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.

 

G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by syeager9

Originally posted by johndoex
"Nothing to see here folks, move along", while the following people are growing in numbers saying, "Yes, pay attention..."
Actually it's a very small percentage of people who believe in CTs about 911. I, personally, don't know a single one. But Conspiracy Theorists are very loud on the web, like some other groups - UFO hunters, etc.



Feel free to read our mission statement atop our home page at pilotsfor911truth.org....

Then i challenge you to quote one theory from our site.




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I have read on so many numerous occasions the unlikelihood of a 757 being able to plant itself in that tight quarter. Without grass rugburn I might add.

By a cessna trained terrorist under duress.

I don't buy it. Never have. Never will. The scenario plies against logic or theoretical possibility.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 



"Hi pccat,

First, let me suggest you fix your quote tags as your reply may confuse the readers who arent familair with forum tags."


sorry, my mistake..


"Next, if i can be so bold...

I could not care less if your questions are answered here among the few. Our hits have never been higher and those who are asking such questions sans further research already have their opinion established. Its a moot point and a waste of time to address them here and now. But i assure you, those asking, will continue to look like a fool to those who have actually seen our work... now, or when its streaming on our front page as is PBB2."


ok, I appreciate your honesty.. but your theory is going to involve further research into the established evidence.. you are creating more questions that will have to be answered.. I have no doubt that you do have an answer to these questions.. but I suspect that were you to answer them as asked, you would not be able to make them as convincing as you would in the presentation.. otherwise why not answer them.. there are some real people here searching for the truth.. not just your percieved enemies..


"So, continue to think what you will from behind your screen. We'll continue to put our name, faces and professional reputations on our work as we close the walls in on people like you and "SlightlyAbovePar". Meanwhile, the masses are getting answers from real professionals and experts with verifyable credentials..."


I don't think you have me pegged correctly.. I have been on an amazing journey the past three years or so.. I am pretty much opened minded on 911.. I've been on the fence and off so many times on so many things that my ass has blisters.. but the conclusion I came to after viewing the AVAILABLE evidence is that a large plane hit the building.. your argument might have merit.. but you need to demonstrate why the physical evidence is wrong..


"I know this doesnt help you much.. but.. i really dont care..."


well my feelings aren't hurt.. but I think that you do care or why bother.. you just have me pegged as an enemy.. which is wrong..


"PS, i'll add this caveat (as i have offered this to other "pseudo-skeptics). If SlightlyAbovePar emails us his address, we will send him a free DVD. On one condition, that he copies our DVD and ships it to anyone who asks on his dime... deal? Would you order one if it were free pccat?"


I'm not sure what the difference is between a "skeptic" and a "pseudo-skeptic" is.. I'm not denying any truth, or refusing to look.. I want questions answered.. and of course I would take one if offered.. I have nothing against looking at evidence.. I don't have a dvd burner though.. and I would not offer to promote it without believing in the content.. but I am genuine.. and I will take a look if you send me one..



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffI would like to stay out of this thread as I really know little about aviation, but "they" can pin point us down to an inch just with our cell phones. Do you really believe radar, NORAD, FAA etc. are really that off? Would we be willing to step into a plane if so?
First of all they can't pinpoint us to an inch with the cell phones - it's technically impossible. And air traffic system only as accurate as it needs to be to provide safety under NORMAL conditions when both pilots and controllers are cooperating. And there was nothing normal about 911. At that time system already exclusively relied on the transponder returns. And if you turn your transponder off, you are off the system. Military radars do monitor coastal airspace, but mainly long range and their data also don't need to be accurate to an inch. They, BTW, were used during the investigation of 747 TWA flight 800 crash off Long Island, NY in 1996 or so. And you'll see they sweep the area only once every few seconds. That's why it was difficult to determine exact flight path after the explosion. There was a conspiracy theory abut that crash too, but it didn't live long.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by syeager9]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I recall when it was proven with serious calculations that Bumble Bees could not fly. It was proven to be impossible. Yet, despite this proof, they continued to go about their business flying around the yard.

Yeah, right, it is impossible for the plane we saw hit the pentagon, to hit the building. Yeah ... right. Pigs do indeed wear lipstick.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Caught this on the way out.. (it is Friday night after all
). I dont have time to address it all (gotta hit the shower.. i stink from work around the house today.. ok.. TMI)


Originally posted by pccat
ok, I appreciate your honesty..


And i, yours...


but your theory


Just what exactly is "our" theory? Please quote exactly from pilotsfor911truth.org.... Thanks!

Hint: read our mission statement atop our home page. Pay close attention to the underlined sentence...


... is going to involve further research into the established evidence..


Such as court admissable Black Box data? Did you read the entry from Lt Col Jeff Latas on the past pages here? Imagine when and if he is on the jury. I guarantee you, you will not see "Reheat" or "Beachnut" in a court room with their real names to their claims when it gets to that point. They will be laughed out, as they are now among just a few jetBlue pilots... Their only hope is to keep this information in an endless circle on the web. This is another reason why they refuse to debate on air...


but the conclusion I came to after viewing the AVAILABLE evidence is that a large plane hit the building..


(bold above mine)

But the govt story requires American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building. So far, the govt story, evidence they have provided through the FOIA, and independent witnesses filmed on location fails to prove such a case.

Hope this helps..

Enjoy your Fri night all!

Rob



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by syeager9
First of all they can't pinpoint us to an inch with the cell phones - it's technically impossible.


I wasn't being factual with an inch but, are you saying it's not pretty damn close? If not, why do you fly? If the amount of error is more than a plane itself, it is unsafe to fly "the friendly skies". Don't you think?


And there was nothing normal about 911.


We agree upon something.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by syeager9

Originally posted by Reheat
...
I hope I've given you a thorough enough answer. If not, ask for clarification or additional information and I'll try to help.
Yes, it's quite enough. I suspected it was INS, as GPS couldn't be used as a primary method of navigation at that time. I also added question about altitude data. Can anyone know how altimeter data are obtained? If this is barometric? If so, did terrorists call ATC for settings?
I guess we can exclude radar altitude data or radio altimeter, if the airplane had one.

And, of course, I can understand that flight path didn't have any significance, as it was absolutely clear to everyone from the beginning that it was AA flight that slammed into Pentagon.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by syeager9]


Yes, AA77 had both a barometric altimeter and a Radar Altimeter. Local pressure settings are issued routinely to all aircraft when contacting an Approach Control (in this case Reagan National TRACON), so the jihadists would not have needed to ask. I do not recall to what frequency the radios were tuned.

The OP has used both the barometric altimeter and the radar altimeter, but in order to understand what they are indicating one needs to know the position of the aircraft. They use a false premise to indicate they know the aircraft's position when, in fact, they don't. It's all based upon an impact time of unknown precision with all indications that it is not accurate.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoexBut the govt story requires American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building. So far, the govt story, evidence they have provided through the FOIA, and independent witnesses filmed on location fails to prove such a case.
At least 130 witnesses reported to news services seeing large passenger jet approaching or crashing into Pentagon. Most positively identified it as American Airlines jet. Several, 8 of them being pilots, identified it as 757. And only 2 reported it as a small commuter plane or just a small plane. There are no reports of ANYTHING else.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
I recall when it was proven with serious calculations that Bumble Bees could not fly. It was proven to be impossible. Yet, despite this proof, they continued to go about their business flying around the yard.


Actually it was proven in the year 2000 that bumble bees can actually fly mathematically/aerodynamically. Just a reminder to all. That's only 8 years ago.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
It's all based upon an impact time of unknown precision with all indications that it is not accurate.


Just a question, but if all indications point to available data not being accurate, why oh why are you defending it? Do you not think we deserve the truth?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffActually it was proven in the year 2000 that bumble bees can actually fly mathematically/aerodynamically. Just a reminder to all. That's only 8 years ago.
I guess it's because it took so long for bumble bees to learn laws of aerodynamics to fly in accordance to them.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
ok.. out of the shower and just heading out.

ReTreat, tell us again how the NTSB screwed up in calculating the "impact time" and how you know more? Yeah, we know why you never put your name to your claims...




ReTreat, feel free to send me your address. I'll send you a quarter to buy a clue...

Tell us Retreat... were the pinned lat/long from the FDR or not? Did we cover DME? ReTreat, how can you be so wrong so many times?

Cherrio...


[edit on 19-9-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffJust a question, but if all indications point to available data not being accurate, why oh why are you defending it? Do you not think we deserve the truth?
This whole thread is based on NTSB/gov data. The basic idea is to prove that government lied to us. My opinion is that gov. gave us whatever they had at that time, because accuracy was irrelevant in this case. And making any theories based on them is at least irresponsible without knowing how accurate they are.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by syeager9
I guess it's because it took so long for bumble bees to learn laws of aerodynamics to fly in accordance to them.


No, it's because of the advent of the high speed camera that we filmed them flapping their wings. We learned they create a vortex behind the wing and suddenly use a special flap of the wing that uses the vortex to give them lift. I can show links to the real science if you want. Just ask and I shall provide.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by syeager9
My opinion is that gov. gave us whatever they had at that time, because accuracy was irrelevant in this case.


Question is: Irrelevant to whom? Certainly not me. And my tax dollars went into finding the truth. Sadly the defenders admit the "truth" the government has given us is false, yet they still defend it?


And making any theories based on them is at least irresponsible without knowing how accurate they are.


Again we agree.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
ReTreat, feel free to send me your address. I'll send you a quarter to buy a clue...


It's quite obvious that you need to save that quarter for yourself. You need a lot of quarters to buy enough inklings to constitute one clue.

How accurate is the INS data again? That is the subject of the video to which you referred me to. You want it both ways. Accurate when it suits you delusion, but inaccurate when it doesn't.

Oh, one more thing. Why did the 9/11 Commission Report conclude that the RADES clock was slow?

Was the NTSB in on your conspiracy or not? You can't seem to decide and it past time that you do?

Oh, I forgot you have no conclusions, only insinuations. Then you support your minions to make conclusions for you.

Your game is just about up in spite of your delusional and manipulative cartoon. No one that matters will ever be impressed, so save your quarters and get this into a Courtroom which you will be summarily laughed out of the building.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Reheat]

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by syeager9
My opinion is that gov. gave us whatever they had at that time, because accuracy was irrelevant in this case.


Question is: Irrelevant to whom? Certainly not me. And my tax dollars went into finding the truth. Sadly the defenders admit the "truth" the government has given us is false, yet they still defend it?


And making any theories based on them is at least irresponsible without knowing how accurate they are.


Again we agree.


5 or 6 seconds variation in the impact has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything except Conspiracy Theorists who attempt to use it to make a delusional point.

The precise impact time has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that radical jihadists hijacked AA77 and flew it into the West wall of the Pentagon.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff...
Question is: Irrelevant to whom? Certainly not me. And my tax dollars went into finding the truth. Sadly the defenders admit the "truth" the government has given us is false, yet they still defend it?
...
Again, as it was pointed out before, NTSB didn't do a complete investigation as it was clear from the beginning it wasn't an accident caused by any mechanical fault or flaw in air traffic control system (excluding domestic airplane hijacking cases). So they just gave us the information they had. Probably as required by law. Opponents of CTs just asking how reliable this information is to calculate the exact flight path and G forces. Unfortunately they didn't tell us if it's accurate to +/- 2 thousands of kangaroo paces or better.




top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join