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.

 

low flyby

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
i dont know if this has been seen here, an aeroplane doing a low fly by
the first thing i thought of was the pentagon.....

www.youtube.com...




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Well as you can tell the plane in that vid is not flying low enough and not missle shaped enough to do anything like what happened to the pentagon.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
That didn't look to be 500 mph though. Although, good find.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
That would have been a highly experienced pilot probably doing no more than 200 mph. Not a person who has never flown a 757 flying at 500mph and dodging obstacles.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
It still doens t fit in the hole. TOtal sexual euphamism there. The plane in question cannot fit, you must acquit. Meaning, pardon the Bushies. Im kidding.

Cut Chemist rocks. It tis what I am listening to.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
That would have been a highly experienced pilot probably doing no more than 200 mph. Not a person who has never flown a 757 flying at 500mph and dodging obstacles.


... and hitting light poles and all at a much, much lower altitude.

This excellent footage only strengthens the no plane argument. Thanks for it



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Well there are 2 things to think about here.

1. The pilot of the plane was very experienced with probably thousands of hours of flight time, not 100 hours.

2. The plane was not going near 500mph.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Yeah but the airplane theory now says its possible?
however i wont change my stance on this ..... No way that i could have been an airplane

Not enough mess on the front lawn!....



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
that plane is definitely flying over 400mph and one need not be experienced pilot to hit a planet. Regardless is pretty much dismisses the claims on this forum that it's technically impossible for planes to do this. I believe Mr Lear was the one to bring up this claim and this video alone pretty should make people question his expertise as it unquestionably proves his claim wrong.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
that plane is definitely flying over 400mph ...

... pretty much dismisses the claims on this forum that it's technically impossible for planes to do this. ...

I think you have the speed exact for the clean fast pass. That is about the top speed for the plane at that altitude.

It is not impossible to fly low as you know. It was funny hearing the ground effect junk and the story of the impossible low flying. That becomes a red flag/smoking gun to identify people who do not understand flying. I have not idea why a few pilots make up those claims.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Regardless is pretty much dismisses the claims on this forum that it's technically impossible for planes to do this. I believe Mr Lear was the one to bring up this claim and this video alone pretty should make people question his expertise as it unquestionably proves his claim wrong.


NO, it does not dimiss the claims. If anything it porves that it takes an experienced pilot to fly low and fast and that things like turbulence play a big role.

John lear has one of the best backgrounds in aviation and no one has been able to cast any doubt on his expertise.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
It was funny hearing the ground effect junk and the story of the impossible low flying. That becomes a red flag/smoking gun to identify people who do not understand flying. I have not idea why a few pilots make up those claims.


Ground effect and turbulence at that speed and altitude are very provable.

I also have a background in aviation and very experienced pilots have stated how hard it would be to do what the hijackers were supposed to have done.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NO, it does not dimiss the claims. If anything it porves that it takes an experienced pilot to fly low and fast and that things like turbulence play a big role.[/QUOTE]
What would happen if an inexperienced pilot tried that....would they maybe CRASH?


[QUOTE]
John lear has one of the best backgrounds in aviation and no one has been able to cast any doubt on his expertise.

I believe he doesnt think ANY aircraft were used on 9/11. He believes all were holograms.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Ya know, I have to wonder why the jet didn't create a back wash when flying over the parked aircraft. You think the little aircraft would have been bucking around and such with a big mover bustin the air like that.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
I believe he doesnt think ANY aircraft were used on 9/11. He believes all were holograms.

What would happen if an inexperienced pilot tried that....would they maybe CRASH


But you cannot debate his aviation experience.

If inexperienced pilots were flying the planes they could not have done half the things they did and probably would not have made to their targets, specailly the Petnagon.

Please also see jet engine sim thread i have made it will explain things.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
After reading everything I can find on 911 over the last few years,...I think it was 100% remote flying..perhaps a radio signal from the impact spot...or a program by computer..Those patsys were not flying,..they were along for the ride... once they took over..
...I think years of planning went into this..
...I think it was a mossad/cia/air force job..
..Everything was to perfect...The pentacon plane had the folks from rayothon(?)..those guys were in charge of flying planes remotely..for whatever reasons needed...I think they were killed off to shut them up later...(someone could figure it out)...
...To many things that day were impossible..
...planes never vaporized...planes never crashed and left nothing...
...buildings falling in on themselves...massive dust clouds..tiny parts..commission report a disgrace...everything a bundle of lies..trust your eyes..they don't lie..the people on top that can do something about this have to be scared to death...or wouldn't they do something ?..
........I could go and on..



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmajestyk6309
..Those patsys were not flying,..they were along for the ride...


There are sytems that can take over planes, the Israelis were accused of using a remote control system to crash a airliner.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Remote controlled planes at the time required fly by wire. That only existed in the 777 at the time, not the 767 or 757. And the pilots of the plane might take notice of the plane being flown remotely and might be inclined to say something to the ATCs as opposed to just keeping quite and hopping for the best.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ST SIR 86
 


I totally agree!!!!!!! Anyone with a basic understand of physics KNOWS that even at the 'supposed' 500mph of which the impact was... jet airliner parts DO NOT & CAN NOT completely evaporate upon impact!

Airliners in history that nose drive have ALWAYS scattered debris over a very wide area..



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
I believe he doesnt think ANY aircraft were used on 9/11. He believes all were holograms.

What would happen if an inexperienced pilot tried that....would they maybe CRASH


But you cannot debate his aviation experience.

If inexperienced pilots were flying the planes they could not have done half the things they did and probably would not have made to their targets, specailly the Petnagon.

Please also see jet engine sim thread i have made it will explain things.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]
A kid off the street could fly as good as the terrorist did. I have flown with people in my jet (at least the tax payer jet) who never flew and they flew it better than the terrorist.

I have put kids in simulators who have never flown and they hit the WTC towers with wings level, but maybe the terrors meant to cut across floors with the fuselage and engines. The Pentagon, he almost hit the ground with the biggest office building in the world his target. Flying skills were not needed on 9/11. Crashing into large buildings is simple; that is why it is not a flying skill required for pilots.

There is not one thing about the flying on 9/11 that the terrorist needed flight training for. No one has yet to point out one maneuver or flying feat the terrorist did on 9/11 that required flight training. This is why kids who have never flown can hop in a simulator and hit buildings. Any one who can try, could do it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join