual honesty or just more evasions?



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by seanm
When you and your sidekick, Craig Ranke, decide to muster up the courage to interview the hundreds of rescue workers, firemen, and wreckage recovery crews - Until you decide to stop pretending the evidence you hate does not exist, you'll just be another 9/11 denier who refuses to respect truth.

The choice is yours. What will it be, Ultima 1? Intellectual honesty or just more evasions?


Do you mean the witnesses that could not decide what type of plane it was, or the witnesses that admitted they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757. These witnesses would be torn apart in court.

If you have any actual evidence to prove what hit the Pentagon please show me or admit there is no evidence.

I am completly honest and have done actual research. I have filed FOIA request with the FBI and NTSB. Have you?

I have the information from the Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder from the NTSB. Do you ?

If you want the information from the Flight Data Recorder all you have to do is go to the NTSB webapge and fill out the form. Unless you do not want to know the real truth because it would prove your theory wrong?




[edit on 10-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have the information from the Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder from the NTSB.


That sounds very interesting... could you please save us all the time of making a request? Could you post the info here, or maybe start another thread with the info in it? Thanks.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

I've asked you a direct question and would appreciate a direct answer. Are you going to answer my question or not?

this scares me. the only person in the thread that claims to have seen the impact won't claim to seeing it when asked to provide details. Yet they try to debunk others by saying 'where were you' as a defense more than once.

no jetliner hit the pentagon, that is obvious. the more the official supporters fight the no plane theory the more realistic it looks. (i cant believe i just typed that)



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
That sounds very interesting... could you please save us all the time of making a request? Could you post the info here, or maybe start another thread with the info in it? Thanks.


Actually if you do the electronic form on the NTSB website you can get the CDs in a few days. Just tell them you want the FDR data from Flight 77.

There was another thread on this issue. People who had filed FOIA requests and received the 2 CDs. 1 CD is data and 1 CD is the animation from the FDR.



[edit on 11-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Please, to be courteous to myself and the rest of the ATS users, can you post the information yourself as to help back up and reinforce your statements and claims? Thanks!



-A-



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RustingAngel
Please, to be courteous to myself and the rest of the ATS users, can you post the information yourself as to help back up and reinforce your statements and claims? Thanks!



Well the animation on the CD is like 3 GBs.

If you want to check out the animation you can go to.

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

Be advised the animation is edited for thier site.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
What about the data CD, can you please provide us with that? Thanks.

-A-



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RustingAngel
What about the data CD, can you please provide us with that? Thanks.

-A-


Do you want me to copy and paste the data files?



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
At the onset,i would like to apologize if this video has been posted before because i havent gone through all of the posts,but if it hasnt,i think everyone in here will will find it pretty interesting and,possibly,even incriminating.

You be the judge



i think if what has been shown IS true(leaving aside the eye-witness accounts) then i think the powers-that-be have to answer to a lot of questions



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by xenomorph07
At the onset,i would like to apologize if this video has been posted before because i havent gone through all of the posts,but if it hasnt,i think everyone in here will will find it pretty interesting and,possibly,even incriminating.

You be the judge



i think if what has been shown IS true(leaving aside the eye-witness accounts) then i think the powers-that-be have to answer to a lot of questions



Thanks for posting this link. You are obviously seeking the truth, as are many people.

Apart from the irritating & unnecessary thumping music which accompanies this compilation of tired old misinformation, it deliberately omits a pile of inconvenient evidence which disproves the lie it wants you to believe.

To review an analysis of the debris from the Boeing 757-200 recovered after the plane crashed into the Pentagon, see:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To view the testimony of 200 or so of the known 700+ eyewitness accounts from people in Washington that day who observed Boeing 757-200 flight #77 from Dulles, with their own eyes, either diving into the Pentagon or impacting the building, see

www.geocities.com...

If you want to believe the guy featured on the video who mistook the 757 for a commuter jet (they are both aircraft and both have 2 engines) then you can believe that if you choose. But he was clearly mistaken. Hundreds of other eyewitness correctly identified the aircraft they were looking at as a 757, or at least as a commercial airliner. The only debris at the site was from the 757-200, which is what eyewitnesses saw. No wreckage from any other aircraft was observed by any known witness, which is pretty conclusive.

To believe this preposterous, invented nonsense, you have to explain what happened to flight #77 and all the passengers and crew. Making up some rubbish about it being shot down somewhere is not evidence. Where? By whom? How? Witnesses, wreckage, testimony, PROOF please. None exists, so far as I am aware. The only evidence that exists about flight #77 is that it was constantly tracked by ATC until flown into The Pentagon.

Hani Hanjour qualified as a pilot in 1999 and had reportedly done about 200 hours on various aircraft including a 757 simulator. He would have been quite capable of piloting a 757 into a fixed building. Well, the evidence is there in front of you. He did. I have only 66 hours in my logbook, and have never flown a multi-engined jet, but I reckon I could do it easy. Most amateur pilots could. For a not-too-experienced but definitely not a novice pilot, who is determined enough, targeting and hitting a large fixed building with a large aircraft would be pretty easy, much easier than, for example, landing it on an airport runway which involves far greater care and skill (and which by the way thousands of pilots do every day).

Temporary confiscation of any CCTV video taken at or near a crime scene is SOP with every police force everywhere in the world, and always has been so far as I am aware. There is nothing 'sinister' about it. It may reveal vital evidence. None of these videos had been filming in the direction of The Pentagon on the day, so they don't show anything. They've all been released back to the owners you can view them if you can be bothered.

Because some people don't like the Bush administration, and want to invent conspiracies to incriminate it in defiance of all the evidence, doesn't make the fantasy true. I don't like them either, but all the evidence I have ever seen demonstrates conclusively and without doubt that Boeing 757-200 AA flight #77 was hijacked and used as a missile to strike the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, as part of the 4-planes operation. If anyone can ever produce any evidence to the contrary which stands up to even basic analysis, I would be delighted to see it.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
To review an analysis of the debris from the Boeing 757-200 recovered after the plane crashed into the Pentagon, see:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


LOL maybe you should look at this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There seems to be a few pieces of debris missing to add up to a whole 757 don't ya think? What happened to the rest of the engines? Where did the wing spars go? And the damage to the pentagoon itself is just not enough IMO, if it was really hit by a 757 that exploded and burned so violently that hardly any of it was left it would have caused far more damage to the building. There were windows still intact where the engines would have hit!
And then there's the altitude problems, were supposed to believe they flew a 757 20 ft off the ground at 400mph dodging obstacles and overcoming 'ground effect'? Then there's the witnesses who saw the plane fly a path that could not have hot the light poles.

Anyway the point I'm trying to make is how you find the official story so easy to believe is just mind boggling!

Sry you can show me a million witnesses who claim to have seen a frozen fish impact the pentagoon, but if the physics don't fit the claims then I'm inclined to ignore them.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   



There seems to be a few pieces of debris missing to add up to a whole 757 don't ya think? What happened to the rest of the engines? ...... Then there's the witnesses who saw the plane fly a path that could not have hot the light poles.


Well, I am not a trained structural engineer nor a crash investigator, but looking at all the evidence it's obvious the damage to that reinforced concrete and steel building is 100% consistent with what would be expected if hit by a 40-ton airliner carrying 24,000 gallons of highly flamable aviation fuel at over 400mph. You would expect a hole exactly that size - just slightly larger than the 13ft diameter of the fuselage of a 757. You would expect the resulting conflagration to have incinerated almost everything except perhaps the teeth and some of the bones of the aircraft's occupants (which I understand the record shows were recovered by the hundreds of emergency workers who cleared up the mess over the following days). For certain, after an impact like that, and an explosion and fire of such magnitude, nothing visible would remain of the wings or the tail. The debris would be substantially pulverized or melted.

People who try to propagate the lie that 'something else' hit the pentagon really have to produce some credible evidence. Questions:

1. What happened to AA#77 and its passengers and crew? Following the hijack, where did it go? Evidence, wreckage, testimonies please. Where is it, if it didn't hit The Pentagon? Let's have one single solitary shred of evidence that that aircraft and its passengers are somewhere else. The victims' families have been through enough, without all this BS about 'it wasn't a plane'

2. If you want to dismiss out of hand the testimonies of hundreds of witnesses who saw, with their own eyes, a Boeing 757 flying at extreme low over Washington at high speed immediately before the impact, and others who saw it hit, you have to convince them that they did not in fact see what they saw. Producing one witness who can't tell the difference between a civil airliner and a business jet is not enough. A small business jet hitting the building, due to its much smaller mass and fuel load, would not produce that kind of devastation and would have made a smaller hole. And anyway, it's at variance with all the rest of the evidence.

And yes, you can easily fly a large aircraft for a reasonable distance 50ft off the ground, if not 20ft. I have done it. Many other pilots have done it. RAF pilots (in the UK) are trained to do it. If you were flying like that for only 5 or 10 seconds whilst targeting a building and intending to kill yourself, it would be easy. And the plane did collide with several obstacles before finally hitting the building, but a lamp post will not stop a 40-ton object traveling at 400mph. The lamp post will lose.

One witness who claims to have seen the plane (note he claims it was a 757 he saw) flying on a different trajectory so it couldn't hit those poles may be mistaken. This is contradicted by many others whose recollections are consistent with each other. People do make mistakes in perception and memory, and some witnesses are more reliable than others, which is why multiple corroborative testimony always has much greater weight in court than a single witness.

The non-incinerated engine debris recovered at the site is from RB211-535E4B engines, fitted to AA#77 B-757-200. The internal turbofan blades etc. survived the fire reasonably intact because they are manufactured from super-heat resistant alloys to withstand the continuous fuel combustion inside the engine. The wings and tail are not. At those temps, they will be pulverized and melt.

It looks to me like a Boeing 757 hit that building. Unless someone can produce one single shred of evidence that indicates a possible alternative explanation, consistent with the observable facts, I have to go with the evidence. Which is a Boeing 757.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
Well, I am not a trained structural engineer nor a crash investigator, but looking at all the evidence it's obvious the damage to that reinforced concrete and steel building is 100% consistent with what would be expected if hit by a 40-ton airliner carrying 24,000 gallons of highly flammable aviation fuel at over 400mph.


Your opinion. Have you ever seen a jet airliner hit a building like that before? I'd guess no, so how can you make that claim?

Jet fuel is not highly flammable, take away the compressed air and all you have is kerosene and a flame about as hot as a candle. The fireball produced at the impact would have burned up the majority of the fuel. There were no big uncontrollable fires. There was no damage to the lawn in front of the impact point. There are columns blown outwards as if an explosion on the inside knocked them out, as apposed to a plane knocking them in. There is no damage to the concrete floor that the plane supposedly hit.



1. What happened to AA#77 and its passengers and crew?...


I don't have to answer this question, regardless of what happened to the plane physical evidence at the pentagon is not consistent with a massive commercial jet crash. I could make guesses based on plans the government have made before, how about that?

Operation Northwoods



2. If you want to dismiss out of hand the testimonies of hundreds of witnesses who saw, with their own eyes…


There are no hundreds of witnesses. There were in fact about 100 witnesses. Most of which were military. But there are also witnesses that contradict the official story? You just conveniently dismiss them though right? But if you actually look into the witnesses it’s easy to see which ones are more likely real…


Read a few posts here…www.abovetopsecret.com...



And yes, you can easily fly a large aircraft for a reasonable distance 50ft off the ground, if not 20ft. I have done it… …but a lamp post will not stop a 40-ton object traveling at 400mph. The lamp post will lose.


Hmmm you’ve done it? Well I don’t believe you, how about that? Go ask John Lear if you can do that. I was a jet engine mech (AD) in the Navy and I know how difficult it is to do. Also military planes have a different wing loading than passenger planes and many can fly low.
As far as the lamp posts, what research have you done?

See this…www.abovetopsecret.com...

A plane hitting lamp posts at 400 mph to going to cause some serious problems with handling of the plane. They’re fighting to keep the plane level, very hard to do at that speed and altitude because the plane wants to climb, then they hit multiple objects and you think they would still be able to fly straight and level?



The non-incinerated engine debris recovered at the site is from RB211-535E4B engines, fitted to AA#77 B-757-200…


Prove to me those parts were from flight 77. Show me the serial numbers.
The internal fan blades? You mean the ONE rotor hub we see a pic of?
Do you know how many are in a jet engine? Get back to me with that one.
What about the rotor shafts? Even stronger than the hubs. Where are the titanium alloy engine casings?

How did those engine parts get inside the pentagon anyway?

Sry but far more parts should have survived a fire that barely damaged the pentagon. Most of the damage was structural related, not fire, indicating a large blast with little fire afterwards.

There are too many holes in this story to believe it so blindly. No one is asking you to believe the ‘out there’ theories going around, just recognize that something doesn’t fit the story you are so blindly accepting.



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Hmmm you’ve done it? Well I don’t believe you, how about that? Go ask John Lear if you can do that.


Well we all love John, but he believes that there are huge submarine bases underneath Nevada, and that the US Government is mining minerals on the moons of Saturn. I seen no evidence for that. But again, if evidence is produced I could be convinced.

What is your flying experience please?





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join