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.

 

What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

page: 22
20
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed,

my pilot friend asked "where are the engine holes?" Or if they were ripped off prior to where are the marks on the ground?

Do you have some good pics? You keep saying the other pics are bad, can you please send me some good ones out there. Thanks!

Note to all: yes, this has been covered in other posts I am sure, but the fact is this thread is about what happened and it is annoying when people do the "been thee done that" to those of us that haven't been there and done that.

BTW, thank both you and turbo! this is certainly an exciting thread.




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Also, I asked him turbo's question and he is confused why it is important to the discussion (this is the sea level one on page 19) Are you guys saying that the plane would be harder to control? He just wants some context and since he can explain all that the two of you are arguing in real time it would be helpful to me to understand this better.

OH! And Weed, he asked if you knew which flight simulator they had to learn on. He said only the military has the good stuff for training that mimics problematic flights (turbulence, I guess?) and he doesn't know if these other flight schools could afford those. Do you know what flight simulator they used?

EDIT: He doesn't agree with you on the pentagon thing being a piece of cake for an inexperienced pilot because of where it hit and the flight path the government docs you sent projected it to be. He didn't say they couldn't do it, just that he didn't feel it was as easy as you were saying.

Trade center towers he said an inexperienced pilot could hit because they stick up from the ground.






[edit on 2-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
This whole debate is pointless because none of you can prove your point either way, so you may as well just call it a day.

A new investigation is just around the corner. Why don't we all just give it a rest and wait for the outcome of that.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 



my pilot friend asked "where are the engine holes?" Or if they were ripped off prior to where are the marks on the ground?


The starboard engine did leave a significant mark on this fence and generator. It is in line with the offical flight path. The port engine took a chunk out of a small retaining wall.






posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Cool, so this is a generator right and the burnmark is the engine hole so the engine is in front of it or where?



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


It is. I think a plane hit the Pentagon, but I am not sure what plane hit the Pentagon. However, and I know there is another post out there for this, but where are the remnants of the wings? Someone on here probably can link me to the pictures of where the wings are, so would someone be so kind?

I am showing all of this to my pilot friend and getting his take on it because I don't know either WW or Turbo and as piloting is not my SME I could be led astray because I have just enough engineering and physics to be dangerous.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Thanks, Fortiori


I am showing all of this to my pilot friend and getting his take on it because I don't know either WW or Turbo...


Yes. Good, except WE don't kow your "pilot friend" either. Quite the dilemma.

I can suggest a neutral party, such as the STAFF of ATS who could verify MY bona fides and maintain my confidentiality. ( I have previously, well over a year ago, discussed this with SO...but those were private conversations, of course --- and related, but not to THIS exact topic).

My impressions from turbofan's posts? He is NOT a pilot. He may have certain engineering or other techincal expertise, but since he doesn't TALK like a pilot (and I can tell the difference) then that is my conclusion.

Also, Fortiori, i wold like to know your "pilot friend"'s experience. Youcan send it privately, if you prefer. NO personal data, of course!!!! Just his general level of expereience -- number of hours total time (TT), airplanes flown, recency of experience, that sort of thing.

Thanks.


... and as piloting is not my SME I could be led astray because I have just enough engineering and physics to be dangerous.



LOL! Very honest thing to say!!


[edit on 3 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Thanks, Fortiori


I am showing all of this to my pilot friend and getting his take on it because I don't know either WW or Turbo...


Yes. Good, except WE don't kow your "pilot friend" either. Quite the dilemma.


Hi Weed.

You are a pilot and don't need an expert opinion because you formulated your own from your own experiences. Turbo is an engineer and doesn't need an expert opinion because he has his own "take". Me, however, and a few more that have U2U'd me are not so lucky. So these questions are more for me because I want to get as close as I can.


I can suggest a neutral party, such as the STAFF of ATS who could verify MY bona fides and maintain my confidentiality. ( I have previously, well over a year ago, discussed this with SO...but those were private conversations, of course --- and related, but not to THIS exact topic).


What is "SO"?




Also, Fortiori, i wold like to know your "pilot friend"'s experience. Youcan send it privately, if you prefer. NO personal data, of course!!!! Just his general level of expereience -- number of hours total time (TT), airplanes flown, recency of experience, that sort of thing.


Right after I post this.




... and as piloting is not my SME I could be led astray because I have just enough engineering and physics to be dangerous.



LOL! Very honest thing to say!!


[edit on 3 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hi Weed!

I sent some info and some names of people you might have known when you were flying that he also knows.

Anyway, as that is OT, let me say one on topic thing...um...um...

OH! So my pilot friend said that you could bring up something about propeller based planes in World War II that would prove the point you were trying to make with Turbo and send him in that direction. I'm sure you know what he means. Something about a dive???



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 



What is "SO"?


LOL!

"SO", in this context, refers to one of the owners of ATS..."SkepticOverlord"!!!


In other contexts, "SO" can apply to various things...in the aviation context you may see ME use it as shorthand for "Second Officer". THIS is a PILOT crewmember position that no longer exists, in modern commercial airliners.

Just to clarify...."CAPT" will mean 'Captain'. "FO" will mean 'First Officer/co-pilot'. "SO" will mean 'Second Officer' or "Flight Engineer"...sometimes ALSO abbreviated as 'FE'....sorry it's complicated for non-pilots....


MANY years ago, there used to be a postion of "navigator" as well...HE (it was never a woman) was responsible for lotting of estimated course, for the over-water flights. He also knew how to use the viewer mounted in airpane cockpits for star sightings, when they were navigating after nightfall....

The 'Flight Engineer' was responsible for the fuel, hydraulics and electrics management...and was ALSO usually an aircraft mechanic (modern A&P) who in the older days probably had a crew, either onboard or at certain destinations, to assist.

More automation technology, and better ways to represent the data TO THE PILOTS meant that the old ideas of the "SO" were passe'.

(Of course, in the 1950s things were changing....AND a strong pilot's union was still in its infancy....I AM AN ALPA member....you should look up the history of pilots, and I recommend the resources at ALPA....the Airline Pilots Association as a start.....)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join