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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
A hologram caused the driver to think it was a plane,


A PLANE.. all i keep hearing from the people who beleive the official story is a PLANE. If you believe the official story you should have proof that it was Flight 77 not just A PLANE.

According to the official story it was supposed to be a 757 of Flight 77. so why after almost 7 years is there still no evidence to support the official story that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon?

If you do not have poof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon then how can you believe the official story?




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   
So hypothetically what happened to flight 77 then?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
So hypothetically what happened to flight 77 then?


Not hypothetically, we know it was destroyed according to the FAA registration site.

We just do not know how, where, or when it was destroyed, the registration form does not state that.





[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   
ok, so what's your theory to answer that? My theory is that it hit the pentagon...



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut
A 77 foot tall target is easy to hit.


A 77 feet tall target is very hard to hit going around 500mph.

Also the pilot would be fighitng to control a plane that is not made to fly at the speed and altitude he was supposed to have been doing.

Sorry, how do you know it is hard again to fly into a 77 foot target?
I just told you pilots hit about 35 feet above the end of the runway everyday.
I was a large aircraft instructor in the USAF, it is not hard to hit a 77 foot tall target, even speeding. You are going to need some more evidence and proof of why it is hard to hit 77 foot tall anything. As a flight instructor with 22 years experience, and 35 years flying experience; hitting 77 foot tall target is easy. Even a new pilot can do it. Maybe a kid off the street.

Who said 500 mph was difficult? Do you know the top dive speed of the 757? What happens when a plane goes past Vmo at low altitude. What was the MACH number? What is different at low altitude making the top speed lower? Why is the plane cruise speed over 500 mph, and then you say it is hard to fly at 500 mph. You got some names of pilots who can not hit a 77 foot target sticking up in the air? Any?

When I went of the top speed low in my jet (tax payer jet), (300,000 pounds), it was not hard to control, it was easier. Very stable.
The 757 can easily go past 500 mph. In my experience one pilot exceeded the top speed at low altitude long enough to get some damage. He lost skin from under the wing it was torn away. Sure repetitive or prolonged low altitude speeds over Vmo can damage the plane, but the plane does not fall apart in 20 seconds at only 500 KIAS.

But who told you it is hard to control? When I exceed the limit there was on indication, just the airspeed indicator, the plane just wanted to go faster when I had the engines up and we were light.

Who makes up claims like this? False claims like this only hurt the fantasy 9/11 truth is trying to spread. Pilots will not fall for this kind of hearsay and false information.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
Sorry, how do you know it is hard again to fly into a 77 foot target?

Who said 500 mph was difficult?


1. Do you know what a 77 foot tall building would look like at several hundred feet and going 500 mph and how hard it would be to line up on just that 1 side?

2. I have proven it with the jet engine sim. Anything over 480 mph on the sim causes an overheat situation.

Also going 500mph at that low of an altitude would casue all kind of turbulence. At least 1 military witness close the the Pentagon stated the plane looked out of control.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Do you know what a 77 foot tall building would look like at several hundred feet and going 500 mph and how hard it would be to line up on just that 1 side?


Is there evidence that the hijackers were aiming specifically at that side of the building? You have evidence that they could not hit any other side of the building...just that one specific side?

Or were they in fact just aiming to HIT the building?



2. I have proven it with the jet engine sim. Anything over 480 mph on the sim causes an overheat situation.


Oh noes....overheat situation! I wonder if they would ever be able to use the plane again, or it could crash!



Also going 500mph at that low of an altitude would casue all kind of turbulence. At least 1 military witness close the the Pentagon stated the plane looked out of control.


Turbulence from wake turbulence? Sure. From jet blast? Unless the cars are flying behind the plane....or the plane was taxiing on the freeway before hitting the pentagon.

Out of control? Perhaps being flown by someone inexperienced? That kinda rules out your remote control flying then doesnt it?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed Is there evidence that the hijackers were aiming specifically at that side of the building?

Turbulence from wake turbulence? Sure. From jet blast? Unless the cars are flying behind the plane....or the plane was taxiing on the freeway before hitting the pentagon.


Out of control? Perhaps being flown by someone inexperienced? That kinda rules out your remote control flying then doesnt it?


1. Yes basic common sense that the pilot could only see and aim for 1 side of the building. But then i know that hard to understanad for some.

2. Major turbulence is casued by low speed, gear and flaps down, not fast and gear up as the official stroy states.

Turbulence from jet blast hitting the cars becasue of being so low.

3. Perhaps becaue the plane was not built to fly at that speed and atitude as proven many, many times.

What remote control flying ?


[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. Yes basic common sense that the pilot could only see and aim for 1 side of the building. But then i know that hard to understanad for some.


They were aiming to hit the Pentagon. The building itself. Unless you have documentation stating the hijackers were only going to hit the northwest quadreant (for example)....and specifically had to line up on only that section. They couldnt hit any other section other than that specific one.


2. Perhaps becaue the plane was not built to fly at that speed and atitude as proven many, many times.
What would happen if it did...would it, umm....crash?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
They were aiming to hit the Pentagon.

What would happen if it did...would it, umm....crash?



1. They were aiming at one side becasue thats all they could see anda could get to.

2. Simple things like they would lose control, destroy the engines and not make it to thier target.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. They were aiming at one side becasue thats all they could see anda could get to.


So, you are stating that at any altitude, you can only see one side of the Pentagon? You cant make out any other side at all....the roof, the shape, the dimentions of the building. just one wall?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
So, you are stating that at any altitude, you can only see one side of the Pentagon?


But they were not at any altitude were they? They were flying low, aiming at 1 side.

Remember they were also avoiding radar or did you just happen to forget that part?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But they were not at any altitude were they? They were flying low, aiming at 1 side.

Remember they were also avoiding radar or did you just happen to forget that part?



Flying low the entire time that they hijacked the plane? I thought the Flight Data Recorder showed that they were descending...not cruising at only a few feet off the ground for miles and miles.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Flying low the entire time that they hijacked the plane?


Gee, you really do not know much about what happened that day do you?

I suggest you file a FOIA request to the NTSB and get the FDR data so you can see what happened.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Apparently you either dont understand what I am saying, or are purposely avoiding the obvious answer... since it conflicts with your conspiracy.

Unless the plane was flying at super low altitudes the entire time, it would have been able to see the entire Pentagon building. If it was fogged in, or nighttime, or extremely low visibility...then sure, they may not have been able to make out the Pentagon from a distance. I dont believe that was the case though on 9/11.

Would you care to explain to us how they could only see one side of the building only? No roof, nothing else around it, just the one wall only.

(and i'm not talking aboutr the final few seconds before impact as well).



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
The fact is the building is 1600 feet wide and due to its very shape an observer will see ATLEAST two sides. Each side is almost a 1000 feet in width, so even if they managed to twist physics and only see one side they had a 1000 feet side to side. To hit the pentagon they only needed to strike somewhere with in the footprint of the building. The plaza in the middle alone is over five acres. I don't think you're getting how BIG the building is. If the planes altitude was over the height of the building (and remember the terrain isn't flat) they also would've seen the top side. There would be no problem hitting the building. But if you really wanted to push the inexperienced pilot angle, I guess you could say he failed when he scrapped a wingtip before contacting the building.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
[ Unless the plane was flying at super low altitudes the entire time, it would have been able to see the entire Pentagon building.


Lets look at what altitude was the plane at when it came out of the 360 degree turn and aimed at the 1 side of the Pentagon?

Ok, according to the NTSB FDR data the plane came out of the 360 turn at around 2300 feet and going about 300MPH and lined up on 1 side of the building.


[edit on 10-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The Sears Tower is less than 1500 feet high. Are you suggesting that from an altitude more than half again higher than that you would be unable to see the top of the Pentagon??

EDIT: and again, the building has FIVE sides. You cannot see only one side from a distance. It is not a square or triangle. It is a pentagon.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by _Del_]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Are you suggesting that from an altitude more than half again higher than that you would be unable to see the top of the Pentagon??


I am stating that you cannot see all the sides from that altitude, so he only had 1 side to line up on.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I guess I'm confused: at what angle are you approaching a pentagon that you can only see one side? Try doing this please.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join